Um okay. Um this meeting is being recorded by the community preservation committee. If any other persons present are doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this time.
Seeing no one beyond us except that nice little short person over there. Um we uh we will move ahead. I'd like to call the meeting to order and I'd like to uh check on who's here. Okay. Um Becky
George is not here. Donna Dell is not here. Wisty >> here. >> G is not here. Terry >> here. >> Victor >> here. >> Travis >> here. >> Jack >> here.
>> And I'm here. So, we have a quorum. Okay. Um um do have every everybody had a chance to see the minutes. >> I move to approve the minutes from March 26, 2026.
>> Seconded. >> Any discussion? >> Okay. then I will bring it to a vote and since Jack is online we will go through this. Okay. Um >> Wisty. Um yes. Uh Terry.
>> Yes. >> Victor. >> Yes. >> Travis. >> Yes. >> Jack. >> Yes. >> Oh, there's G. G. We were just uh we're just voting on the minutes. >> Yes. >> And I'm a yes.
Okie do. Um, all right. Let's move this along. Um, public comment. Uh, there's no one from the public here, so we don't have to consider that. There's no one else coming in. Okay. All right. Uh, then
we'll go to new business and we're going to kind of clarify the annual budget procedures. um particularly Travis and Anna have been trying to work on this and we think we've got a format that works that explains what we're doing and
how we're doing it. So Anna's going to put that up. >> Sorry. >> Susan, do you want me to talk about >> Absolutely. >> Absolutely. So after after our meeting, you know, when we were voting on all the projects and there was that discussion
about the budget and what it means that we had all these reserves, um I went back to try to go through all the previous meetings and figure out where something went wrong cuz I thought it was a little off from what I was
thinking too. Um, so basically what happened was, uh, when Christian left, um, the information didn't quite get passed on as to what as to what the plan was to Anna. So, she has the least blame
out of any of us and really, it's all our fault for not being on top of this. Um, but essentially this I I made this diagram in 20 minutes before this meeting. So um essentially this is just showing you know fiscal year 22 we didn't have any projects so that all
went into extras. Fiscal year 23 we used fiscal year 23 budgeted revenue for that year and fiscal year 22. And then after that anything that was like extra or left over kept rolling over. So fiscal year 24, we budgeted a
certain amount and we used that amount and then anything extra went into that extra pile over there. Fiscal year 25, the plan was um the amount we budget that year um would just go into the
extras and what we would use for projects that year was everything that had been rolled over from you know previously. So that's what happened that year and that's why all of that was just in the the reserve category. Um and it
wasn't actually, you know, by category that year. So what the plan was was starting in fiscal year 26, we would keep doing that. So every year we would budget what what we budgeted for that fiscal year would just go into the
account and what we would use for projects that fiscal year is what had been rolled over from the previous um account or from the previous years. And the the reason we did this was because each year when we budget a certain
amount, what we're doing is we're budgeting what we're projecting the CPA money coming in is going to be. So we didn't really like that ambiguity. So we decided we'll budget in a certain year for that for what's going to come in, but what we'll use is the previous year.
So that's what we planned to do in fiscal year 26, but that's not actually what we did. What we actually did was we used what we had budgeted for fiscal year 26 for the fiscal year 26 projects. Um so what I have in red there is what
we plan to do but what we have in black is what we actually did. So starting fiscal year 27, if we want to keep going with what we plan to do, basically what we'll do is fiscal year 27, we'll budget for that upcoming year, put, you know,
the percentages into each category, but that will just go into the accounts and what we'll actually use for projects is everything that has been rolled over from previous. Um and the the benefit of that is
um right at the beginning of the year we'll know exactly how much money is in the account and how much we can use um for projects and then anything that comes in during fiscal year 27 just goes
into the accounts stays there until fisc year fiscal year 28 and then we'll know exactly how much that is. So essentially going forward, this is what we had planned back in fiscal year 25. What we would do is every year budget for that
year that goes into the account but use everything that had been rolled over from previously. >> So are there questions on this? G has raised his hand. So the so basically for next year we'll our budget will be
basically all all the reserves we have currently the 3 314 or something like that and then we'll we'll just do that going forward. So whatever whatever comes in will be the be the new reserves
you know. So if we spend if we spend all the 314 the the stuff for 2028 will just be the next whatever comes in you know this year. >> Yes that would be the plan. So basically whatever is in the account right now
minus whatever is going out for the current year projects that's what we would have for next year and then anything that comes in next year would just be saved up for the following year. >> Terry, >> so my question >> Oh, you might want the microphone.
