WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=E0-WjzVsdoM

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: E0-WjzVsdoM):
- 00:00:20: Roll Call, Introductions, and Meeting Minute Approval
- 00:01:51: Public Comment, No Items Presented from Audience
- 00:02:26: Discussion of Budget Reserves and Available Funds
- 00:10:58: Presentation on Public Input Survey Results and Analysis
- 00:23:21: Committee Discussion of Survey Metrics and Project Value
- 00:26:10: Ethical Considerations, Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- 00:29:59: Further Disclosures on Conflict and Participation Clarification
- 00:31:11: Reviewing Conditions and Preservation Restrictions Requirements
- 00:31:32: Project Prioritization Discussion, Starting with Lower Ranked Projects
- 00:35:57: Initial Straw Vote: Establishing Interest in Funding
- 00:40:37: Evaluate Interest in Funding Low Scoring Items
- 00:43:03: Discussion on Co-Op Facade and Potential Funding Amount
- 00:50:19: Moving on Miller's Meadow Project Discussion, Amount to Vote
- 00:55:00: Discussion, Amount for GHA Security Deposit and Rental
- 01:02:19: Potential Conservation Funding, Pros and Cons for City
- 01:16:37: Evaluating Historic Document Project, Cost, Worth
- 01:19:48: Evaluating Request for Recreation at Beacon Field
- 01:22:22: Discussing Funding for Main Street Housing Project
- 01:29:43: Painting Preservation At Our Industrial Heritage
- 01:34:19: Spike Sakundo's Project and Need Vote On Funding
- 01:40:03: Review GHAI Projects and How Much Funding For Project
- 01:51:02: Recap Spending, Deciding Where to Divert Money
- 01:52:58: Review and Discuss Rubber Stamp/Unanimous Items
- 01:54:11: Formal Vote, Vote Fund Community with 27.6k Funds
- 01:55:26: Adding Condition For All CPA Fundings, to Have A Banner
- 01:57:51: Funding Facade Restoration at 60K, 27K Historic
- 01:58:24: Adding Preservation Restriction/Selling It Later
- 02:03:27: Vote Security to Rental with GHA from Housing
- 02:03:57: Vote City Clerks Historic, is Vote for This Action
- 02:05:23: Vote for the paintings for money, general fund vote
- 02:09:19: Vote For Sakundo's Fund, with funding from Gen
- 02:11:02: RDI Main with the Funds needed from Housing
- 02:13:33: Conservancy Comm Vote with Specificity to Open
- 02:17:19: Mills Meadow, Specifics with Funds, GenVote
- 02:18:44: Vote on Enhancements for the Beacon Field
- 02:19:17: Motion for the vote on funding The Project
- 02:20:22: Increase Funding to Industrial Heritage, with Vote
- 02:22:59: Approval for The April Meeting


Part: 1

1
00:00:20.000 --> 00:01:02.960
Here. Whiskey here. here. >> Eric >> here. >> Victor >> here. >> Travis >> here. >> Jack >> here. >> And I'm here. So, we have full We have full house. We have a forum for sure.

2
00:01:02.960 --> 00:01:20.000
Um, first thing on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from March 19th. I hope everybody had a chance to take a look at them. Um, and uh, I will, um, if there's no discussion, I will entertain a motion. So moved.

3
00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:36.880
>> Do I have a second? >> Do I have a second? >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. All those in favor of uh approving the minutes as written say uh raise your hands. Say I. I. >> Okay. All approved. No extension. Any

4
00:01:36.880 --> 00:01:51.600
abstensions? >> Any um any negatives? Okay. They have been approved unanimously. Um as we don't have any

5
00:01:51.600 --> 00:02:10.160
public comment here in the uh the room is uh we have one one visitor um and I um Alyssa, is there anything you would like to say in public comment before we move on? >> Uh no, I'm just tuning in to listen.

6
00:02:10.160 --> 00:02:26.160
>> Okay, thanks. >> Thanks. Um, okay. So, we're uh going to start on our new business and that means we're going to be working on deciding what the what the uh presentations are going to be. Donna, did you have something you wanted to say?

7
00:02:26.160 --> 00:02:44.080
>> I just wanted a clarification. I'm looking at the applications summary spreadsheet and the budget um says 262 and then reserves. I can we get clarity on what reserves means? Is that um what

8
00:02:44.080 --> 00:02:59.120
we're still waiting for people to spend that's already been earmarked? >> A note that is money that has been put into the reserve account that you didn't spend um that was collected in revenue in past years.

9
00:02:59.120 --> 00:03:17.519
>> So it's therefore available to us if we want to spend it. This this sometimes it takes a little while for us to get all that information from the city. Okay. >> You want to look at that right now?

10
00:03:17.519 --> 00:03:39.440
>> Sure. Let's >> Anna, can you use the mic? >> Yeah. >> Um, is this what you're is this what you're talking about, Donna? Uh, no. I'm talking about a spreadsheet

11
00:03:39.440 --> 00:03:55.200
that says applications. >> Oh, that does have the same numbers though. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah, that does. >> Yeah, that one. >> That one was talking about. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, the 348. Um, now I just I

12
00:03:55.200 --> 00:04:12.560
remember a couple of years ago we decided to not dip into reserve and just so we knew that we had it because my understanding was that reserve w was sort of um an assumption based on what we were

13
00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:29.840
going to collect in taxes for the year and also not necessarily knowing what the state match was going to be. Um, so when I looked at this number today, which is significant, it's it's more than we actually have in our

14
00:04:29.840 --> 00:04:44.639
budget, uh, I felt like it was important that I understand clearly what it is that we're talking about, where the funding streams came from, what is it that we know that we have, um, so we could have a discussion about how we

15
00:04:44.639 --> 00:05:01.440
want to handle it. >> Do you want speak? >> Sure. Um so this is a picture of the accounts um based on uh uh what we have on the city side and what has been allocated to projects. If

16
00:05:01.440 --> 00:05:18.800
you see something um in the project line, it's what we're contracted to pay for that project. It's not about what they've spent yet or not. We just assume that that's set aside for the project. Um, so for your fiscal year 26 budget, what

17
00:05:18.800 --> 00:05:34.800
you set, uh, is this going to show up if I do this? No. So, what you set was a budget of $276,000 for fiscal year uh 26 revenue to the CPA

18
00:05:34.800 --> 00:05:52.479
um with an administrative budget of 13,800 uh which is where those numbers came from. Um that was obviously underestimating what we're actually collecting, but we're still collecting fiscal year 26 revenue.

19
00:05:52.479 --> 00:06:08.560
Um people are still paying their taxes. We did get this match from the state. So that's locked in. And it's going to be higher than 240,000, but we don't know exactly what it is. So what So you can't spend any more than you budgeted for of

20
00:06:08.560 --> 00:06:24.560
the fiscal year 26 revenue that is coming in. Um but you can spend whatever you want of what's in reserve. And in fact, you can also appropriate future revenue from fiscal year 27 if you want to. I don't know how to do that, but it

21
00:06:24.560 --> 00:06:39.360
is something that you're allowed to do. Um, so there are options. >> If I can just say, one of the things that we had that year that was offkilter was in order to try to make this more

22
00:06:39.360 --> 00:06:54.160
regular so we could figure out what we actually had available as opposed to what was kind of coming, but we weren't sure about it. And so we tried to get it to be more regular than it is. And it's still there's still a little wonkiness,

23
00:06:54.160 --> 00:07:09.680
but it's it's better than it was, right? And I recall that as being, you know, this is the year that we're going to, you know, we're not going to spend any sort of projections. We're just going to spend what we know that we

24
00:07:09.680 --> 00:07:30.000
have. My thought was that the point was to sort of let things fill back up and and be in the accounts. I'm also just noticing that the reserves 348 31683 so it's all

25
00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:46.319
admin and projects which I mean that looks to me like it's pretty much um earmarked. >> Nope. So uh that 348 >> that whole that total thing. So there's the >> okay

26
00:07:46.319 --> 00:08:02.319
>> the top is the income and then the admin and the projects are all the outflows. And so what you have left is the 348. >> Okay. >> So yeah. >> And then the 240 plus the 45. That's what we know that we've that we've

27
00:08:02.319 --> 00:08:16.639
gotten from the state and we know that we budgeted because we have it. >> Right. That's the minimum of fiscal year 26 and it will certainly be higher than that. >> Okay. So, so looking just at, you know, because I like to spend what we what we

28
00:08:16.639 --> 00:08:30.960
know that we have. It just feels like >> um the way that that's just my personality, but this is looking like 285 versus 262. >> Oh, sorry. >> Well, I mean, if you go back to that

29
00:08:30.960 --> 00:08:49.200
sheet, right? cuz it's 240 + 45. So that's 285 and $31. Okay. >> Yes. But but remember you can't spend that full amount of the state match, right? Because that's revenue that you

30
00:08:49.200 --> 00:09:05.120
didn't budget for. So, we can spend it next year, but the most that we can spend um is this 262200 of the fiscal year 26 revenue because it hasn't closed yet and we're still collecting it. Does that make sense?

31
00:09:05.120 --> 00:09:21.120
>> Good. >> But we could spend a 100,000 from reserves if we wanted to as a committee. >> Yes. But we just can't spend more than the 2622 200 because we can't spend a 100% of that 45,000.

32
00:09:21.120 --> 00:09:37.200
>> Right. >> So we could as a committee decide we wanted to do an additional 100,000 this year if we chose. >> Right. >> Yep. So think of it as two different buckets. the fiscal year 26 which is kind of speculative and it's based just on the budget you set and gave to city

33
00:09:37.200 --> 00:09:53.680
council and then whatever is actually in the account which is actually in the account and we can spend >> of course learning that tonight when we're making decisions rather than thinking about it beforehand this extra potential money

34
00:09:53.680 --> 00:10:09.440
it's just a little >> untimely yeah a little late >> not I mean the information was there >> well I guess that um the way it from us >> the way that I'm thinking about it is you know we're going to go through these projects and we're going to decide what

35
00:10:09.440 --> 00:10:24.320
to um allocate for each one and it may be that there's a little bit of you know oh if we just had that much more then we could do this that maybe that's when we

36
00:10:24.320 --> 00:10:40.320
consider chipping away at some of that potentially. Does that does that make sense what I just said to everybody? Does that make sense? Okay. >> I I think the the issue is we're probably we we we have the possibility of spending a little bit more of that

37
00:10:40.320 --> 00:10:58.560
and going into reserves, but we probably don't want to spend all of the 348 because that puts us in a hole for next year. >> Yeah. No. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> Everything. Anything else before we start moving on this and Anna does her

38
00:10:58.560 --> 00:11:14.399
presentation? Okay, Anna, the floor is yours. >> Oh, so we're going to talk about um just stop the share real quick. We're talking and doing this at the same time.

39
00:11:14.399 --> 00:11:30.560
We're going to talk about um the the public input that you received. Um, I'm going to go through a couple of slides and then I'm actually going to let Travis talk about some of the analysis he did. Uh, if that's okay, Travis, of um, the qualitative feedback, but let's just make sure this is

40
00:11:30.560 --> 00:11:51.440
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. So, the public survey was active from March 2nd through March 21st. There were 51 respondents. that was significantly less than what you got last year, which I believe was in the

41
00:11:51.440 --> 00:12:08.079
120ish range. Um, 49 of them were Greenfield respondents. Two of them said they lived elsewhere. I thought what was interesting just about where people had heard about the survey compared to last year is that folks did say they heard this was an open-ended question um and

42
00:12:08.079 --> 00:12:23.519
folks did say they had heard about it from the farmers market tableabling and social media was a smaller percentage of the people who uh uh responded than there was last year. So more people this year said they had heard about it from the newspaper which I thought was

43
00:12:23.519 --> 00:12:39.279
interesting. So this is what the survey looked like. There was one a form like this uh for each project. And thank you Donna for making this on uh Google forms. And this is what the responses looked

44
00:12:39.279 --> 00:12:55.360
like. So I have them ordered um uh top to bottom of the most popular projects. Uh people answered um based on how valuable it was to uh Greenfield as a whole, to them as an individual, and in their opinion, was it a good use of CPA

45
00:12:55.360 --> 00:13:11.680
funding? And then I just averaged the uh responses um from the three categories for each one. I'll let it sit and percolate for a minute, but let me know if people have questions. >> Does it go down a little further or is it just >> Nope, that's it.

46
00:13:11.680 --> 00:13:31.360
>> That's it. >> Um >> I see. Never mind. >> There was obviously feedback about uh um the church project, but I left it off for tonight. We can definitely return to what that looked like, but the committee scoring. Um, well, you guys knew what you were

47
00:13:31.360 --> 00:13:50.240
looking at. Um, so I took an uh average for each project of, uh, scores out of 48. Um, we'll show you in a minute how this looks compared to what the public survey, uh, responded because it's actually quite different. Um,

48
00:13:50.240 --> 00:14:07.279
but I did plot it out just to show you the spread uh because some of these were really wide in particular the security deposit and rental assistance fund which ranged from I believe 12 to 46 um in terms of scores and this is

49
00:14:07.279 --> 00:14:24.959
ordered where the um it shows a the average the median and then the spread. Let me know if I'm moving too fast. Um, Travis. >> All right. So, um,

50
00:14:24.959 --> 00:14:42.480
similar to previous years, um, I took all of the written comments that people left in the open-ended question. Um, and then categorized them all into one of these categories. Luckily, my categories uh, seem to be pretty comprehensive

51
00:14:42.480 --> 00:14:59.839
yeartoear. it seem I seem to be able to fit everything in um to one of those categories. So um these are plotted from the the project with the most positive comments on the left to the least

52
00:14:59.839 --> 00:15:16.160
positive on the right. Um and just you know a few things to point out there. the like the bright pink um th those were people who said that that project should be funded with something that's not CPA um either private funding or you

53
00:15:16.160 --> 00:15:33.839
know the applicant should self-fund um the black on the very tops of the bars um those are people who just said that that project was not something Greenfield needed at all like not only should we not fund it but it's something that shouldn't even happen um that's

54
00:15:33.839 --> 00:15:51.120
what that color was. And then, you know, the biggest is just support. That was just generally people saying, you know, oh, I really like this project. Please support it or something like that. I just put it all into support. Um, and then there were a couple um in the past

55
00:15:51.120 --> 00:16:07.759
there were a lot more people who said like this project is my highest priority, but um on this one there were only a few people who said that. Um, one was the rental assist rental assistance fund all the way on the left. That one had three people say it was the highest

56
00:16:07.759 --> 00:16:23.199
priority. Um, the co-op project had one person and then the Deerfield Street project had one person who said it was their highest priority. Um, so yeah, if anyone has any questions about that, we'll we'll see more

57
00:16:23.199 --> 00:16:38.560
analysis after this, but we and we can always come back. Um, oh, the other thing is there's like right above the pink on some of them there's a red kind of a uh not the dark red but the lighter red. Uh, that's people who said that it was too

58
00:16:38.560 --> 00:16:54.800
expensive. So, um, the one with the most of that is the Deerfield Street, City Clerk, Bankrow. Um, those projects all got comments like that. But again, this is just a subset of people. You can see

59
00:16:54.800 --> 00:17:09.600
the total number of comments on the on the y- axis there. The one that had the most comments was 32. So this is just a subset of people who answered the survey. Some people didn't leave comments at all. So um so we can go to the next slide.

60
00:17:09.600 --> 00:17:25.679
And then I mentioned those were ordered from most positive to to the project with the least positive. Out of those categories, this is how I group them into positive, mixed, and negative. Um,

61
00:17:25.679 --> 00:17:42.720
so those are all the categories that were in that last graph. And then if we go to the next one, um, here's what it looks like when you just look at percentages. How many of those fell into that positive category? How many are mixed? And then how many um are in that

62
00:17:42.720 --> 00:17:58.160
negative category. And again, these are all in the same order as the plot that we just saw. Um, and it does differ from the overall scoring order. Um, because again, this is just a subset of people

63
00:17:58.160 --> 00:18:15.360
who uh responded to the survey. Um, but it it does kind of point out, you know, there's like the rental assistance fund all the way on the left. Um there were, you know, mostly just positive comments and then you go all the way to the right and there's there

64
00:18:15.360 --> 00:18:33.200
were a lot of like mixed comments for the city clerk like unsure if it was needed or it's expensive or um so it it really does show a difference in that way. Um and then the next slide um this is a

65
00:18:33.200 --> 00:18:48.080
comparison. This is not the written comments. This goes back to the data that Anna was using for how people just ranked the projects in their um in their in the

66
00:18:48.080 --> 00:19:03.919
survey results. Um so the survey rank is the left and I ordered this from you know just in that order and then what we ranked the projects is next to that. So um this is where you can see there are a

67
00:19:03.919 --> 00:19:19.520
few projects that are um quite different from one side to the other. Uh we we ranked Rural Development Inc. number one and the public ranked it number seven out of 10. Um for example

68
00:19:19.520 --> 00:19:35.200
um and again we'll probably come back to this and look at this. Uh, I feel like when we voted in the past, we've had this up on the screen to look at um because it has the amounts and the ranks. But if we go to the next slide, um,

69
00:19:35.200 --> 00:19:51.200
>> also the the responses and the like the scoring rubric is vastly different for them. >> Yes. Yeah. They >> So, if we had filled out >> Yeah. >> the community one >> Yeah. >> we might have, >> right? Maybe next year we do like a you know,

70
00:19:51.200 --> 00:20:07.760
>> we all do the survey in like a separate little bin. just to see because >> no especially this year looking through it like I was like score is high don't particularly like the project kind of >> also be nice if you get a statistically

71
00:20:07.760 --> 00:20:25.440
significant number of respondents >> and that's kind of up to the community >> but I mean >> and no and and sometimes the community organizations that are applying get their constituency to vote. Uh for

72
00:20:25.440 --> 00:20:42.159
instance, we saw that with uh the to a great extent with uh the uh the fairgrounds >> and pickle ball was another. Um so it's it's really hard to >> Yeah. >> Like the hillside park.

73
00:20:42.159 --> 00:20:57.039
>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. >> Um so uh I didn't do this last year or in the past, but I sort of wanted to break this down a little bit more. So this is that same table that we just looked at the rank order, but this is

74
00:20:57.039 --> 00:21:12.880
only just showing the categories. So we can see where we ranked housing a lot higher and the public ranked, you know, open space and recreation a lot higher. >> Um, >> and to G's point that really the questions were different, but I think at

75
00:21:12.880 --> 00:21:28.640
the heart of them, the the main big difference for what the public was asked was is this important to me personally, which we did not ask you guys. >> Yeah. Yeah. So then the interesting thing is if we look at these by c Yeah. You can go to the next

76
00:21:28.640 --> 00:21:46.400
one. If we look at these by category like only in each funding category um open space and recreation we ranked those in the same order that the public did. You know they might have been somewhere else in the list but we ranked open space projects in a similar order.

77
00:21:46.400 --> 00:22:01.679
And then if you go to the next one, we ranked historic projects in the same order. >> And then if you go to the next one, housing is where it was different. So >> um the public ranked the security

78
00:22:01.679 --> 00:22:16.400
deposit one highest and we had that one as the lowest. Um >> so that one that's a little different in that category. Um, so anyway, I just thought it was interesting because we do have specific

79
00:22:16.400 --> 00:22:31.760
funds for each category. So, you know, it's interesting to know that in open space and recreation and historic, we rank those projects within that category the same as the public but different on housing. So, that's that's the end of

80
00:22:31.760 --> 00:22:50.799
the slides. Um, >> are there any are there any slides that people would like to have up specifically? Uh, all right. You uh Becky is saying she wants this one up. Um, is this one that other people feel should be the one? We can move them

81
00:22:50.799 --> 00:23:05.360
around if we need them in the discussion, but I just want to know if there's something you kind of like to look at as you're as as as we're doing the deliberations in general. the amount. >> I think the um the one that has us as a

82
00:23:05.360 --> 00:23:21.600
committee ranking is important because I feel like the the survey rank really helps us with the public feedback section of our rubric. And so I think looking at that other one is important too.

83
00:23:21.600 --> 00:23:41.919
>> And I think that's the one you had done, Anna. One more. Oh, and one more before that. I think it is the one right be one more. That one. Yeah. I just want to point out, and this is

84
00:23:41.919 --> 00:23:59.120
something that's been a thing for me for, you know, since I've been on this committee, is that there are some things that we feel are important and they can score very high and they don't really have any relation to the quality of the product. So, you

85
00:23:59.120 --> 00:24:15.279
send us five letters of support, somebody else sends us one, you're going to get a higher score. You know, um I I still support the uh the underserved areas grant because I feel that that's a

86
00:24:15.279 --> 00:24:31.919
um an important piece for CPC. Um, you know, we also like to see matched funding, but again, if you've got a $10 million project and you're only asking us for $100,000, you're going to score really high on

87
00:24:31.919 --> 00:24:47.600
that question. Whereas, if you have a $30,000 project and you only have 2,000 to put in, there goes your score on that one. And I just I would encourage committee members to keep that in mind as we look at these projects because I

88
00:24:47.600 --> 00:25:02.799
think that we need to be clear on I mean part a big part of to me is value and and also um yeah understanding that some of these high scores might be high

89
00:25:02.799 --> 00:25:19.120
because of situations such as those. I think that the deliberation part of this is very important and you know we and and so there it's data it's not necessarily what we deliberate and I think it's important for us to keep that in mind

90
00:25:19.120 --> 00:25:33.919
and we'll make a decision we'll make a decision some will match exactly some will not um and I think that that's that's the process that we're doing here tonight is >> that that was actually not the slide I was looking at I thought this was the

91
00:25:33.919 --> 00:25:54.400
one where we have our ratings. Anna, is there another one that shows what the committee members Okay, this is that. >> Okay. >> But then the the further one has it doesn't have the actual score, >> but it has both. Yeah, the other one is fine. >> But it has

92
00:25:54.400 --> 00:26:10.400
Yeah, it's helpful to have actual money. Yeah, that one. That's fine, I think. >> Okay. Is is this So, this one is the one we want to use right now. Okay. Um, is there anything more that you want to present, Anna, or Um, okay. Any

93
00:26:10.400 --> 00:26:27.120
>> Susan, uh, before we get to deliberations, can I just bring up uh the conversation I had with the attorney at the State Ethics Commission? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Um, just wanted to uh just air it out there that I contacted the State

94
00:26:27.120 --> 00:26:42.240
Ethics Commission. They have a phone line um where you can ask about um conflicts of interest or potential issues with conflicts of interest. And um the attorney with the state ethics commission essentially said the same

95
00:26:42.240 --> 00:26:59.039
thing that um I originally assumed or that we we have read on the uh community preservation coalition's website which is that if a member of the body of this body is also on another body for example

96
00:26:59.039 --> 00:27:15.200
me on the conservation commission and on this committee um even if the conservation commission has a project before the CPC that does not create a conflict of interest because in both cases I am representing the public

97
00:27:15.200 --> 00:27:33.440
interest. So there's no conflict between public interest and public interest with both of those hats that I'm wearing. Um so, uh I also mentioned that I did fill out a um uh the form indicating uh the

98
00:27:33.440 --> 00:27:48.880
appearance of conflict of interest at the beginning of the year due to the conservation commission projects and they said that that is also not necessary um because there's no conflict of interest. Um, so with that in mind,

99
00:27:48.880 --> 00:28:03.360
um, I just wanted to throw it out there that I do plan on deliberating and voting on all projects, including conservation commission projects. Um, and I think that's how this committee is supposed to work, and I would encourage

100
00:28:03.360 --> 00:28:19.679
other people to do the same. Uh, but that's up to them. So, >> would anyone like else like to speak to this question? >> Um, yes. And this has to do with um the co-op vote. And um I I also called um a

101
00:28:19.679 --> 00:28:36.960
state attorney in the same office and explained um my own personal situation where I'm a member of the co-op. Um my partner and I have given a loan for the new building. So I laid out all the ways

102
00:28:36.960 --> 00:28:54.480
I'm attached to the co-op. Um, and ultimately what the attorney said was there's no conflict of interest because what we're voting on here is the facade of that building and that facade and my

103
00:28:54.480 --> 00:29:11.919
investments in the co-op have to do with buying food and shopping there. The facade is not the same as buying food and shopping there. So there's no conflict of interest. So, I'm going ahead and voting on the co-op and Yeah.

104
00:29:11.919 --> 00:29:26.559
>> Thanks, Whiskey. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this question? >> Yeah, I'll just mention that um because I represent the Greenfield Housing Authority and the GHAI, I will not be deliberating on those two projects.

105
00:29:26.559 --> 00:29:42.240
And um I would like to say also that although I am legally um able to according to the ethics commission I am legally able to um vote on both the GHI and the GHA

106
00:29:42.240 --> 00:29:59.000
um uh applications. Um, I'm choosing to accuse myself. Um, mainly because there has been some public question about appearance of uh of conflict and I want to avoid any of that.

107
00:29:59.679 --> 00:30:14.880
>> Yeah, I just want to mention I'm only recusing myself from one thing and it's because of a personal relation with one of the people applying and I just I don't even know whether or not I need to but why muddy the waters? >> Fine. Okay. Anything else on this issue

108
00:30:14.880 --> 00:30:29.600
so that we've all got those those things out in the open? Go ahead, Donna. >> So, since everyone's speaking about their committees or whatever, I guess I'll mention that I am on the recreation commission. I do plan to vote. I've never seen a conflict of interest

109
00:30:29.600 --> 00:30:45.200
because I my brother's not doing the projects. I am not getting any sort of benefit. I am not paid by the recreation department. I'm representing the citizens of Greenfield here.

110
00:30:45.200 --> 00:31:00.240
>> Thank you. Anything else? >> Um, less important, but for folks who are interested in the data, I just want to note that Jack also did not fill out um response for the two J gha projects and Terry did not fill out a response

111
00:31:00.240 --> 00:31:24.480
for uh Spike Sagundo. >> Okay, I think we have exhausted that. Is that okay with everybody? Okay, then let's move on to uh uh conditions. >> Um so I'm happy to uh get started with

112
00:31:24.480 --> 00:31:42.799
this, but I will say that uh um this was the part last year where you guys had a conversation about if you were going to fund these projects, what conditions would you place in the contracts? Um, I am very open to the idea that this isn't the best time to do that because that's

113
00:31:42.799 --> 00:31:57.840
uh could be extra work on a project you decide not to fund. I wrote up a draft. Um, we can look at it or we could put a pin in it. Um, I think it's pretty general. They're expected to comply with the CPA regulations and for those uh

114
00:31:57.840 --> 00:32:13.360
that require it, they have to accept a a preservation restriction. So, it's up to you, Susan. >> Okay. Is there anything more that anyone is concerned about that we we have a a template pretty much that we've been using and that has worked okay. Is there

115
00:32:13.360 --> 00:32:28.720
anyone who would like to add to that or has a concern about any of these projects in relation to that question >> or if you just want to see the draft? >> Yeah. Or if you want to see the draft. >> Um I I think it's fine to continue to use the template we've used for the certainly makes sense to have the one

116
00:32:28.720 --> 00:32:44.399
we've used in the past. And if if when we're delivering in a a particular project, we want to put a special condition, right? We can we can toss that in. >> Yeah. I think I think the only thing I would want you guys to decide tonight is that if you are funding one of the uh

117
00:32:44.399 --> 00:33:00.960
historic projects that requires a preservation restriction. I'd like for you to have a discussion of how long to make it. And I think that will be contingent on how much money you put into the project >> based on what you did last year. In the in the past, we've had a range between I think the lowest we ever did was 10

118
00:33:00.960 --> 00:33:16.320
years and the highest we ever did was 30 years on historic preservation restrictions. >> Good. >> Um, okay, then let's get on with this. Um, let's start with the uh the city

119
00:33:16.320 --> 00:33:31.919
clerk and uh the preservation of historic city documents. Susan, is there any way we could start with the ones that folks agreed on and the ones that are less? So, like Sure. >> the paintings, the public and the

120
00:33:31.919 --> 00:33:47.679
committee >> both placed them at position 10. >> Okay. >> And so, I'm just curious if we could cross off some of the ones that we all agreed on or approved the ones that we all agreed on versus thinking it might be a little easier.