Are you finished? >> Yep. So my question is do we have two accounts? Do we have like a reserve and an operating? So the money goes into the reserve account that we the budget for the year goes into the reserve account.
Then next year that reserve account gets shifted into the operating account and the money we budgeted for that year goes into the reserve account. We have se because you keep using the word accounts. >> So my question is what accounts? Yeah. Do >> we actually have separate
identified accounts to have this money moving back and forth? >> No, what we have is a single CPA fund in the accounting budget that has all of the revenue that has come in and then when the committee sets their budget and
I think part of the confusion is that we're using the word budget for two different things. We're using it for the budget of what projects you guys want to do. And then also, and more specifically, right, you have to tell the city council
which part of the CPA fund to put the dollars in for the upcoming fiscal year. So, next month, I'm going to have you guys vote on the fiscal year 27 budget. And by that, I just mean all of the money that's coming in for revenue in fiscal year 27. Are you going to put
it in the historic fund, the housing fund, the open space, or the flexible account? But that's all in a single pot of money. Um, and you're not expected to spend uh a certain year's revenue in a certain period of time. Does that answer
your question? >> It just sounds very confusing because it's very confusing. >> So, the question is who set up the pots and the money and is there any way we can adjust that? In other words, as I said, we should have basically an income and a dispersements
account. >> Income should be whatever we quote unquote >> are given in a fiscal year. Let's not use the word budget because we're not really budgeting it. It's what we're given based on taxpayers money, right? We actually have no say so over that number >> except except that we do have to
allocate it into those buckets. That could be a standing allocation, but I mean we don't actually have any control over how much money we have to spend coming in. >> That's strictly based on tax revenues and state matching. Right. >> Correct. >> So it's not really a budget. It's just income.
>> But we can control the dispersements. >> Correct. >> So is there any way we can kind of make it clear? Because I don't know how I want to put this. It seems like during the year we've got to make course corrections. So, the middle of the year, we say, "Okay, well, we actually got
$300,000 between taxes and matching funds, so now we have to subtract that from the reserves over here, and what's left of that is the money we have to spend." It just sounds like it's very >> that I mean, that that's what Travis is suggesting. We we only use the like
going forward, the plan was just to use the the funds. So, the funds we currently have in the reserve, which you know, who knows what the, you know, various line items are in the >> madness of of municipal budgets. Um, but
it's somewhat irrelevant. Um, but the the the money we know we have is the money that's currently in the reserve. the money that we will that we're pretty sure we're going to be getting will be
the the next year money. >> We just push everything forward >> and then we'll know for sure how much that money is. >> Yeah. And essentially at the beginning of the fiscal year, we'll know before any money comes in for fiscal year 27,
we'll know exactly what the dollar amount is before the fiscal year 27 money. Because that's basically 26 is money. So >> 26 and before. >> That's really all it is really before. Yeah. Exactly. So basically we're using fiscal year 26 and 27. Fiscal year 27 and 28. >> It it took us a while to to figure this
out. And there was one year where we we actually kept the cost it kept kept the income that we were was available to us low so that we could juggle this. The problem is that we didn't juggle this properly proper properly. But that's
that's the ideas. The idea is, you know, we now have an amount of money that is in the account today and that's the money that we will use for our next round and we and then whatever comes in
during the next year will be used for the following year. >> Question. >> Sure. Go Terry. >> Okay. This year we had applicants come in and we had this to vote on it because
we had a certain figure that we had. >> Where did that number come from? >> That number was our fiscal year 26 budget that we did. >> Okay. So going forward say for next year. >> So it was completely made up because all
money is fake. >> It's great. >> Hold on guys. So what was the question? >> The question was going forward, say next year, if we have a figure where we say if we get applicants that goes over this number, where are we going to get that
number from? >> Yeah. So that number for next year is going to be what's in the account right now. >> And so going forward, we will always be going our figures will come off of what we have rather than what we are currently collecting. >> Yes. Correct. Okay. >> Correct. And it'll make things a lot
clearer. And we've this is what we've been trying to do. Um and it has and part of it has to do with the fact that the state money doesn't come in until October, right? And so that was making us a little crazy. All that kind of stuff. >> My concern was that we would come up with a figure based on projections for
what would come in this year, but using money that's in the account that's a different number. >> That's essentially what we were doing in the past was >> Right. Yeah. Right. This is what we're trying to fix. >> And so we want to get the the money and the number to be the same height >> basically. Uh well, yeah, the money
that's in the account will be the same number as what we say we'll have to spend, >> right? >> So, we shouldn't really even create a budget at all. We should just allow the money to come in from the city and the state and that's our allocation for the next year. So, I think the right word is
really allocation. >> That's the way my mother handled groceries. >> Okay. So, so we're not really budgeting anything like let's use next year. Next year is 27. So, we're not going to budget anything for 27. 27's going to roll in. is going to put all this money into the bank. >> Y >> and then 28 we'll say okay our
allocation for 28 is this amount of money. >> Y that's correct and it will be the money that came in during 27. Just don't get confused when we have to fill out something that is called a budget. >> So yeah but yes essentially. >> Are there other questions or other
confusions that we can help people have? >> Okay I think I think it sounds like we're good. >> Yeah. Okay, then let us move on to the RDI question. >> And do you want to talk about that, Anna? >> Sure.
>> Um, so after last month's meeting, I reached out obviously to all of the awardees to let them know and let them know of the conditions. Um, and everybody was happy to accept with the conditions we placed. RDI uh the 176 Main Street project said that they would
absolutely accept the conditions, but they had a question which was uh one of our conditions says that um no funds will be dispersed to them until construction begins and they were wondering whether the committee would be flexible on that. And the reason is just that in their funding stack, the
construction funding is much more confirmed and certain and the sort of squishy part of their budget is all of the preconstruction work. So it would be more convenient for them to be able to use the CPA funds uh flexibly. Um but they did obviously assure me that they
would accept it regardless. So that's a question I'm putting to you. >> So are the thoughts on this? Was there application for pre-development money? Because that is an option if people apply for pre-development money.
>> No, I I don't think it was. I think it kind of mushed everything together as I recall. >> Yeah. I don't It did not specifically say pre-development. I don't think it said this is going to like hard construction costs only. I think it was
um ambiguous. They kind of described the whole process as I recall. So >> the question would be will we allow them to revise their application to pre-development funding
because we could approve that and pick disperse that without construction as long as it's pre-development is my understanding. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Uh, one other thing I was going to add was, um, we do have a dispersement
policy for how funds get dispersed, um, that we came up with, I don't know, a couple years ago or whatever. And for housing projects, it says full funding at commencement of project. Um, so it doesn't necessarily say construction like based on our policy.
>> And we we funded uh pre-development before. >> Yeah. I guess I just didn't know if this if if things would even need to change like if they would need to change their application because we our policy doesn't specifically say that it has to
be construction or I don't know that's just a question. >> What's the definition of commencement though Travis >> Jack? What's the definition of pre-development as far as you're concerned? any work that is attributed
to getting a project going and starting of development. So like that's what the committee gave to our Conway street development at the housing authority. Once we did the survey, that's what the funds that was allocated to the project,
you guys were able to reimburse us because it was actual work. And so I'm sure that RDI has tons of architect fees that they have waiting to be paid. Um I just think it it's cleaner if we
clarified. There's a little box in on the application and I can't remember if they checked off that pre-development or if it was construction. >> Are you looking at the Just a second. We'll wait for Anna to check it. She's
looking at the application now. >> Um, regardless, the the conditions you placed on the reward did say construction, which was obviously the language I drafted for you, but um, you could change that to commencement to fit
with the broader policy. Um, >> so I guess the question is how how do we want to handle this? >> It's fascinating. >> What do what do folks think at this point? >> I I would like to change it so that they
could use it how they need to use it. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I I agree. I mean, there are plenty of operating costs be before construction starts. Do I have a motion? >> I so move. >> Sorry. What exactly are we making a
motion to do? >> Uh to allow for the funds to be used for pre-construction. >> Okay. For pre-development. >> Did we lose Jack? >> I guess we did.
>> Sorry, I had a phone call come in. I missed it. Susan, sorry. Uh we we've got a um a a motion on the floor to allow RDI to do um they use these funds for predevelopment.
>> Second. >> Is there a second? >> You need a second. Sorry, I missed. >> We've got a second. We've got >> Oh, good. Oh, good. >> Can Can I add a little discussion item here before we >> Sure. Absolutely. Um in in their application it does say um we've been
awarded and deployed $50,000 in feasibility and pre-development funds. This application is for $150,000 to continue the architectural and bring the development to the financial closing expected to be in late 2026 or 2027. So to me that sounds like they were asking
for pre-development already. >> Yes. Yes. So, is it just a matter of making a motion to adjust the conditions that we approved prior? >> Correct. >> That's correct. Motion that was just made. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Perfect. >> Okay. So, do we have any further
discussion? >> All right. Then I am going to call for a vote. Um Wisty, yes. >> G, yes. Terry, >> yes. Victor,
>> abstain. >> Abstain. Travis, >> yes. >> Jack, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. So, we have uh one, two, three, four, five, six votes and one.