121
00:33:47.679 --> 00:34:04.000
>> Does that work for folks? All right, let's go back to our >> Do you want to look at the >> Yeah, let's look at the at the that slide. So, if we're going to start with the paintings, I would only say that that

122
00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:20.720
was an example of one of the um one of the projects that I really like, but it lost points for me because of like

123
00:34:20.720 --> 00:34:37.200
the letters of support and because of the matching funds. You know, I was a teacher for many, many years, and I would make these great rubrics, and I'd have a C paper in my hand, and I knew it was a C paper, >> but they ticked so many boxes that it

124
00:34:37.200 --> 00:34:53.520
was like a B. And so, um, I just >> I'd like to add to that. >> I think we're going to go I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I'd like to add to that. That's another project I also think is worthy. It's a It's ideal. It's historic. It's local. It has no money. and the fact that I

125
00:34:53.520 --> 00:35:08.960
think we need to review our whole go guiding thing because I think people that have a lot of money don't need ours. People that need our money are the people who don't have money. So I think we need to look at how we've got that all set. So I agree with Donna on that one. I think that's a local entity. It's

126
00:35:08.960 --> 00:35:25.440
locally owned. It represents local history. To me that's one of the highest things I would have marked on my list. But the grading system didn't give it that. And right that's >> Susan. I'm fine with us starting at the top. I just I assumed that it was ranked

127
00:35:25.440 --> 00:35:42.160
that way. Maybe it would be easier to start that way. >> How How do folks want to do this? I'm I'm open to us starting with things that we all kind of agree on and at least saying we agree on these are going to get some money and then come back to them and say how much money we want or you know so we could do that and then we

128
00:35:42.160 --> 00:35:57.920
can talk about the ones that we've got are a little more controversial or we can start with the ones that you know we have we have this mixed problem with because I also have that same problem. Can Why don't we start at the top of this list? Yeah. Go down and sort of do that.

129
00:35:57.920 --> 00:36:14.640
>> Should we give them anything? Vote. >> Okay. >> And then we can go back to talking about each one. >> If we're not going to give them anything, we don't need to talk about them. >> That's right. Okay. All right. I'm going to then start with the co-op and um I'm

130
00:36:14.640 --> 00:36:30.240
just going to ask what is the sense of the group as to whether we want to give them any funding at all? and put it in that category and then we'll move on on down the list and see where we are. Okay. So, let's start

131
00:36:30.240 --> 00:36:45.440
with uh the facade on the Wilson's building. Um straw vote of hands. >> Hands of hands are yes or give them money. >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Somebody make a motion to say yes, we'd like to give them money and then we have

132
00:36:45.440 --> 00:37:03.200
the discussion. Yes. I I actually like the straw vote where we say >> some money, no money, some money or no money. What if we start there? >> Start there and then and then come back. Okay. So, a straw vote on the uh the the

133
00:37:03.200 --> 00:37:18.240
Wilson's facade. All those in favor of some funding for that project, raise your hands. Okay. All right. So, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

134
00:37:18.240 --> 00:37:34.240
eight. Um, and eight. Um, so that so, so that's an agreement that we're going to come back to it and we're going to talk about some money for it. >> Okay. Uh, the conservation commission, Miller's meadow. >> Are you not voting on that? >> I did. I voted. It's eight. >> Aren't we nine?

135
00:37:34.240 --> 00:37:50.960
>> Yes. Eight people. And G didn't vote. >> We just have to know if we have >> Susan, can I ask? Can we do fully fund some money? And no, >> we're going to we'll come back. We'll come back come back. Let's just so that

136
00:37:50.960 --> 00:38:06.800
we know, you know, if there's if there's something we're ruling out, then we'll rule it out and we'll we'll get past that. Okay. Miller's Meadow. Um how many >> folks would agree that we're going we intend they're they're interested in giving some funding for Miller's Meadow.

137
00:38:06.800 --> 00:38:24.720
Okay. So, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay. Another eight. Yep. Okay. The security deposit and rental assistance for the gha. Two, three, four, six.

138
00:38:24.720 --> 00:38:42.440
>> We all raise our hands for all of them. >> Seven. Seven. >> Then we get >> I don't think that's >> the conservation fund. One, two, three. four, five, six.

139
00:38:42.560 --> 00:39:01.920
These are working just exactly the way they are in the list. Okay. Um the the historic doc the city historic documents. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Uh beacon field.

140
00:39:01.920 --> 00:39:27.520
One, two, three, four, five. Five. Um the uh Rural Development Inc. uh the main street housing one two three four five six. Okay. Uh Spike Sigundo uh bank row.

141
00:39:27.520 --> 00:39:46.000
One two three three. >> Um did you recuse yourself from the from this vote just so I know what the >> No, no. I I No, I'm doing this. This is struck. >> Sorry. Okay, that's okay. Uh the

142
00:39:46.000 --> 00:40:03.280
Deerfield additional units with the GHAI. All those in favor of funding that one, two, three. Okay. And the paintings at Museum of Our Industrial Heritage. One, two, three,

143
00:40:03.280 --> 00:40:19.680
four, five. May I ask what happened to the church? >> The Oh, um, they they backed out there. Uh, >> Anna gave them a copy of of what the historical preservation restrictions would be and they decided that they

144
00:40:19.680 --> 00:40:37.040
would prefer not to be bound by those restrictions. And they emailed us and said they were pulling out. >> Okay. So based on that we have >> it looks >> so the uh Spike Sagundo and GHI did not

145
00:40:37.040 --> 00:40:52.880
have a majority. >> Okay. Um let me ask is this any do we want to have discussion of either of those projects or do we want to assume that we're going to uh not fund them?

146
00:40:52.880 --> 00:41:10.319
>> Which two is it again? the ghai deer street additional units and spike sugundo the bankroll project >> again I I don't like to speak to that one because again to me that's historic preservation in the downtown I think it's something that >> our money is meant for okay there was

147
00:41:10.319 --> 00:41:27.200
some discussion I heard about it being >> I think it was Al Norman or someone said something about he felt that only one person benefited from it or some such as that but um I don't see that as being a an issue I think if it's going to make our downtown look better and put things

148
00:41:27.200 --> 00:41:41.760
back the way they were they are. Then to me that's a a word the use of preservation money. So that's my two cents. >> Okay. Anyone else have a comment that they want to make in regard to either of those two projects?

149
00:41:41.760 --> 00:41:58.960
>> I feel similar about that. Um the bank row one. >> Yeah. Um it I I feel I think that the new housing projects are essential and I also think that taking care of that bankroll one and having it look

150
00:41:58.960 --> 00:42:15.520
really nice. Um, when I think about the other historic preservation and when you know that when we've taken care of some of the trim on the buildings and done different things like that, thinking it was important, I kind of put this in the same kind of category that keeping that

151
00:42:15.520 --> 00:42:32.000
looking really nice is um, valuable. >> Okay. >> Anyone else want to speak to either one of those two? done it. >> Well, it sounds like um neither one of those projects, the Deerfield Street and the Spike Skundo

152
00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:48.400
received a um majority of people um here on our straw poll. So, my suggestion would be that we put them at the end of the line and potentially talk about them after we deliberate about the ones that we seem

153
00:42:48.400 --> 00:43:03.839
to be more in agreement on. Okay, that sounds fine. Um, so we will All right, so let's start with the high numbers and see how we we do here. Okay. All right, let's start with uh the co-op

154
00:43:03.839 --> 00:43:20.960
and the Wilson's facade. Um, and uh would anyone like to respond to this issue just generally? And maybe we can also talk about about um funding for that.

155
00:43:20.960 --> 00:43:37.520
Well, this is one that I had a little mixed feelings on because I don't really like giving money to people that have plenty of money in their pockets. But it's a locallyowned entity, is it not? >> Yes, it is. >> Co-op. Yes. >> Supported by the community. >> Yes. >> And that's the reason I thought it was worthwhile

156
00:43:37.520 --> 00:43:54.319
because once again, I see this I see this fund, this money that we're talking about as a voluntary gift from the citizens. So, the majority of the money should be spent for the citizens with the citizens in mind. And since that's a locallyowned entity as opposed to RDI,

157
00:43:54.319 --> 00:44:11.040
which is a monster of an of an issue, um, I voted for that. I move I moved my numbers where that was something I support because again, it's locally owned. It's downtown. It makes some sense. I don't think they need the money. They asked, we have it. I don't

158
00:44:11.040 --> 00:44:25.520
know. I give them a whole 120,000, but I think they're worth something. other comments? >> Yeah, I think that um they've taken some hits with the uh the amount of time that this has

159
00:44:25.520 --> 00:44:40.960
taken. Um we did agree to fund them in our first year and then uh they weren't able to use that funding. I'm not in favor of fully funding them. I was thinking like maybe

160
00:44:40.960 --> 00:44:56.640
80,000 just throw a number out. So, >> other I support what Donna is saying and um that co-op serves people throughout the community and what it will do for Main

161
00:44:56.640 --> 00:45:14.079
Street will be pretty incredible um positive positively so um is my opinion and um I too given the other given the other projects I'm not interested in the 120,000

162
00:45:14.079 --> 00:45:31.680
But 75 80,000 I would be very interested in. >> Okay. >> I can support 80,000. >> Um I've found this one a little wacky. Um in fact, many of the ones that the

163
00:45:31.680 --> 00:45:50.240
the only history we care about is 1870 to 1965 or so. um and that everything has to be, you know, old-fashioned brick um didn't feel super compelling to me.

164
00:45:50.240 --> 00:46:09.599
Um I realized that the co-op and I've, you know, donated, done loan, I'm a co-op member, shop there all the time. Um the the facade is actually for the housing portion up above. No, >> but they're slipping it into the his,

165
00:46:09.599 --> 00:46:25.680
you know, historic thing. >> It's actually for the down also the the downstairs the the first floor also. >> I David was saying they they want to take it off because they, you know, want to be able to put windows there, >> right? >> But yeah, I don't I don't know. it in in

166
00:46:25.680 --> 00:46:46.960
the scope of their project, it didn't it didn't feel like a a great great use of the relatively limited CPA funds, right? It's a gazillion dollar >> project. And >> I was wondering if um so I kept looking

167
00:46:46.960 --> 00:47:05.040
at what they said they'd be doing with a partial funding gap and they really just talked about the tax credit money that they're waiting for. And so my recommendation was going to be 60,000. I don't know if the folks who've already said 7580 are comfortable. I was just

168
00:47:05.040 --> 00:47:26.000
thinking we'd give them half. Okay, other comments before I make mine. Um, I I too, one of the things I know about large projects like this is that there's often a need for other funders

169
00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:42.400
to see that there is a local commitment that is above and beyond um the uh whatever investment process they have. and um and that the comm that there is a city commitment and that that this also

170
00:47:42.400 --> 00:47:59.920
applies to the RDI project and um so actually I was thinking of 50,000 but um but that that we would give a a statement that this that we have support but that it not be the whole thing. So that's that's my view of it. Um,

171
00:47:59.920 --> 00:48:17.359
so, um, we have any other comments before we move move forward to see if we can come up with a number and then we can change the number afterward. We're not we're not bound by this number at this point. But um are there I think what I will do then is

172
00:48:17.359 --> 00:48:33.680
considering we had a general support here for this project and there seems to be a range I will have people raise hands in relation to the amount of money and then we'll hold that and come back. Does that make sense?

173
00:48:33.680 --> 00:48:50.839
>> Do do we have a um like a spreadsheet we can fill in as we're going? Um >> I I asked to make one. >> I just can't show you both things at the same time. >> Um but this is what we're working with.

174
00:48:52.480 --> 00:49:11.119
>> So what I want to do is put in our recommendation as we go. It'll add up down here. God, this is tricky. >> Um >> okay. and then we'll make sure that it all fits in with the rubric that we have to follow anyway. Um okay

175
00:49:11.119 --> 00:49:29.200
>> and I'm just tracking a percentage of >> Okay. Um so co-op um we started off with 80,000. How many folks would like to fund this at 80,000? How many would like to fund it at 70,000

176
00:49:29.200 --> 00:49:45.440
or 75? Um 75. One, two. How many would like to fund it at 60? One, two, three, four. How many would like to fund it at 50?

177
00:49:45.440 --> 00:50:03.200
One, two. Okay. So, we have >> Sorry, I was Okay, so >> a weird option. >> All right. So, >> or you should do like at least >> at least at least 60. >> Yeah. So, we're we're looking we're looking more at the

178
00:50:03.200 --> 00:50:20.400
>> this the 60 level, I think. >> That does that make sense? >> That seems fair. >> Okay. Why? So, why don't we put in 60 for the time being and we can change it later if we choose up or down? >> Going to leave it highlighted and when you guys vote on something, I'll remove the highlight and that's how we know

179
00:50:20.400 --> 00:50:36.800
it's locked in. >> Great. >> Okay. So, the next one in in the in in your your list right there is Miller's Neto. Okay. So, um Miller's >> You want me to go back? >> Do you want to go back to the the the

180
00:50:36.800 --> 00:50:51.520
other list or do what what do you want to do? >> It was 20, I think, right? >> Yeah, it's 20,000. It's it's 20. Um, Susan, one thing I was just going to point out based on the the slides that I

181
00:50:51.520 --> 00:51:09.599
made on the last one, um, the co-op, you know, was number one out of the historic uh, for both the survey and the committee, right? >> And similarly, Miller's Meadow was number one in the survey and number one by the committee within the open space.