Six yeses and one extension. Okay. Um on to the next area which is about CPC policy on whether to review funding requests made outside of the regular application cycle. Um we were
approached about a a project that I've got questions about whether it's applicable. Um we don't have to go into that right now. But it came in after we had made our decisions on this on this
uh cycle. And um it was partially um a question of is are we are we interested in doing any funding between now and next spring?
You know, do we want to say since we will know how much funding we have, do we want to do, you know, if someone considering, you know, this relates to the fact that federal funds are not not clear now and some of the state funds
are not absolutely clear because of the the way the federal funds are coming in. If a project came to us, let's say in October, um, ready to go and said, you know, we'd like to have you go through our our proposal now. Um, would we want
to do that or do we not want to do that? It's it's really a policy question of how do we want to approach those things? Uh, Jack, >> how would it work with city council? because I think that's the one area that
we always have to wait and it takes at least 60 days. Right. >> Right. >> So, would it be worth our time going through the review because by the time we did it, I think we're already into our next cycle.
>> Yeah, that would still be the case, but they only vote on or you only ask them to vote on projects one time a year. So if something were to come up nowish or you know and it takes you guys a couple months to review it and then it goes to
city council for two months um so in that case would be possible for us to ask for the September council meeting for this to be voted on. It doesn't we're we we're not required to vote on everything once a year but um but we
could but we have that's the approach we've taken. So, it's really a question of do we want to even consider anything? >> May I? >> Certainly. >> Um, first off, I'm inclined to say no. Um, I think the the hoops we jump through are more than adequate already
and I think it takes enough. Um, but even if we were all decided otherwise and wanted to say yes, this year I would say no because we turned people away. >> So, we ostensibly have no money so we
can't say yes. Victor. >> Yeah, that was my question. If we know we have X amount of dollars at the beginning of the year and we get budgets that come in, we have applications that come in on time. Typically, well, from what I saw this year, we allocate all
that money. I mean, that's gone. >> If unless unless there's a shortfall, in other words, we don't get a project that asks for it, but typically we're going to allocate right up to what we have allowable to spend. So, if an application comes in afterwards, are you
looking at that for the following year? Yes. So, you're trying to >> Yes. >> Well, Anna is shaking her head no. And you're saying yes. >> No. We You did not spend all your money, right? You spent the fiscal year 26 revenue budget >> allocation, but there is $350,000
sitting in reserves that you could choose to appropriate at any time if you wanted to. And the plan is that we would use that next year. But I thought that was so that's our ne that's our next year budget. So that's that's >> Yeah. So if we start spending it now,
then >> it just goes down. >> So to me to me our budget's done. We spent everything we can for 26 and any applications that would come in after that would have to be considered for a 27 allocation, >> which okay, >> they already have the option of >> So they have the option of doing that
later on. So it doesn't it's no benefit to them to do it early, >> right? >> Um I I guess I'll just add a little the history context is that we've talked about this like year after year I think and every year we've said no to not allow projects coming in like that and I
think because we are spending all of the money and then some people are not even getting funded. I think if we did allow projects off cycle, there would be an incentive for people to get their project in as early as possible so they're not competing with other projects at the same time.
>> So it' just be whoever gets in first, if their project is, you know, good enough for us to fund, we would fund it and then everyone else would have to fight for what's left. Um, I think really the only two the only fair options I think
are either just have it once a year like we have right now or just do it on a rolling basis. And we we don't have just one cycle a year. It's just whenever people send them in, we review them, vote on them. But that would be very complicated uh and it wouldn't be as
structured as we have now. But some towns do it, but I think they get a lot fewer projects than we do. So I think and I guess there is another option. I think some towns do two cycles a year. Um so then again it would be like structured but um I I just think it
would be unfair. And I mean we would have to come up with some I think we'd have to come up with some like emergency criteria where like you have to meet this extremely high bar for us to take this off cycle. >> Yeah. I don't think emergencies come to us. But yeah, hopefully emergencies
aren't coming to us because you're going to be waiting months anyway. So >> history is not an emergency. >> Are there are there are there other comments to to this? Anna, >> I I just have two questions. And please know that I am not a partisan in this discussion. I'm just forwarding
questions I've been getting. So, um, if we drafted a written policy to the effect of what you guys are talking about, would you be interested in voting on that next month so that I have something in hand to show people when they ask about this? >> Yes.