182
00:51:09.599 --> 00:51:27.280
If you go two slides after that is what I'm talking about. Um it was number one in the survey rank and the committee rank. >> Should we have these? >> Okay. And the amount requested was 20,000. >> Okay. Um so where are folks on this one?

183
00:51:27.280 --> 00:51:42.079
>> I think for the amount of money that they're asking and the amount of labor that it will take, it's a very reasonable cost for a full fund. Right. >> Personally, >> others >> I'm in favor of full funding on that

184
00:51:42.079 --> 00:51:57.599
one. >> I as well I think it's a it's been a obviously a long long-term project. I think it was required when we initially got the FEMA funds or something like that, but it's the city has not had had the funds to do it. Um there's been a

185
00:51:57.599 --> 00:52:14.319
tremendous amount of volunteer labor that's gone into it so far. Um, and I' I'd be in favor of fulling fully funding that one and >> try to get it get it over the finish line. >> Anyone else? >> Uh, the work to be done. Is it being done by the city or is it being

186
00:52:14.319 --> 00:52:31.040
contracted out? It >> it it it's there's a part of it that's being contracted out because there are certain um elimination of certain um invasives that they're going to contract out. The rest of it is going to be volunteer. >> Volunteer. Great. Okay, that's >> Can I just say one thing? Um, so when we

187
00:52:31.040 --> 00:52:48.559
were talking with Athena and asking about fully funding or not, she pointed out that the invasive plant management person has money in there for 2027 and 2028 and that equates to $3,000. So I'm

188
00:52:48.559 --> 00:53:05.599
just suggesting we think about 17,000 instead of the full 20 >> because it's two years out. Okay. Uh other other comments. >> Uh I was going to recommend fully

189
00:53:05.599 --> 00:53:20.559
funding I so I did my own like little spreadsheet before we came just to like what I would what I would do and I was thinking fully funding this one because the open space um pot that we have has 27,600

190
00:53:20.559 --> 00:53:38.079
in it. And since this project was ranked highest in open space by the public and by us, um it's and I know last year we were trying to fully fund things as much as possible before splitting things up. So I was thinking that we could do the

191
00:53:38.079 --> 00:53:54.319
20,000 out of the open space fund um since we only have two other open space projects on here anyway and uh our committee ranked them pretty low. Okay. Are there any other comments?

192
00:53:54.319 --> 00:54:11.680
Uh, seeing none, um, I'm going to go for a vote on this one. Um, we have two, um, two amounts. One is what? 1750 was it? >> 17,000. >> 17,000. Um, so all those in favor of

193
00:54:11.680 --> 00:54:27.040
providing 17,000. One, two, three. Okay. All those in favor of the 20,000. One, two, three, four, five. One, one,

194
00:54:27.040 --> 00:54:44.400
two, three, four, five. Six. So, um there's six votes for that. So, we will put in the 20,000 for um at least right now for the Miller's Meadow. >> This is not your final vote. >> We're not doing a final vote yet. We'll come we'll come back that everything

195
00:54:44.400 --> 00:55:00.400
then will have to be a second and all the rest of it. This is just this is still trying to mess around with with the numbers and see if how things work. Okay. Um the next one on your list, Anna, >> that's the security deposit.

196
00:55:00.400 --> 00:55:15.680
>> Okay. The security deposit and rental assistance. Um I will not be voting on this, but um I will I don't think at this point I need to accuse myself. So, uh, um, do people

197
00:55:15.680 --> 00:55:33.280
have, um, ideas or, uh, you know, want to want to look at that in a different way? >> Um, I think this is another one that it's worth worth doing the full. I believe we did full and they only only asked for 15 last year. Um, at that time

198
00:55:33.280 --> 00:55:49.359
and also from some of the comments this year, there was a lot of public support um, for that as well. Um, so you know, regardless of the, you know, how the numbers numbers fall out, right? Obviously, because they're asking for the entire fund, so you're losing points

199
00:55:49.359 --> 00:56:04.400
on the >> Why aren't you, you know, why isn't GHA funding at 50%. Because this is a special special fund. >> Um, so I'd be in favor of the the 30,000 on that. Becky, >> I am also in favor of the 30,000, but I

200
00:56:04.400 --> 00:56:20.000
would I don't know if this is a conditional issue, but last year we gave 15 and even that money didn't get used up in a year. So, I would like to have some level of really making sure that

201
00:56:20.000 --> 00:56:36.960
this money is getting pushed through to the people that need it. And I don't know how to ask for that exactly because I don't know what kind of requests are coming in, but I think only one person ended up being able to use the part of the 15 last year. So I just want to be

202
00:56:36.960 --> 00:56:51.520
sure it's not money that's just sitting there when there's real need. And I know that may sound like somebody I'm not accusing anyone of not doing something, but I don't I don't like to see the money we've appropriated to be spent

203
00:56:51.520 --> 00:57:06.240
sitting in bank accounts not being used. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I kind of feel the same as Becky here, but I I mean last year we wanted to fund 30,000, but the ask was 15. Now,

204
00:57:06.240 --> 00:57:22.799
this year the ask is 30, but we know that there's still money from last year. So, I still want to fund this, but I don't want to fully fund it. I'm looking at 15 to 20 in my mind. And then I think that this is something that probably

205
00:57:22.799 --> 00:57:40.880
will be a perennial ask. Um, and this will, you know, the money from last year, the money with this year, and then next year we can see how it's going. Any other >> does the committee disperse money itself? Do we disperse money?

206
00:57:40.880 --> 00:57:57.599
>> Uh so for this fund it's entirely reimbursement. So the city's full resource. So we don't actually do we actually give them money or do we say we will give you up to $15,000. Show us the receipt. >> Correct. >> Okay. So it's sitting in our funds, not

207
00:57:57.599 --> 00:58:13.440
their funds. >> It is and it's earning interest revenue. >> It's in our reserves. >> The money from last year. It's sorry it's not in that 300,000. It's blocked off as committed to a project, but the actual money is sitting in the city's bank account until we reimburse the uh

208
00:58:13.440 --> 00:58:28.400
gha for spending it. >> Right. But it's like my rent check that I sent in that hasn't cleared yet. >> It's still money I've spent. >> It's gone. Even if it's still in my account, it's still gone. >> Yeah. >> It's in It's encumbered. >> Yeah.

209
00:58:28.400 --> 00:58:43.520
>> Oh, sorry. Are you asking if we can claw back what was previously awarded? Well, I'm I'm I'm saying if if it if it has to show the receipts, why don't we wait until they've used what they've already got before we put more in an account that's just earning interest and look at

210
00:58:43.520 --> 00:58:58.960
maybe funding something else here more? Because if they haven't spent the money, why are we putting more in? >> Can I can I ask a clarification from Jack on this one? even though you've recused yourself from participating as

211
00:58:58.960 --> 00:59:16.240
the applicant. Um I from what I recall the money wasn't fully spent because there wasn't a lot of money to begin with. So there wasn't a huge push to let a lot of people know about it. And the plan was this year with this additional

212
00:59:16.240 --> 00:59:32.720
funding, there would be a much bigger push um to get more people aware of the fund since there would actually be enough funding there to support a lot of people applying for it. Is that approximately what you said before? >> Yeah. So that that's what I said during

213
00:59:32.720 --> 00:59:50.400
the meeting that you guys had the ability to ask me questions. The other thing that I just want to make sure everyone understands is the timing of the vote and the actual release of funds for this new round of money. So, we still have probably five more months,

214
00:59:50.400 --> 01:00:06.480
Anna, until this new money comes available. And the other thing we're doing to protect the taxpayers's funds is making sure that those that apply, if they're eligible for raft money, we ask them to go apply for that first before

215
01:00:06.480 --> 01:00:23.839
they come back to us. And so, um, the other clarification piece, you're right, Travis, we have it on our website and every person who walks in, we tell them about it, but we haven't started flying at communities and stuff because we're

216
01:00:23.839 --> 01:00:42.160
waiting to see what this year's money is so that we can stretch it out if we need to. >> Any any further any further questions for Jack on this? Uh, any other comments that people want to make? >> I was just going to comment that I this

217
01:00:42.160 --> 01:00:58.640
was another project that I think should be fully funded for the 30,000. Um, just because it's so uh I feel like it has such a direct uh impact on getting people into housing. Um, and you know,

218
01:00:58.640 --> 01:01:14.640
it doesn't require waiting for a building to be built two years from now or three years from now or whatever. Um, and then also just pointing out that in our housing fund, we have $82,800 to be spent and this project was the

219
01:01:14.640 --> 01:01:31.040
highest ranked project in housing by the public. Um, and yeah, I I just think it's a good project and we wanted to give more last year. We wanted to give them more. So I think

220
01:01:31.040 --> 01:01:45.119
yeah full I was in favor of fully funding this one. >> Okay. Is there any other comment before we do a straup? >> Okay. Based on that we have um a suggestion of 15 to 20,000. All those in

221
01:01:45.119 --> 01:02:02.319
favor of 15 to 20,000 one. Okay. All those in favor of fully funding at 30,000. One two three four five six. Six. Okay. So, put in 30,000 for that one right

222
01:02:02.319 --> 01:02:19.760
now. Okay. And our next one on the list is >> that is the conservation. >> Okay. Conservation fund is the next one on the list. Um, so, uh, the conservation fund is requesting $50,000.

223
01:02:19.760 --> 01:02:36.480
Do folks have thoughts on that at this point? >> I'll just reiterate what I said early on. I don't like putting money into something when there's no project identified. They're asking us to give them a pot of money so that if they decide to do something, they have a pot of money to do something. I think

224
01:02:36.480 --> 01:02:51.839
$50,000 is certainly a lot of money to ask with no goal in mind. If and I I don't like funding city government anyway. City government should manage its budget. And now they're asking for us from the taxpayers who did a

225
01:02:51.839 --> 01:03:08.079
voluntary tax to fund the city budget. I have a I have a real issue with that. But um again, I don't like giving money when there's no goal, nothing identified. >> Anyone else? >> Yeah. Um I I'm very much in favor of

226
01:03:08.079 --> 01:03:25.280
this and it's it it's partly because um my own personal involvement, I've paid my own money out of my pocket. It costs thousands of dollars to be able to do a project that um you know maybe the

227
01:03:25.280 --> 01:03:41.920
conservation commission could have helped. And these projects you have to get so many layers of approval from the state from the here from the there and finally when somebody says okay you finally got permission from here and here you need to jump on it right then.

228
01:03:41.920 --> 01:03:57.760
So, I I'm just in favor of um and and I trust that conservation commission. They look at things so hard and in such depth that uh I just support this. Okay. Do you support Do you have a level? Is it

229
01:03:57.760 --> 01:04:17.520
at the 50,000 or is it some other level? >> Um gosh, you know, >> come back to Okay. Okay. I I would say I would feel comfortable anywhere between 30 and 50. >> Okay. >> Can I um So

230
01:04:17.520 --> 01:04:34.799
>> I feel like this is specifically in the CPA regulations. And so for me I I feel like just like last year it was the first time the committee funded the security deposit one. This is one of

231
01:04:34.799 --> 01:04:52.720
those ones that I Donna's comment about that other project. I'm not allowed to talk about um it coming back year after year. I would recommend for me we do at least 20,000 to this so that we can give the conservation commission time to see

232
01:04:52.720 --> 01:05:08.160
what they're able to do. The only thing I'm thinking about this one is a special we should give the authority to turn payment over within like 7 days or something like that as a committee so

233
01:05:08.160 --> 01:05:24.400
that we don't hold them up on the project. So, um I think that's going to be a little bit of a thing we need to debate a little bit more because I don't just like um we're talking about not just giving people money and it's sitting in their account. I like the

234
01:05:24.400 --> 01:05:40.400
idea that it sits in our account and it grows interest. Um, but I think we want to make sure we can give them money in a timely fashion. >> Other can you flip to the other um your the work you did on where that stands

235
01:05:40.400 --> 01:05:55.039
with the >> other community versus the survey. >> Okay. >> Similar. >> Yeah, that I was wondering about that one. Yep. And then how much money do we devote to

236
01:05:55.039 --> 01:06:11.680
open space alto together? >> Open space and recreation is going to be uh $27,600 for the whole category >> and then the rest of it would come from the general fund that we have.

237
01:06:11.680 --> 01:06:28.000
>> Um other other comments? Go ahead, Terry. Um, yeah. I mean, from what I can tell, the whole point of this legislation is to fill gaps in funding. >> And so, if there is a gap and it needs fun, you know, it needs funds and the

238
01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:45.359
whole point. And so, I see if they I I've looked through a bunch of data from um NGIS. have a bunch of um the data available from the um CPA and conservation um departments asking for

239
01:06:45.359 --> 01:07:01.280
funding is actually fairly common and it's while their data is not complete, it still adds up to something around like $54 million in funding that conservation departments have been given through this legislation. And while that sounds like a huge

240
01:07:01.280 --> 01:07:18.559
number, I could go back and find that it actually only represented 13% of the total funds taken in by those communities. So it's kind of about what we're already allocating anyway. So I think if you know they do need funding, then it is you know a valid

241
01:07:18.559 --> 01:07:35.039
ask. I'm not so sure $50,000 is the right buy in though. >> What would you think is >> I would think I I like the sound of $20,000. Let's float $20,000 for a year and see what happens with it. See how it goes. See how it works for them. See if it's not enough. See if at the end of

242
01:07:35.039 --> 01:07:51.119
the year they still got 10,000 in the bank. >> Okay, >> Donna. >> I agree. Um but my understanding is that this money would go to them to stay in their account so that they could have

243
01:07:51.119 --> 01:08:07.599
quick turnaround with it. Um, we did get a followup from Travis a few weeks ago that that the account actually has like5 to $6,000 in it. And actually, that's higher now because someone donated money

244
01:08:07.599 --> 01:08:23.600
for the Miller's Meadow project for a specific part of the project that went into the conservation fund and will be paid out of the conservation fund specifically for that project. So, it's actually a little higher than that right now. >> Okay. Okay, that's good. And I I'm also not in favor of $50,000. I think that

245
01:08:23.600 --> 01:08:39.520
this is the first year, but I I like the idea, you know, in the 20 range, 20 plus. Um, and it gives them a start on really like making this a priority and thinking

246
01:08:39.520 --> 01:08:55.199
about it and knowing we have this little pot of money. How do we make it grow? How do we use it best? And I think that that can result in things happening that are positive. >> Other comments?