>> Um, and a caveat question for projects you've already funded, um, there have been a couple questions about whether they can approach you asking for more money for the existing project. I think I know where this is going, but I'm just throwing
>> the new application would be next year, wouldn't it? >> In the next cycle. >> Okay. So, I'm just I just want to have a straw vote here because we don't really need a motion since we have a policy set up. But is there anyone who would like to change the policy to some either
twice a year or to um any kind of rolling policy in terms of funding? Um, if you would like to make a change, you don't have to say what kind of change. Please raise your hand. Seeing none. I think Anna, if at the
next meeting we can have a written statement of what our present policy is so that we can confirm it. That would be great. Victor, >> um, can the policy address the second item you said that if someone has already gotten funding if they're looking for more funding for the same project, it's a new, it's a new
application. It's not >> So, sorry, could you say >> you said something about someone was have already gotten funding wants more funding. >> That should be a new application in my eyes. It shouldn't be, oh, we already have an application in, we asked for. It should be a whole new application.
>> Right. >> I second that. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. All right, Jack. >> Yeah, I just I think we put a lot of effort into gaining public feedback on the project, doing the surveys, and really
diligently reviewing the applications. And if we split this into two or we did a rolling application, we wouldn't be able to justify how we're spending the taxpayers dollars as much. And so if you're writing something in, I would be
very helpful in our generic, you know, our general response to folks that we really thoroughly review based on our commitment to the citizens of Greenfield or something like that. >> Okay. Then I think I think we're in
agreement that we want the present policy with the um with the information that Victor was just talking about in terms of once we have completed a cycle if there is someone who wants to who has received funds who wants to come back
that they would be going into the next cycle and we've asked people to do that. So um okay then moving forward we've outreach plan um the uh we had talked about trying to do
some outreach work this spring and uh Jack I don't know I've got a an email from Becky that talks about uh three dates that in in May that uh she set up with the um uh with with the
library. And from what I can read on this, she is talking about one date for housing, one date for open space and recreation, and one one date for historic preservation. Is that what you recall since you and she talked about this before? Yeah, that's the idea is to
try to make it more targeted sessions so that people interested in those topics who may potentially want to do a project in the future and submit an application. It could be very targeted both advertising to try to get those folks to
the this meeting but also make it worthwhile so we're not hopping all around and doing all kinds of general CPC talk. >> Okay. any any questions around that? >> Go ahead, Wy. So, the
and and what I'm going to say, maybe it would fall under recreation. I'm not sure. But when I thought about this idea, I kept I kept thinking that it really pertained to like um people whose ideas were pretty developed or pretty
big and were asking for pretty much money. And I still want to have some money available for people who are in a community who think that they want to do something. And maybe it's not I I I want this money to be not just for big
housing projects and not just for big recreation projects, but then for little for other little things. Mhm. >> And I don't know if if somehow if the way we advertise this could somehow let
people know that. >> Sure. >> Okay. I um if I can just add, I've had people talk to me about such small projects and um a lot of times the projects people
have asked me about haven't been eligible just because they're not on protected recreation land or you know things like that. So I think that's the difficult part with small projects is that like how do how can they be
eligible and you know be on like protected land or whatever um to make them eligible. >> So I I want to give an example of what I'm thinking. I've had numerous people comment on the pond in Highland >> and right away it's like oh you can't do
anything. And it's it's but has that ever really been looked at scientifically, you know, to see what could happen? And so many people keep bringing that place up. I I don't know. Somehow I
>> we've had like three different projects suggested for there and a bunch of different scientific people on various sides to say like sure it's possible or no it's complete crap or no you're never going to get that past the
conservation committee. So like like I don't know I'm I'm done with Highland Pond. We can pave it. >> Right. Okay. >> Except for it's a wetland but it's Right. it like like the small projects we've had are
like the bike rack which hasn't happened in two and a half years for whatever reason, right? We were supposed to have two different bike racks happen. Those that was the thousand project. That's the sort of thing like we could do with with small money and would be great, but
somebody has to push it forward and for whatever reason those aren't happening. >> Okay. But I think we can certainly in the in the announcements that we put out for these three events say that we're talking about large projects and small
projects and and and make that clear if that if that's a question. Yes. What we do with Highland Park is all >> Highland Pond is is a whole other question entirely. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um All right. So, the dates that I
have are Wednesday the 13th of May from 5 to 7. Um, Monday the um 18th of May from 5 to 7 and Saturday the 30th of May from 10
to 12. And um Becky suggested that the Saturday option be open space and recreation so that families would be able to come to that one. So if we assume that that's open space and recreation, we can figure out
the other two. Um but then I need a couple of people to be willing to be actively engaged in um that effort and we can talk about >> the 13th >> the 13th Wednesday the 13th 5 to7 Monday
the 18th 5 to7 and Saturday the 30th 10 to 12 Victor >> we're talking about the second bullet and we're talking about 27 2027 >> we're talking about >> dates >> we're talking We're talking about 2027, the the fiscal year 2027 outreach to
people to start them thinking about things now so that applications when they come in will actually be related to that. >> I'll I'll volunteer for all three dates. >> Oh, thank you. >> What's the Saturday date? 20 the 30th.