247
01:08:55.199 --> 01:09:13.920
>> Um, like in in general, I see why a town would want to have that fund and the concom would want to have that fund. Um, and I'd be in favor of funding it to some, you know, I was thinking in the 10 10 to 20 20 range. Um, again it feels

248
01:09:13.920 --> 01:09:30.719
like this is a right kind of like all the all the recreation, right? If the city can never give recreation any funds, can never give conservation any funds, >> like how much of a priority is it actually for the >> for the city? Um,

249
01:09:30.719 --> 01:09:47.799
and I I'm also so I realize there's some projects, right, you need to like hop right on. you need to get your legal legal stuff, you know, or or you know, get some sort of draft thing in there to to hold hold on to a thing. Um,

250
01:09:48.000 --> 01:10:04.320
but it also we're this would be basically us um abdicating the project review to the concom, >> right? Right. So, we're saying we're giving you this this money for your fund because we think you do >> great job and you're good at vetting

251
01:10:04.320 --> 01:10:21.120
projects. And I think that's probably true. >> Um, but you know, t typically, you know, a lot of the the CPA things were looking at at each project individually. >> So, it' be in favor of, you know,

252
01:10:21.120 --> 01:10:36.480
somewhat smaller amount. I think this would would also be a kind of a strange one with the conditions. I mean, we have gone back and forth about do we keep the money and then they ask us for it and we promise to turn it around really quickly or do we give them

253
01:10:36.480 --> 01:10:52.880
the money and if we give them the money, which personally I'm in favor of, then how do we um how do we make conditions about how they account for it in terms of, you know, when when something like that

254
01:10:52.880 --> 01:11:09.520
comes up, reporting back? cuz we also need to be able to say, "Yeah, we gave them this money and this is what it did." You know, there's a a a before and after kind of a thing. >> It's It sounded like for this one >> have that going on.

255
01:11:09.520 --> 01:11:26.560
>> Yeah. But it sounded like with fun funding the fund and Travis can correct me, but that this would be wouldn't be as much of a you know, there's there is legislation that says this one doesn't have to be a reimbursement thing. This one we're we're creating the fund. the the reimbursement is like here's the

256
01:11:26.560 --> 01:11:43.360
deposit slip we put it in the conservation fund >> right but then it's also what did you do with that >> do do we want do we want to put a report reporting requirement into our uh contract so that it would be something where if we give them the

257
01:11:43.360 --> 01:11:58.640
money um we would ask them to report back >> we have a quarterly we have a quarterly report anyway though that they send to Anna all applicants do >> and we have someone sitting on this committee who would be happy to tell us when things were working and the money

258
01:11:58.640 --> 01:12:15.040
was actually being spent and it's you now. It could be somebody else from the conservation commission five years from now, but there's always going to be someone to ask. >> Okay. So there so the quarterly report would be adequate for people and you know that would be something that that

259
01:12:15.040 --> 01:12:31.840
came in and said we haven't spent it yet. um third quarter we spent it on a survey for this XYZ land that would be adequate for folks. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> I just want to say I really support this project, but I'm wondering if there's

260
01:12:31.840 --> 01:12:48.880
can we say if they haven't spent the full amount in 24 months, they return the money or something. And I don't know if that's allowed with the legislation, but I don't know if we want it sitting in their account for 5 years. I I mean I

261
01:12:48.880 --> 01:13:07.600
just wondering about that. >> I think that's the idea behind behind the conservation fund. Like it it may be that you know we give some amount of money there's 5,000 in there you know maybe they have to do you know some some

262
01:13:07.600 --> 01:13:24.239
small things you know over the next five years but then in six years there comes this opportunity for the the town to to buy or to get an APR on something and that's when it would be be activated right the idea is a tab they're making no guarantees about what

263
01:13:24.239 --> 01:13:41.440
happens they can't Other comments on this? >> Um, if I could just add, I think my understanding is that the money would be transferred to the conservation fund. Um, and the conservation fund does acrue

264
01:13:41.440 --> 01:13:57.600
interest as well. Um, and uh, at our at uh, one of the last conservation commission meetings, um, we were going over, as I mentioned before, there was a donation to the Miller's Meadow project that went into the

265
01:13:57.600 --> 01:14:12.800
conservation fund and it was specifically for that project. So, it got um, this like sub account in the conservation fund. And so that's what would happen with this money is it would go in as like a sub account of CPA

266
01:14:12.800 --> 01:14:28.719
money. Um, and we would know, the conservation commission would know that if that money is spent, it has to meet, you know, the CPA requirements and, you know, reporting. And I I think um Jessica when this was presented to us,

267
01:14:28.719 --> 01:14:45.840
Jessica the conservation agent said that um you know she was supporting like a a reporting mechanism to report you know any anytime money is spent out of that uh sub account of CPA money then it would be reported and I think that's

268
01:14:45.840 --> 01:15:02.320
legally required by the CPA law. So, I mean that's it would be easy to make that uh condition I guess. And uh just one other thing I'll point out was that when I was doing my own, you know, adding up the money and everything. Um I

269
01:15:02.320 --> 01:15:18.400
was looking at how the Miller's Meadow and Conservation Fund were the top two in open space and recreation and we had 20 what was it 27600 in there. So, if we fully funded Miller's Meadow, there'd be 7,600 left

270
01:15:18.400 --> 01:15:35.120
in the open space fund. So, I was thinking a minimum of 7,600 to the conservation fund for what was left in the fund that has to be spent on open space and recreation or saved for next year. >> But we have the extra money, too. >> But we also have that. Yeah. So, that

271
01:15:35.120 --> 01:15:50.640
that was just in my mind as like a minimum. >> Okay. So, I'm going to try to do straw poll on this one and see where we are. It seemed that the two numbers we were talking about most were either 20,000 or 50,000. So, can we go with those two or

272
01:15:50.640 --> 01:16:05.360
do people want to do another number? >> That's fine with me, even though I just said a different number. Yeah. >> All right. So, all those all those in favor of of the 20 20,000, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five,

273
01:16:05.360 --> 01:16:21.760
six, seven, eight. Okay. And uh 50,000. Okay. So, the 20,000 seems to be the winner here for the time being. Wait, wait. Okay. Okay. For a sec. Yeah, for a second. I thought you were going to put it on the other the other 20,000.

274
01:16:21.760 --> 01:16:37.520
I was, you know. Okay. And the next one on our list, >> the next >> city clerk. So, we're looking at the preservation, the document preservation for the city clerk, and that is a total

275
01:16:37.520 --> 01:16:55.520
a request of 30,000 for the machine that would allow them to be able to make copies uh digital copies of u of the documents. Um thoughts? I had a pretty strong thought on this one was that I did want to fund this one because

276
01:16:55.520 --> 01:17:12.800
um they came to us last year and wanted to do this and we said, "Well, we like your project, but you need to it would be great if you could scan the documents and have more public access." And so they came back this year and said, "Okay, this is how we're going to scan the documents and have more public

277
01:17:12.800 --> 01:17:28.800
access." So, I feel like it would be a bit of a slap in the face to not fund it when they specifically responded to what we asked them to do and presented that to us this year. Plus, it sets a precedent for anybody

278
01:17:28.800 --> 01:17:45.600
out there in the world who's paying attention to how this process works that yes, you might not get it the first time, but if you come back and do the things we asked you to do to make it a viable project the second time, you're more apt to get a positive response. I

279
01:17:45.600 --> 01:18:05.440
mean, it just sort of sets a a precedent. And I I'd love to fund the 27,000 which is the cost of the actual machine is my only comment. >> That was going to be my comment. >> I'm I'm good with the 27,000.

280
01:18:05.440 --> 01:18:21.920
>> Okay. Okay. >> I I've never once in my life bought a machine that all I needed was the machine. >> Not once. Um my my thing is that since this is a state unfunded mandate and since

281
01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:36.719
organizations like foundations do not give cities money to do these kinds of things that I think that it's important that we as a an organization that is both involved with historic preservation

282
01:18:36.719 --> 01:18:53.120
and also is looking for filling gaps that this is a gap that we can fill. So I'm going to ask um unless there's more discussion >> where where did it fall in the other in the

283
01:18:53.120 --> 01:19:09.679
>> historic rating >> in the historic rating >> second >> two >> okay >> okay um so um I'm going we've got two numbers of 27 and 30,000 so I'm going to go with both of them and see how we go

284
01:19:09.679 --> 01:19:27.520
we go 27,000 all Those in favor of 207,000. One, two, three, four, five. Uh, one, please. One more time. One, two, three, four, five, and that was six. Six. And,

285
01:19:27.520 --> 01:19:48.640
uh, 30,000. One, two. >> Okay. So, 27,000 goes in there for now. So the next one is Beacon Field. >> Beacon Field. Okay. So this is uh 8730

286
01:19:48.640 --> 01:20:09.679
for um Vacon Beacon Field to do the um uh the cornhole and and that kind of of of project next to where the uh botchi courts are. >> Um so comments >> this is like another one.

287
01:20:09.679 --> 01:20:26.320
It's small enough funds. Again, it's a shame recreation department doesn't get any city funding for doing these things. Um, which I guess is why we have, you know, one one of the reasons we have this the CPA. >> Um, you know, adding adding stuff over

288
01:20:26.320 --> 01:20:42.400
there. We believe we did one helped out with one project on Beacon Field. >> Yeah. >> So far. And and we've done and we've done Hillside a few. when we >> um we did the stuff down at the the swim area. So um it is nice to spread it across

289
01:20:42.400 --> 01:20:58.880
>> across the town. >> Um >> we also did some stuff over near the high school. >> Yeah, high school things as well. >> Go ahead. >> Um like I said, looking through all the data and everything, from what I saw, um historically wreck departments are the

290
01:20:58.880 --> 01:21:13.760
rock stars of this legislation because they have an operating budget. So what they do is they show up with amazingly reasonable requests. Like they walk in, they say, "We got the trucks, we got the people, we got the tools, we got the experience, we even got lunch. We just

291
01:21:13.760 --> 01:21:29.600
need a couple of bags of concrete." So, and so that's also clearly shining a light on a gap in funding. So I think it's just an incredibly reasonable request. So I'm totally down with it. >> Okay. Other

292
01:21:29.600 --> 01:21:45.840
>> I always get really sad that these don't rank higher. Um, I support all recreation. I know there's limited funds. So, my vote is to fully fund this at the 8730. >> Okay. Any other comments? All right. Then I'm going to call for

293
01:21:45.840 --> 01:22:03.920
stra vote on this the 8730 for the uh the recreation at Beacon Field. All those one, two, three, four, five, six. Um, oh, and any um any objections or

294
01:22:03.920 --> 01:22:22.880
anything like that? Okay. 8730 in and therefore that's good. Okay. Next one. What do we RDI? Okay. So, this is uh Rural Development Inc. Uh this is the 176 main uh street project. Um

295
01:22:22.880 --> 01:22:39.840
do I have comments? >> I just have one. Um, the matching funds are extremely important for large projects like this. And I understand that there's a community debate about receiving funds from other sources, but

296
01:22:39.840 --> 01:22:55.360
this project still has a pretty large gap and demonstrating that the CPC uh, and the city supports the project, I think, is important. Um, I don't think we have enough money to fully fund it. So, I'll let someone else make the

297
01:22:55.360 --> 01:23:12.159
recommendation for an amount, but I just think it's important. I understand we've funded them 50,000 two years ago and they've spent all of the money and they were successfully awarded state funds, but not all of it. So, um, that's my comment.

298
01:23:12.159 --> 01:23:29.760
>> Other comments? Uh, someone made it clear to me today actually in a conversation that all the people that work within RDI are local Franklin County based. They live here. They spend their money here.

299
01:23:29.760 --> 01:23:46.000
They're all, you know, this they live here with us. And so there is sort of a community issue. Visav the co-op where you know the community builders is a I think California-based organization that comes

300
01:23:46.000 --> 01:24:01.360
out here in their fancy cars and I want them to do that believe me I'm not saying I don't but it's a very rurally based and locally based organization of employees. Um, Becky, just uh by a

301
01:24:01.360 --> 01:24:17.600
comment on that, um, the community builders is doing the housing part of that project, whereas the co-op is doing the co-op part of that project. So, I'm sort of seeing this as more of a co-op project, which is very local to me

302
01:24:17.600 --> 01:24:32.800
rather than community builders. >> I Okay, that's a good point. Um, I guess I was I see that whole project kind of together, >> you know, the co-op and the housing. Yeah, it is not. >> And in fact, um the co-op is really

303
01:24:32.800 --> 01:24:50.800
proud of so far um Wright brothers, right builders will be working on it and the major people who are going to be working on it are from the pioneer valley. >> Yeah, but that's a different issue I'd like on RDI. >> Yeah. Back back on the RDI thing.

304
01:24:50.800 --> 01:25:07.040
>> Yeah. So, um I know that the I've just heard and read, you know, like things pro and con about RDI and about that building and that site. I I don't know what it'll be like when it's all done,

305
01:25:07.040 --> 01:25:24.719
but I'm curious about getting it back. You know, I'm I'm curious about it and I would like to support it. Um, I don't know how much. Um, 150. No, you know, probably more like 50. Again, I I don't I'm not sure. I'd

306
01:25:24.719 --> 01:25:39.360
like to hear from other people and what they think, but I'm even curious about trying to do something along the railroad. And it seems like there is a lot of um creative inventing of space over there.