>> Okay, that's okay. That's okay. Susan, do you think we could do housing on the 13th so I can attend that one? >> Yep, we can do that. >> So, housing would be So, Vic, Victor and Jack would be the two people on on the
one on the 13th. I would I would buddy up with Victor on the Saturday. >> On the Saturday. So, Wisty and Victor on Saturday 10 to uh 10 to 12. So, we have
open Monday the 18th. Um, and uh, Becky said she would be willing to do one as well. Um, so if Becky would be with you, Victor, on the 18th, >> that would be >> that would all work. And that would be
for uh, his historical preservation. >> Okay. And these are all in the library. >> All in the library. >> And so, Saturday, farmers market day would still be over there in the library. No, SP farmers market is now back and at uh Court Square as of this week.
>> Right. But these events are all in the library. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. >> So you can still do the event and shopping. >> Exactly. Because >> it's just open. >> It opens at 9:00. So got it. >> Okay. All right. So that's okay. So, let
me read it back just so we have what we have is Wednesday the 13th is Jack and Victor for housing. Monday the 18th for is Becky and Victor for historical preservation. And Saturday the 30th is open space and
recreation with Wis and Victor. >> Great. >> Okay. Now, do we one of the other things we need to think about is do we want visual aids? Do we want, you know, you know, do folks want what what would
folks like to have, you know, uh because we could do we could, you know, we can figure out how to do something, you know, that's with the screen and all of that if you choose. >> That that board that you guys that Jack, I guess, had made up that was in the
library before um for the voting on the survey thing. >> Um that was excellent. and for people to be able to actually see what we're talking about made all the difference in the world. That was excellent. >> Okay, we still have that.
>> But uh that that board I think was showing the applicants for this year. >> Is that right? Yeah. >> Do you guys want that or do you want something? >> I want something like that. >> Something like that. >> Okay. >> I think if we could have pic Oh, yeah. That's If we could have pictures of any
projects that are done. I know we've gotten I know we don't have pictures of all of them, but at least to show things that have been funded um would be very useful. >> Yeah, Anna, if you're able to email all of our previous awardes and ask them for
a photo or two, I can collaborate and design something again. As long as you can print. >> Yeah, can do. >> Okay. other ideas or questions that folks might have?
>> Just some uh Travis mentioned something about how the difficulty of of making small projects fit the criteria. So I think any sort of paperwork that's very specific as to what that criteria is for. In other words, when when someone
as I'm concerned, historical to me, historical, if someone has a house, it's on a historical registry and they need it painted, that to me is a qualifying project. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Because it's historical in nature, it's on a registry, and they need to paint their house. To me, that would
qualify if they need to read. Same thing with uh any of these factories that are around town. any of these guys like the I can't remember John John's last name over there on uh what's the street that cuts across uh not Pierce anyway he's
got a little iron works factory over there across from the bookstore >> John Cigley yes >> if he needed something for his factory to me that looks like a should be a historical building he calls historic that should qualify so that's the kind of thing that I want to make sure that we're clear I don't I don't know
anything about the pond so I don't know what the require requirements are on that but something very clear and you know sixth grade level these are the quality this is what your project needs to meet as far as to even get in the door >> it great for like handouts
>> yeah very simple you know because our job I think I assume our job at the meetings is to kind of walk them through an application >> right >> and say okay you're applying for this you need this you need that so handouts that would be very clear that that would be great
>> I really like that idea idea so that like we're doing open space and recreation and so that's what we would have >> very clear you know. >> Yep. So it would just be for the one thing. >> Yes. >> Um and then can we talk with um Jonathan about getting information out and doing
a press release and all that kind of stuff. So can I Yeah. >> So So part of like I I would think what would be part of the clarity is like if it's open space and recreation they would you what you don't you know just
even the names of the people who they have to contact or the phone numbers so that everything is as clear as possible. There's also standards also when it's historic on the work being done and that was why the applicant this round backed
out. So, I don't know if we have the ability to nominate Travis for coming up with a few bullet points, but um these are things like we talked about the recreation department has to be willing to
maintain because you know it has to be recreation use only. like those little things if we can get written down somehow other than our policy because I can pull the stuff from our plan um as I
incorporate it to the boards and like projects but Travis you have a lot of those little things that have come up over the years. >> Yeah, I could I could work on something. Um, it's hard for me because I can see
all the extreme technical details and it's hard to generalize enough to make it uh manageable but still be accurate, I guess. But I could I could try. >> Victor, >> for my own clarification, does public use imply public property or public use?