307
01:25:39.360 --> 01:25:56.960
I'm just curious and I support it. >> Other comments? Um, yeah. So, I tried looking through the So, a I support RDI in general. I think they've done great work in our area. Um, we definitely need more housing,

308
01:25:56.960 --> 01:26:12.480
right? Originally, this was a a greater Holio Properties project, right? It sort of got handed off to to RDI after they did, you know, in terms of like who who could get funding for where >> it it was a joint project. the

309
01:26:12.480 --> 01:26:27.520
downstairs was supposed to stay with um with the with the own the present owner and then the upper floors were supposed to be RDI and that the numbers didn't work for the the present owner basically. So it became

310
01:26:27.520 --> 01:26:44.320
>> which so my concern was looking through the the budget for this is that a million dollars of that is to like it says you know acquisition cost. Yes, I know there's like some amount of legal and you pay your you know your fees and your

311
01:26:44.320 --> 01:27:00.880
stamp and whatnot. Um but the million dollars to acquire the building from a a private entity um and the building is assessed at 500,000

312
01:27:00.880 --> 01:27:18.719
conceivably even somewhat generous. Um, so there's seems like there's a lot of savings in there where, you know, we're basically helping to subsidize, you know, letting Tim Greater like, you know, bail out of a marginal building.

313
01:27:18.719 --> 01:27:35.360
>> Um, >> I'm not I'm not super I'm not super excited about the like I like all the RDI portions of the of like what would happen there. Although there is some concern about about making more like dead space on on Main Street

314
01:27:35.360 --> 01:27:50.159
>> as well. >> I'll I'll just mention that they the state heavily vetted this project and so I think they've looked at those numbers and they wouldn't have awarded the amount that they did if they were concerned about those numbers. Uh is is

315
01:27:50.159 --> 01:28:05.600
just a comment. I agree. The cost of housing is ridiculous and acquisition cost. When the RDI goes to closing for this property, there will be over 30 attorneys at the table and it just blows my mind. I deal with it every day, but

316
01:28:05.600 --> 01:28:21.280
um I just wanted to mention that. >> Other comments before I make mine. Um I I I had a conversation with Alyssa not too long ago and they've got the funding

317
01:28:21.280 --> 01:28:37.600
is now that they have now is about 80%. So um one of the things that funding from us assists in is getting that other 20% which is both a combination of tax credits and also is making sure that the

318
01:28:37.600 --> 01:28:52.960
banks who will give lend them the additional money whatever that is that they say that the the city is is committed to it. So um my my belief is I would like to see $50,000. I think that's reasonable and within within our

319
01:28:52.960 --> 01:29:09.440
range of costs as well. Um, are there other people who have a different amount of money that they'd like to put on the table for this? >> I wrote down 50 before this meeting. So, >> okay. All right. So, then if there are no other >> I mean I if it just needs to be like

320
01:29:09.440 --> 01:29:27.120
showing that we're in at all. Um, you know, I was thinking like 20 to 30 also show. >> All right. We'll put that somewhat. Okay. All right. So, um, for the straw poll, um, all those who would like to put somewhere between 20 and $30,000 in,

321
01:29:27.120 --> 01:29:43.840
uh, raise your hand. One, all those who would like to put 50 in. Okay. One, two. Okay. So, we've got a majority on the 50. All right. All right.

322
01:29:43.840 --> 01:30:03.360
>> Okay. We're now at the Museum of Our Industrial heritage and um this is requesting the $24,600 for the paintings. Um and uh

323
01:30:03.360 --> 01:30:23.080
>> did we skip uh we were going in order on the left of the survey. Yeah, I asked Spike Sagundo and GH. >> Okay, so Museum of Our Industrial Heritage, the paintings. Um, thoughts

324
01:30:24.159 --> 01:30:40.239
I mean just on the rank like nobody particularly liked it andor it didn't, you know, rank very well in our in our rubric. >> Um, >> right. It's sort of weird. Let me I would like like to say one thing about that because it also applied to the city

325
01:30:40.239 --> 01:30:57.920
clerk issue. Some of our questions don't really allow us to give points in places where we might otherwise give points in a in a different kind of project. our our projects are kind of geared toward and this is because the community

326
01:30:57.920 --> 01:31:16.400
preservation act is geared toward um really the the acquisition of property or the acquisi or or the building of of things. So some of the point issues I think are have to do more with the questions we ask than it has to do with

327
01:31:16.400 --> 01:31:32.239
the discussions that we've had with people. So I just wanted to throw that in there. There was a lot of the questions on there should have like or it doesn't apply. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and but that would still mean that the points would not be there and so it would score lower. That's that's that's just one thing I

328
01:31:32.239 --> 01:31:49.199
wanted to point out. Okay. But with that discussion, go ahead Whiskey. Um, I think that the I think that the history of this city is fascinating and um I think that these paintings are really important and I don't know where

329
01:31:49.199 --> 01:32:07.280
they would be displayed. Um, you know, um, I did look up the whole process about the cleaning and what it would do. I I I I just am very in favor of this project. I'm not sure, you know, depending on how much money we come up

330
01:32:07.280 --> 01:32:23.840
with we have left. I would like to do the whole thing, but if we only did half and if they came back next year and asked us for some more, um, I just would like to encourage the whole community to embrace that history and let it be visible someplace.

331
01:32:23.840 --> 01:32:39.280
>> Okay, other comments? No, >> I agree 100%. I mean, our history is disappearing daily. So I think this is a very important project again for the reason I mentioned earlier and I'm all for fully funding it and I'm you know if you want to do half for for I think it

332
01:32:39.280 --> 01:32:54.800
have 10 paintings or something. >> There are 11 and when I was looking at them today it looks like I mean most of them are about a,000 $2,000 like there was a range like 1,500 to 2,000 and then some are like 3,000.

333
01:32:54.800 --> 01:33:12.639
Um, so I've been I'm not the only one, but I've been keeping like the spreadsheet >> and um in my in my personal vote on this one because I didn't know how this evening was going to go. I thought, well, eight at $2,000, that's uh 16,000.

334
01:33:12.639 --> 01:33:28.400
And when I keep that number in there based on where we are right now, we're at 231730. So, >> okay. Other comments, FYI. I am in favor of funding this to some extent. Absolutely.

335
01:33:28.400 --> 01:33:42.800
>> Okay. So, we have we have three different categories here which I'll I'll throw out to folks. Um but are there other comments that people would like to make before we do so? >> Okay. With that understanding, I'll start from the bottom and work my way

336
01:33:42.800 --> 01:33:59.040
up. Uh $12,300. all all the the the numbers are $12,300 16,000 and 246. So, um I'll start with 16,000 and 246. So, um I'll start with the 12,3 the 12,3 um all those in favor of that

337
01:33:59.040 --> 01:34:20.639
um all those in favor of that possibility. possibility. Okay. Okay. 16,000. 16,000. One, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four, five. all all the the the numbers are $12,300 Um and uh the 246 one two three. So the right now the the

338
01:34:20.639 --> 01:34:37.920
winning number is 16,000. Okay. All right. So, that all being said, we still have what we're missing is Spike Suendo and and uh and Greenfield Housing

339
01:34:37.920 --> 01:34:54.400
Associates and >> and Deerfield Street and uh Okay. Right. Okay. So, the two that we have previously were the lowest were the Greenfield Housing Associates, Inc. and the uh

340
01:34:54.400 --> 01:35:10.480
Spike Sagundo. Does anyone remember we can go over this if we choose. So let's let's act like you know there's a possibility there and then we can mess around with numbers and and figure this out. But based on

341
01:35:10.480 --> 01:35:26.960
what you now know that we have in the hopper already, does anybody want to change their opinions about either the Spike Sagundo or the Greenfields Housing Associates Inc. projects.

342
01:35:26.960 --> 01:35:44.719
>> I'd like to ask if anyone's willing to explain to me why they don't like Spike Saguundo. I'm just curious as to what the reason for not supporting it is. I >> I will I will give you mine and other people. Um because Jordi owns a lot of property in town. I believe that this

343
01:35:44.719 --> 01:35:59.120
could be something that he could get a loan for unlike some other places where a loan would not be be part of the the picture. So that's I I don't blame him for coming to us. I I just think that this is something that he could get a loan for

344
01:35:59.120 --> 01:36:14.320
if he chose. >> That's the main reason. It al it that also felt like the um well I mean he he he didn't do great on the ranking but he he did better I think than he would have

345
01:36:14.320 --> 01:36:31.679
because he he he read the score sheet and he's like oh well if I if I ask for you know just under half of my total projected cost um then I get get more points. Um you know again it goes back to my why

346
01:36:31.679 --> 01:36:46.639
does everything have to be brick? Um, but also to, you know, I love what's what's been done with Bankrow. I think it will remain there. It sort of sounded like it, you know, the the he's he has to do something there and the project

347
01:36:46.639 --> 01:37:02.400
was going to be $20,000 more expensive if they do it in the specific historical way. Um, and so that's what he was coming for the the money for. Um, so I don't know if I'd want to give like more than the

348
01:37:02.400 --> 01:37:18.239
difference anyway. Um, but it I don't know. It's it didn't didn't feel like a a super win of a of a CPA fund. >> My maybe we could fully fund him and say that the condition is that he do

349
01:37:18.239 --> 01:37:37.280
something with the bank building too. >> Take that. Well, you know, for me, when I was looking at this proposal, um the I saw two distinct parts. The the old windows that are part of the apartments

350
01:37:37.280 --> 01:37:55.040
and then also the business windows um down down below. And I felt like the old windows seemed more historic, you know, value because they're already like in the shape and

351
01:37:55.040 --> 01:38:10.320
they're they're there. Um whereas the other windows, I mean, it would be I guess it would be kind of like Wilson's all over taking something that's not from the 1800s and making it look like it's from the 1800s again. Um

352
01:38:10.320 --> 01:38:26.960
so yeah, that's that's where I was. And I I didn't clearly see where that line was. And I'm interesting interested to hear what G was talking about about a shortfall. I think that

353
01:38:26.960 --> 01:38:42.239
he did a he did a good job of providing us with a lot of information, maybe a bit too much for me to be able to sort of like say what is this all about? and I didn't necessarily get that from his um

354
01:38:42.239 --> 01:38:59.600
from his visit to the committee. So, yeah. >> Well, I I I think we need to put aside where people can get money from, I think that's neither here or there because we're dealing with companies with $24 million budgets. So, the fact that, you know, where people get their money from

355
01:38:59.600 --> 01:39:14.880
is it shouldn't be a matter or shouldn't be a characteristic. Um, from what I understand, since it's a since it's a historic building, he has to meet very strict preservation guidelines. So, the anything he puts back in there needs to be in accordance with what was built

356
01:39:14.880 --> 01:39:31.360
there originally. So, he can't like take out the old windows and put in new windows. They have to they have to be historic. the act. >> I think he he said that the since the historic tax credits have expired, >> he he could he could do either and he'd

357
01:39:31.360 --> 01:39:47.440
like funding to do do the historic version, but the building is listed in in the in in the historic district of the town. So, there are state and federal guidelines that that oversee that building. >> So, he really can't go in and put bronze

358
01:39:47.440 --> 01:40:01.119
with aluminum windows in there. >> No, but he did get >> allowed to do that. He did get P. He's going to get Pella windows. Like the the sheet was a quote from Pella Windows. And that was one of my questions to him because I'm actually a big fan of like

359
01:40:01.119 --> 01:40:19.199
taking sash windows and still using um uh storm windows, but redoing sash windows. And if you have them with storms, they're actually better than like the new uh vinyl windows or whatever. So that didn't feel, you know, it felt like a new product. So there

360
01:40:19.199 --> 01:40:34.239
that was something >> but again it has to be historically accurate. So it could be a pello window but it needs to mimic the style and look of what's there now. >> Yeah. >> But okay that's just >> okay. Let me let me just um I'm trying to keep us to seven. I hope I can. Um uh

361
01:40:34.239 --> 01:40:52.159
let me just ask is there anyone who would like to put in a an amount that we can put into our our our straw poll here um for either the uh the spiked sagundo project or for the uh

362
01:40:52.159 --> 01:41:07.360
uh ghai project that we have not had for discussion. >> I I would like to support Jordy to some extent. I mean, I think it's important that he continue doing the good work that he does do here and has done. So, I

363
01:41:07.360 --> 01:41:23.840
would say, can we give him $25,000? >> Okay. Um, anyone else have a a a comment in regard to that? I mean, I was looking at trying to find one aspect of the project, like what do

364
01:41:23.840 --> 01:41:41.040
just the windows cost or what does just this piece of labor cost and then um you know fund that. Um and I mean we also we haven't talked about uh Deerfield Street. I'm I'm assuming that

365
01:41:41.040 --> 01:41:58.159
that's kind of a if you don't if you get like $10,000 that's not going to really do much for rehabbing two apartments on Deerfield Street, right? >> We came back to both of these because only >> right >> people voted to fund them at all

366
01:41:58.159 --> 01:42:13.840
initially. >> So we have >> if we're changing that >> people should like say I'm changing my vote like otherwise there's only >> right two but that's what I'm asking. That's what I'm asking now. Right. I'm asking. >> Right. So if there's people who previously

367
01:42:13.840 --> 01:42:31.040
>> we have $44,270 left >> if if we if we want to spend everything >> only want to spend. >> Yeah. >> I I just want to ask the question is the why. I didn't think there was going to be any change in the vote. I wasn't expecting a change in the vote. I just wanted to understand the why of the note. >> So that was my only reason for the

368
01:42:31.040 --> 01:42:47.840
question. So I'm not anticipating putting a number out there or any changes. >> But we do we do have one number out out here right now. Um, so let me let me just take the Spike Sakundo out, you know, and and put it out there. Is there anyone who would like to support that

369
01:42:47.840 --> 01:43:04.000
project um in the neighborhood of $25,000? >> One, two, three. >> Four. Got it. >> Okay. And that means that we have five votes against. So it doesn't go up. >> We have four votes against. I recuse.