For example, let's say the apartment complex over on Elm Street's got a nice little basketball court and some other things there. Anyone can use that. It's on private property, I assume, because it's on part of the of the uh that apartment complex. But could they apply
for a a grant because it's public use? >> This is where we come into this question of is the the land who is responsible for the land and in that case it would have to be recreation department land. um they would have to have
responsibility for it and ownership of it or >> or there would have to be some sort of conservation restriction placed a permanent restriction placed on the land that allows public use for recreation and that land would be set aside and could only ever be used for
recreation in perpetuity. So, that's the requirement. And we we have had projects come to us before um with a similar thing and we couldn't fund it because it wasn't permanently protected recreation land. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> So, it's So, if they decided they wanted the basketball court, if they wanted the basketball court to become an ADU, that would not be allowed. And so we, you know, either they'd have to give us the money back or we would have we if they told us they were going to they wanted it so they could have a basketball court
for five years and then they were going to change it, we would not be able to accept it. Okay. Um, other questions, thoughts around this outreach process? What are we defining as partners?
The third bullet down, work partners for more effective outreach. >> Becky and I thought anyone and everyone. So, if we have a flyer, we'd love to just ask local organizations, anyone you can think of besides just the press
release to see if they'll send it to their list of people as well. So, you know, for housing, there's a group called Housing Greenfield. if that that group would send an email to everyone on their group that this is happening. We
just feel like we're missing people when Becky and I talked and so we you know Facebook could be great and you know the Greenfield Facebook group is very great but we need to get more people than who we've been talking to in the past
specifically people who might want to apply >> as our so Okay. So um one group of people might be those who belong to the recreation department who have a membership in it.
So like who would get in touch with Christy or Kelly or somebody to say would you send out an email to these? Like who's going to do that? >> I can do it. >> Maybe we're it's an open question. Yeah.
I I mean if if I have let's how about this? If you have ideas of places that that this should go. If you will send we will I will get the three um press releases
from Jonathan and I will send them out to whomever you think should get them. Um, and we will get we will get that information out and then tell them to share them as widely as possible. Victor, >> maybe we could start by identifying a
list of partners that we think and then what we could do is as a committee we could divvy up that list among the committee members to then reach out to those individual partners and find out the details, but maybe we start by putting together a list of what we think are partners. >> Right? So, what I'm saying is I'm
willing to be the repository of the list and um and then if um if you want to if you're interested in sending out some of those those lists or if I will send out something to all of you saying this is who I've got. I know people here here
and here who do you know and we can go from there. Does that sound reasonable? >> Yeah. I think we need to identify who we think the partners are and then we can contact them. >> Right. So, if you know of somebody you think should get something either on housing or recreation, open space or
historic preservation, send that information to me and then I will start to pull that together. If you've got a name and an email, great. If you don't, that's okay. Um, and we'll see what we can do in terms of making sure that that all works.
Okay. All right. And then um I think that uh once we get past this stage we can discuss further the question of a digital presence and um physical presence during the funding
cycles. But at the moment um let's let that pass and we can come back to it. Is uh does that feel right to people? Okay. Um, is there any old business? >> I have a question.
>> Yes. >> We talked once about people who have been allocated money for a project and the project's never done or isn't done in a short time frame about clawing back those funds. Do we ever go any further with that? Is that's
something we can or can't do or >> We don't we don't give the funds out until they've done the project. >> We don't give the funds out, but I mean we've got it allocated. So I guess the word is coming unallocated. >> Right. Right. It's allocated. So the question is should we do a review of all
the projects that are sitting there lying foul? How about if we do that for the next meeting? >> Okay. So we're going to go back and look because sometimes it's regulations and things that people have to go jump hoops that people have to jump through that
take that take time. So um but let's do that. Let's go through the list next meeting of all of the projects that um are sitting there and have not either have not taken their money and let's see where we are on that. I think it's a
good idea. >> Didn't we didn't we have I thought that was in some of the contracts, right? They would right their plan was to use it within two years and then various people come back for extensions on some things. Mhm.