370
01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:19.679
>> Oh, you recuse. So it's four and four. So, put in the 25,000 and we'll see what it looks like when we're we're all done here. Okay. Um and um on the uh DH GHI project, >> I think we can offer them a significant

371
01:43:19.679 --> 01:43:36.800
enough fund some without dipping into our reserves. >> Well, but that's the qu that's a question on that's the question on the table there is that we would have to dip into our reserves, I think, in order to offer them >> enough for it to be a meaningful offer. Now, these none of these numbers are set

372
01:43:36.800 --> 01:43:53.840
in stone. So, the other possibility to say, well, we're gonna take we're we've got 60,000 for the co-op. We're going to give them 50 and we're going to do that. So, we can we can do that once we get to this point. >> Can we go back to the slide? >> That's on there. It's 100 100,000.

373
01:43:53.840 --> 01:44:09.600
>> So, I mean, we could potentially fund this one at 50% if we took 6,000. small 5,000 um and change out of the reserves. I I you know I agree with Terry like is

374
01:44:09.600 --> 01:44:25.840
is there enough and I and Jack can't answer so I don't know but like is is it significant enough that the project would absolutely be able to go forward because the main thing on this was a sprinkler system. So sprinkler system

375
01:44:25.840 --> 01:44:44.560
costs what it costs. You know, you can't do it halfway. >> Okay. So we're talking but we we've got essentially 32,500 on the table. >> So we have I'm sorry. >> I'm I'm just asking. You said 50%, so I'm asking >> 50,000.

376
01:44:44.560 --> 01:45:01.040
>> Yeah. So I was saying 50,000. We have 44,270 left. And if we took a little bit out of reserves that would round it up to 50,000. >> Okay. Okay. Good enough. I I I didn't understand. Okay. Um so what do others think? Um talking about the Deerfield

377
01:45:01.040 --> 01:45:15.679
project. >> Yeah. >> My only concern about that is the numbers seem extremely extremely high for that. I mean $300,000 to build a studio apartment in an existing building is bizarre to me. I mean I I was just

378
01:45:15.679 --> 01:45:29.920
curious. I mean you can buy a house for $189,000 that has seven bedrooms here in Greenfield. So, why would you spend $600,000 to build two bedrooms? So, I I just can't see supporting a project at all

379
01:45:29.920 --> 01:45:47.840
because of it just seems like an extreme waste of money. I hate to use that phrase. I mean, we all talk about housing and how important it is, but maybe this organization can go buy this house over here on Conway Street for $189,000 and put some money in it.

380
01:45:47.840 --> 01:46:03.040
Right. >> That that that was one of the major um you know blocks in the negative comments from the survey was that people felt it was too it was it was too too expensive and the and the the expense is right

381
01:46:03.040 --> 01:46:20.159
it's it's getting the the sprinkler system. Um, you know, sort of my response to that is like this is this is not a good project because, you know, apparently state and codes are incentivizing not putting six units

382
01:46:20.159 --> 01:46:37.760
because that's like probably the ends up being the worst, right? If you're doing an a 10 10 unit, you're like your proportional price of your your sprinkler system goes down. Um, that's a big lot. If I was making two 400 square

383
01:46:37.760 --> 01:46:54.400
foot or 500 square foot apartment units, um, ADUs are allowed by rate. I'd stick them in the back, put the parking in front. Um, I realize I'm not a housing developer, but just look looking in terms of like where where would the

384
01:46:54.400 --> 01:47:08.880
money be spent or Yeah. or or buying another another house, right? that doesn't add to the um housing available in in in town, but if we're Yeah, it it seemed like a 100,000 could

385
01:47:08.880 --> 01:47:25.199
go a lot further in a different project. >> Okay. Other comments? Um, I read somewhere also and I thought this was a reasonable thing to bring up was that thirdf flooror living is really

386
01:47:25.199 --> 01:47:42.080
only accessible to a certain group of people and leaves out anyone with a disability who can't climb stairs whether it's age or physically related. So that limits to some extent the part of

387
01:47:42.080 --> 01:47:59.360
the population that we gave bonus points for >> um at the So I just wanted to say that out loud. >> Well, it still got my three because of where it is the the um underserved

388
01:47:59.360 --> 01:48:15.679
populations. Um >> did we put them all down on Deerfield Street? Well, no, but like you look at Deerfield Street, you look at um parts of Elm Street, you know. >> Yeah. >> Still, >> I think my personal thought on this one

389
01:48:15.679 --> 01:48:31.840
was we should either do at least the 64,350 for the sprinkler system or nothing. Um, and the way I was calculating it out on my own, I didn't think there was going to be enough for it, so I was thinking

390
01:48:31.840 --> 01:48:49.119
nothing. Um, but if we were going to dip into reserves or I would I was not in favor of the um the the bankroll one we just did. So you could erase that one

391
01:48:49.119 --> 01:49:08.159
and um do the 64 350 for the sprinkler system for this one. Um I mean I think you know creating new units. Yeah, there it's two new units um >> studios >> studios and obviously there's a smaller

392
01:49:08.159 --> 01:49:23.760
population who needs those, but I'm pretty sure there probably are plenty of people who would need housing uh of that type and would appreciate it. So, um and uh you know, I think it would probably make that building safer overall if

393
01:49:23.760 --> 01:49:40.159
there was a sprinkler system. So, >> all right. So, we we've got we've got two things on the floor. I'm going to I'm going to put them on the floor for discussion for um for a vote, straw vote, and then we can mess around with these numbers. That's the that's the that's the other piece before we decide

394
01:49:40.159 --> 01:49:58.719
um on on on voting. Um and so um so we have $50,000. So I'm going to ask all those who support $50,000 for putting that onto the GHI >> project. The other one is the 64,350

395
01:49:58.719 --> 01:50:15.760
Do we want to start with the 64,350? >> I just didn't know what the other options were. >> Okay. So, uh or nothing. Okay. So, I'll start. Let me start. Should I um let me start with the bottom and and work my way up. Okay. All of those in favor of

396
01:50:15.760 --> 01:50:30.560
um no of no funding for this. One, two, three, four. Is that a yes or no? No. Okay. Four. All those in favor of 50,000.

397
01:50:30.560 --> 01:50:48.480
One, two, and I've got to recuse myself. Two on the 50,000. So that's six. Um, and all those in favor of the 64 350 one. Okay. So does that mean

398
01:50:48.480 --> 01:51:02.480
>> none? >> The majority was none. Okay. Um, okay. answer is that >> and that's we that's where we are. >> Um okay. Um

399
01:51:02.480 --> 01:51:21.360
so now looking at this we have um a 256 730 that we have um voted in at this point. >> Strong straw. So the straw yeah the straw as a straw pole and then we'd have to then we would have to we'll go we'll

400
01:51:21.360 --> 01:51:37.440
go >> site by sight on project by project and have an official vote. Um but look at the numbers decide if you want to move anything around and if you do let's talk about that guys. I'll zoom in um in a

401
01:51:37.440 --> 01:51:52.400
second but just be mindful on the right of the percentages of each category that you're looking at. And the these numbers were the targets from the budget for fiscal year 26. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that we don't have to worry about being >> we'll just see it this way.

402
01:51:52.400 --> 01:52:08.000
>> As long as we get our 10% here, we're good >> except for the housing where it's where we're supposed to have 30%. >> Okay. So, we're still >> Yeah, >> I forgot about that. So, what I did on my spreadsheet was I took

403
01:52:08.000 --> 01:52:26.719
um this and I minused that and that was then and I'm coming up with like 19,000 left over right now. >> So, maybe I'm missing something >> because I'm thinking we got 19,000. >> Excel didn't miss.

404
01:52:26.719 --> 01:52:44.320
>> It's not play with. We can either save it for or save it right >> for something else >> or a different year. >> Donna, >> you you have a different you have a different fiscal year 26 budget number in your spreadsheet. >> You have 27 Excel did not

405
01:52:44.320 --> 01:52:59.119
>> budget minus the admin. >> I had the wrong Okay, I had a wrong number. Just want to make sure. >> So, um given that it's seven minutes of seven, sorry, glancing at your screen over here. I'd be in favor of >> um at least going through the ones that

406
01:52:59.119 --> 01:53:16.000
we mostly voted to >> fully fun. >> Fully fund. >> Okay. >> And or like, you know, more or less unanimously said like this would be a good >> Okay. >> I'd also be willing to rubber stamp the whole thing. >> Yeah. I'd be happy to just stamp the

407
01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:31.760
thing. It's done. >> Motion. >> Yeah. >> I make a motion to vote on it as >> I second that. >> You'll need to separate out. >> Yeah. We need we need to separate >> um just the ones that people are recusing themselves for will need to separate out, >> right? So the the the so the spike

408
01:53:31.760 --> 01:53:48.560
sagundo and the gha projects have to be separated out. All the others could be voted on as a group. >> Also we specifically have to say which fund the money is coming from for each project. So we have to say whether it's coming from the open space fund or the flexible fund

409
01:53:48.560 --> 01:54:02.400
>> for each project as part of that's how we've done it as part of our motion. >> We've done it in the past. Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. >> The fund that they applied to >> quickly, right? >> Say it again. >> The the issue here is that

410
01:54:02.400 --> 01:54:19.119
>> because we have for instance $27,600 in the historic fund that we have allocated. So of So if we have where is one of it's historic um if we say that uh Franklin Community Co-op is getting

411
01:54:19.119 --> 01:54:37.679
60,000 and we say they're going to get the 276 and the rest of it is going to come out of the general fund. That has to be part of the motion. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we fund um Franklin Community Co-op

412
01:54:37.679 --> 01:54:53.199
for $60,000 with 27,600 of that coming out of historic and the rest coming out of general flexible.

413
01:54:53.199 --> 01:55:09.440
>> I'll second that. >> Okay, I'll second that. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> Should we discuss the uh conditions? >> Yes. Are there conditions on that on that funding other than the normal

414
01:55:09.440 --> 01:55:26.159
preservation um requirements that we have already in place? I just want to mention that last year we said that we might add a condition into every project that they would need to indicate that they received funding from CPA either through like a plaque or a sign or

415
01:55:26.159 --> 01:55:42.000
something like that and that would be part of our condition that would go to each project. >> That's true. >> So I don't know if we could just make that part of our general conditions that we put on every project. >> Um >> can we vote can we make a motion to do that? Put that on every project. We can

416
01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:58.480
I'll I'll I'll take that as a friend friendly motion if someone would. Um >> I'll second that. >> And can I second it and second? Okay. All those in favor of um having that the question of having a um a plaque or some

417
01:55:58.480 --> 01:56:15.040
kind of other recognition for CPA funding on every project that we fund. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Anybody? Um it's >> well I've just we had talked about this sort of thing previously and they said like you have to put up a banner or

418
01:56:15.040 --> 01:56:31.679
something and various projects have come back and been like you know it's not really practical to >> we'll work with them >> to like you know and like you know like how crazy it going to be like well it has to at least be a brass black at least 2 by two or

419
01:56:31.679 --> 01:56:48.080
>> it's acknowledgements in some form or fashion we can let people be creative. >> We could make it so that we have to approve what like they have to present it to us and we have to approve it. >> Okay. Is that a friendly amendment? >> Would be an amendment on the motion. >> Okay. Um do I have a second on the amendment?

420
01:56:48.080 --> 01:57:02.159
>> I'll second this time. >> Okay. All right. All those in favor of there being on all of the contracts that we have for whatever we fund, there being an acknowledgment of CPA funding

421
01:57:02.159 --> 01:57:20.400
and that um that that the um the um awardee will work with um the office to be able to provide a a an appropriate um acknowledgement. >> Amen. >> Okay. All those in favor? I. Anybody

422
01:57:20.400 --> 01:57:37.199
opposed? >> One one opposition. So it's it's eight and seven. Eight and one. >> Okay. >> So now we're back to my motion. >> Now we're back to your motion around the co-op. Yes.

423
01:57:37.199 --> 01:57:52.480
>> Uh folks, I'm trying to follow what you're doing and I also have to take minutes on the votes. So, even though we can do um all in favor, please raise your hand very high and leave it up there for a minute to make sure that the recording catches it. Thank you. >> Okay.

424
01:57:52.480 --> 01:58:09.520
>> Okay. So, um, we are now looking at a motion to fund the Franklin Community Co-op for the Wilson's building facade restoration at 60,000 with $27,600 of that coming from the historic uh, set

425
01:58:09.520 --> 01:58:25.280
aside and the rest of it coming from our more general funding. >> And we were going to discuss uh, historic preservation restrictions and how long we would like that. >> That's correct. Thank you. to happen. >> Thank you. So, um on on this we have

426
01:58:25.280 --> 01:58:41.199
done anywhere from 10 years um historic preservation restrictions up to 30 years. Um has anyone got an opinion on that in terms of this motion? >> Sorry, can I um

427
01:58:41.199 --> 01:58:55.679
>> I don't know, maybe one of you do if this project already has a historic preservation. It it may well >> I think it h I think they have historic preservation credits. So they must have >> in which case >> designation >> the recommendation because that would be

428
01:58:55.679 --> 01:59:12.639
redundant is to basically put a a time limit um if the co-op sells the building in X years they must return the funds they received. >> Okay. So do we have a number of years that we would like to say that they would have to return the funds if they

429
01:59:12.639 --> 01:59:27.440
were to sell the building? We all know this is highly unlikely but out there in the world >> 100 years >> um >> five years >> five years seems a little low >> 10 years they won't even

430
01:59:27.440 --> 01:59:44.560
>> 10 years 10 year a 10ear restriction >> sure okay so that's part of >> I was just looking to see >> that's okay >> 10 feels separate separate from historic like I'm not going

431
01:59:44.560 --> 02:00:00.880
for this anyway. But in terms of like saying like if you sell it within 10 years, like if they've already done the historic thing that you want them to do, like it's not like they're going to take off the bricks when they sell it and be like, "We're leaving,

432
02:00:00.880 --> 02:00:16.880
>> right? It but this is a requirement of the CPA funds. This is >> well it has it has a historic I would just say that the historic since they already have some sort of state level historic thing unless we want a more specific >> or a tighter timeline.