>> Um, so it seems Yeah, I agree. It seems seems worth looking back at, you know, where we're at. Are there are there some that um we should be either either nudging or being like it doesn't look like it's happening. We're going to like
deallocate it and put it back in our pot for next year. >> Yep. I think I think that makes sense. Uh, anybody else have a thought on this? Yeah. So, um, um, I would almost like to have a final,
um, report or photo or something that kind of has closure on a project like like this is what this looks like, you know, here's what was actually done. Did it? >> Yeah. >> I believe we do get this. >> We do have that. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. and we have it where >> um uh it is submitted to my office and Susan signs off on all of the final reports. Um and at least since I have been working with you guys, I think
there's only been one closeout maybe and I just announced it during announcements at the end. So we could do something more formal but there is a closeout report they submit. >> Yeah. So, so for instance, like the the historic work that was done at the
fairgrounds, you know, in the painting and all, it would be Yeah. If if we just almost had a record of that or had a special place where those pictures are, then we could easily get a hold of those, you know, like if a trail's been built or if a this or if that.
>> We actually do have pictures of some of that. I I think most of them that have sent us pictures, but we can check. >> That would be fantastic. We can check. Thank you. >> You should definitely keep those like on the Google Drive. And I know I'm pretty sure my
understanding is that us committee members don't have access to everything that's on the Google Drive. So, I've wondered how much is there that we're not seeing like pictures and things like that. So, um,
>> well, let's let's talk about let's talk about, you know, because that's again that's part of the outreach question and I know we've put things onto the city's uh Facebook page previously which were examples for instance um the Habitat for
Humanity house we we would get periodic photos and those would go onto the Facebook page as to this is where we are right now. Um, so let's let's take a look at the list from that Anna has both of what's what's done, what's not done,
and where we have pictures and where we don't and figure figure that out for next time. >> I think that's great. >> And you're talking about a digital presence, which will be the place for that. >> Right. Right. And so that's one of the things we could do, especially during the uh during the August se July August
period. we can make sure that there are things, you know, out and about and we'll see what we can do. Okay. Um that that was old business for sure. Um is there anything else in old business that we want to talk about?
>> Just just a question about upcoming meetings. Um, do is it planned out um when we're going to I know like every year we review the application and we review the scoring sheet and I'm just wondering when when that might be. I
don't remember what month. >> Okay. Well, I I'll tell you what, we'll Anna and I will work on setting up the calendar for the next fiscal year and and we'll get that to everybody. >> Travis brings up an interesting point, the scoring sheet. We had some discussions about that last time because sometimes we felt that
projects were being scored poorly or weren't scoring the way they should be. We consider it a point of reviewing the scoring. >> Absolutely. We do it every year and every year and we will uh probably do it in June. Does that sound like a good time to do it? I I'm trying to figure
out how we have meetings that aren't three 3,000 hours long. So if why don't we set up for June that we will go through the scoring sheet >> every year we go through it and every year we >> July >> No, it it really isn't that bad. We can
we can go through it. Okay. So does that um is that reasonable? So um so the May meeting we'll we'll we'll look at the project. We'll go through um the the projects that we um have that we need to um to you know what we what we've done
and what hasn't been uh hasn't used their funds. Uh we'll also look at final report photos and see what we have. And we'll set up the calendar for the next fiscal year >> and the budget. >> And the budget. That's right. And the budget. >> And the allocation. Allocation.
Allocation. >> Do we have a a date on that meeting? The next meeting is May 28th at 5:00 p.m. here at the John Son Community Center >> and on Zoom. >> Okay. Um, and with that, I will
entertain a motion if someone has a motion they want to put out there. >> Well, I go home now. >> So, move. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Um, I don't think we need to we need to do a roll call. All right. Here
we go. Um, Wisty, >> sure. Let's go home. G, >> yes. >> Cherry, >> uh, yes, please. I'd like to go home now. >> Okay. Victor, >> yes. >> Travis, >> yes.
>> Jack, >> and I'm a yes. Okay. Thank you all very, very much. A lot of good stuff came up. Thank you.