433
02:00:16.880 --> 02:00:34.080
>> Yeah. Yeah. This the the issue would be they sell it to >> Joe's >> Walmart. >> Walmart. They sell it to Walmart and and um and they and they decide that they want to in five years and they and they decide that they want to cover cover the

434
02:00:34.080 --> 02:00:49.840
brickup or whatever whatever that is done. That would not be acceptable within the agreement >> and that would >> right well because there's a historic restriction on the on the building itself. Right. So I don't I don't I guess I don't

435
02:00:49.840 --> 02:01:05.119
understand why we need to >> have an extra extra thing. I mean I'm I'm not going to >> fight it. You can put whatever restrictions you want. I just I don't understand the restriction. >> Victor, >> I'm sorry. But I have another board meeting which I'm already

436
02:01:05.119 --> 02:01:20.800
>> believe. I've enjoyed this evening and uh I support everything that's up there. Not that I'm going to be able. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for attending. So my understanding is we weren't talking about the the preservation so much as just if they sell it like

437
02:01:20.800 --> 02:01:36.560
>> basically. Yeah. >> Yeah. So I don't think that that's part of the question. The question is if they sell the place within the next 10 years, do we ask for our money back? >> Is that what we're asking here? >> Yes. >> Apparently. >> Yeah. >> Okay.

438
02:01:36.560 --> 02:01:51.520
>> Okay. So let me restate this. >> Say we're not. Can we say we we aren't going to ask for the money back? >> Yeah. I >> just leave it alone. I guess >> this conversation's getting really gotten really cloudy because it started

439
02:01:51.520 --> 02:02:08.159
out we we started out talking about the preservation restriction and the time length on that and then it turned into well what if they sell it and then the you know how long do they have to keep it >> before they keep our money.

440
02:02:08.159 --> 02:02:24.639
>> This is the language. >> Yeah. from what? >> So, this is the this is the language that was used for historic projects by you guys last year. Okay. >> Um, and I don't know if there is an existing uh plan for a preservation

441
02:02:24.639 --> 02:02:39.840
restriction, which is why I highlighted yellow or um so you guys could say one of these is what we want, Anna, or um decide one or the other. >> That's that looks that looks just fine to me. Thank you.

442
02:02:39.840 --> 02:02:56.159
And that seems to cover it. >> So, can we keep the ore and do it exactly what it says there? >> No. Oh, sorry. No. Um, well, the the ore is only relevant if they uh already have a preservation. So, there has to be some

443
02:02:56.159 --> 02:03:11.199
preservation on it. If it so happens they already have something, then the um second clause kicks in. >> I vote we go with the first clause and just leave it at that. They agree to execute a historic preservation restriction.

444
02:03:11.199 --> 02:03:28.080
>> Okay. Is that agreed upon by the group? Can I just have a show of hands? Okay. All right. >> Keep it up. >> Okay. All right. We got it. We got it. >> Okay. All right. >> Um, did you guys vote funding?

445
02:03:28.080 --> 02:03:43.119
>> Did not yet. >> No, we have not voted on the funding yet. Okay. So, um, let us go back to the funding. Um the um measure that's on the table is we vote $60,000. $27,600

446
02:03:43.119 --> 02:03:57.920
comes from the historic preservation section of our budget. The rest of it will come from our more general funds. All those in favor? Okay. Anybody voting no

447
02:03:57.920 --> 02:04:19.199
one? No. So it's we're at eight so it's seven and one. Okay, next. >> I don't care. >> Might it make sense to do it category by category? >> Yeah, let's do it all the historic ones

448
02:04:19.199 --> 02:04:34.480
together. Okay. I I actually want to make a motion to uh fund the security deposit and rental assistance fund at $30,000 since that was one we agreed upon. Um >> okay.

449
02:04:34.480 --> 02:04:51.599
>> And that would be uh sorry I'm looking uh just $30,000 from the housing fund. >> Okay. So >> second. >> Okay. So, uh, then seconded. So, of the 82800

450
02:04:51.599 --> 02:05:06.480
in the housing fund, $30,000 would be going to the gha security deposit and rental assistance fund. Becky, >> no. I'm >> Oh, you're voting. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Okay.

451
02:05:06.480 --> 02:05:23.520
Uh, and that's 86. Okay. >> Oh, sorry. I'm not any counting. >> Okay. >> Any post? Oh, >> abstension. >> Absent. Yeah, the recusal from me, too. >> Okay, >> that was a yes, by the way. >> Okay.

452
02:05:23.520 --> 02:05:38.639
>> Six. Yes. Two absensions. >> Okay. Zero. No. >> All right. Um, in light of the fact that we have a little bit of extra money, I would like to propose that we fund the Museum of Our Industrial Heritage. Um,

453
02:05:38.639 --> 02:05:56.760
can we go the whole maybe uh $20,000 instead of 16? >> Okay. Um, all right. >> That due to our bottom line. >> Is that a motion? >> Do you want to see what that looks like? >> Yeah, I do.

454
02:05:57.920 --> 02:06:14.960
Oh, we still have money left. Perfect. Okay. All right. Yeah, I I'll make a motion to bump that up to 20. >> I'll second that. Okay. All those in favor of moving that um the Museum of Our Industrial Heritage up to 20,000.

455
02:06:14.960 --> 02:06:31.040
>> Are we Is this the vote on funding it? >> This is a vote vote. >> I was just looking to see if we needed any uh special conditions. >> Special conditions. Are there >> Yang from general fund? >> Okay. >> All from the general fund >> historic now. Yeah.

456
02:06:31.040 --> 02:06:49.560
>> Okay. We used to I don't think there was in here. >> Okay. So, this is this is the language that we would have right now. >> Okay. >> The documents on Okay. >> It kind of gives us an open book.

457
02:06:49.760 --> 02:07:06.560
>> Okay. So, >> using that language, we would be um providing $20,000 to the Museum of Our Industrial Heritage and that would all come out of our general fund. All those in favor?

458
02:07:06.560 --> 02:07:22.639
>> Just >> any opposed? >> Are you voting? >> I I am voting. No. So So it's uh we've got eight. So it's seven. Yes. One. No. Okay.

459
02:07:22.639 --> 02:07:38.320
So that should turn white. Yes. Okay. There we go. All right. Um the um we want to go to the preservation of historic documents, city documents next since we're in that historic

460
02:07:38.320 --> 02:07:58.880
preservation area. Okay. So all right. So this is the language. I don't know that we can specify place and time yet. And I don't know if that we can apply that first one to all the documents because some of them are not

461
02:07:58.880 --> 02:08:16.960
allowed to be publicly accessible. Um, so >> available to the public that are allowed. >> I mean that's what available to the public means >> in accordance with with um >> regulations. >> Regulations,

462
02:08:16.960 --> 02:08:33.440
>> right? Yeah. It's and again it seems odd that that we're putting in something because we're not like we're not re like the city clerk exists to pro to provide >> right >> documents to the public. So us saying

463
02:08:33.440 --> 02:08:48.480
like yeah and do your job >> just because we want to put something in the in our contract doesn't seem useful. >> Yeah. The difference is we're saying do your job and here's some money to do it whereas other people are saying do your job and not giving them the money.

464
02:08:48.480 --> 02:09:06.239
>> Okay. So is this language acceptable to folks? >> Okay. So with that understanding of this language would go into the contract. We are um recommending that $27,000 go to the Greenfield City Clerk um for

465
02:09:06.239 --> 02:09:20.400
the preservation of historic documents. And that money will be coming out of our general fund. Um, with that I need a motion. >> Make a motion. >> Motion. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor?

466
02:09:20.400 --> 02:09:38.560
>> Okay. Unanimous. Eight. Okay. All right. We're getting there. Um, Spike Sagundo. uh $25,000 for um the bankroll restoration and

467
02:09:38.560 --> 02:09:55.920
historic markers and the language would be Oops. Yep. Yep. Okay. So, it's uh execute historic preservation at those at the at at those addresses. um project um

468
02:09:55.920 --> 02:10:10.880
complying with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation and um they are only to both to be used for those specific addresses and u to follow the conting conditions as deemed necessary

469
02:10:10.880 --> 02:10:29.119
within the community preservation. >> I I would make that motion to withstall that. >> Okay. >> Legal ease. >> All right. So, we are voting on $25,000 that would go to Spike Sakundo SL LLC um

470
02:10:29.119 --> 02:10:44.800
for the reservation reser restoration of those particular buildings and that the funding would be coming out of the general fund. All those in favor? One, two. All those opposed.

471
02:10:44.800 --> 02:11:02.280
One, two, three, four. Any abstensions? I'm >> one extension and two abstensions. >> So it it it doesn't pass. We don't have enough we don't have enough positive votes. >> Okay.

472
02:11:03.040 --> 02:11:21.599
>> Okay. Um Rural Development Inc. Um this is for 176 Maine. Um and uh this would be uh $50,000. And does this do we have restrictions on that? Okay. Um these are

473
02:11:21.599 --> 02:11:39.119
the restrictions used for up to 100% where the these are going to be 60% or below. >> Um rec and record affordable housing restriction which is going to be part of it's part of their general funding. Um

474
02:11:39.119 --> 02:11:54.639
>> I'll make the motion with the restrictions presented. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. second. >> Um, can we just be clear? I think we still have money in the housing fund. Uh, that Yes, this would be >> we could appropriate

475
02:11:54.639 --> 02:12:10.800
>> I think all 50,000. Don't we still have it? Yeah. >> We have Yeah. All 50,000. Okay. So, um the uh motion is for $50,000 to RDI for 176 Maine um with the restrictions

476
02:12:10.800 --> 02:12:25.679
required and all those funds would be coming out of our housing um fund. Um do I um do I have a motion? >> I have a question. Is there still going to be housing uh in the fund left over because this

477
02:12:25.679 --> 02:12:41.599
>> Yes, there's there's $2,800 right now that >> Okay. So, that would just roll over until next year. >> That um actually uh yes, it would roll over into the housing fund for next year. >> Exactly. >> Yep. >> And we had to do a minimum of 30%, right? And we've done that. So,

478
02:12:41.599 --> 02:12:57.360
>> so we're >> um >> but we had to put put 30% into the fund and we don't have to spend it. We don't have to send it all but but we have to spend on something else. Well, and we are the ones who defend it, >> right? We can't spend it. >> Had to be 10. >> Correct. Okay. So, do I have a motion?

479
02:12:57.360 --> 02:13:10.719
>> You made the motion. >> Motion. Second. >> Seconded. >> Seconded. Okay. All those in favor? One, two, three, four, five. Uh, all those opposed?

480
02:13:10.719 --> 02:13:34.320
One. So, it's seven and one. Can I ask a procedural question? If we get to the end of this and we decide we wanted to add some to one that we already voted on, can we vote again to increase that? Okay. >> Yes, we can. >> Um, okay. Uh, let's see. Where are we?

481
02:13:34.320 --> 02:13:51.760
We're at uh conservation commission. Uh, $20,000 for the conservation uh commission. This is for the the fund that will be used for various kinds of technical and other issues that the UNIT

482
02:13:51.760 --> 02:14:08.239
need to do. And the um and this is Anna's suggestion on the sample language. Uh yeah, I I just feel that I would like to do some research, see exactly how other communities phrase this, but at a minimum uh they're

483
02:14:08.239 --> 02:14:25.840
required to use the CPA funds for CPA eligible uses and if they acquire any real property with the fund, um it must have a conservation restriction. >> So we have no restrictions on this until you put us. >> We've never done this before. So, um I

484
02:14:25.840 --> 02:14:42.320
would say that let us let us use this as sample language and should there and Anna between now and the next meeting and the contract won't be signed for a little while. If there needs to be a change, we can vote on that. Um does that make sense? >> Okay. So,

485
02:14:42.320 --> 02:14:58.000
>> so this one's pending. >> Well, I know >> we prove it contingent the language at a future meeting. If we find that there's more language that's needed, we'll we'll change the language. >> We're granting the money

486
02:14:58.000 --> 02:15:13.599
>> without the language. That doesn't sound like >> No, we're granting the money with this language >> with these two conditions. And um before they sign a contract, I may approach you guys and say there's additional conditions we need to put on it. It's

487
02:15:13.599 --> 02:15:29.760
not ideal, but that's how you've done it before >> because there's still some time. It's got to go through the city council and they've got to vote on it. So, we do have >> months time, >> right? Months. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's why that's why if we can get this done now, then Anna can start

488
02:15:29.760 --> 02:15:45.360
the process of getting it through the council. >> Can I ask a a council procedural question? If they can they play with numbers once they see >> they can't play with the numbers, but they can do a yes or no >> and then >> Oh, no. Actually, they can reduce the numbers, but they can't increase the numbers.

489
02:15:45.360 --> 02:16:01.920
>> They can't increase it. >> Yeah. They can say no, they can reduce it, or they can approve it as is. >> In general, they've approved what we've put forward to them. >> Right. It just seems to me that what we're voting on here is they get the money and the only thing we're ever going to vote on again is the words.

490
02:16:01.920 --> 02:16:17.360
>> That's correct. That's correct. >> That's correct. >> We're deciding that we want to give them the money. They don't get the money. It's going to be months before they get the money. And they still have to sign a contract. So we do have some time to add conditions to that contract before they sign it.

491
02:16:17.360 --> 02:16:32.240
>> Correct. Okay. So assuming we will start with this language um and we are looking at $20,000 uh to the conservation commission um for

492
02:16:32.240 --> 02:16:47.760
the purpose of uh using that for their fund so that they can do technical things for the purchase of property. Um I will and this would come out of the uh we what do we we have >> open space we have the full amount

493
02:16:47.760 --> 02:17:04.559
>> space is 276 >> there's nothing >> there's nothing allocated at this point so of the 276 we would um allocate $27,000 20 $20,000 to it >> yeah it's late >> I'll make the motion >> I'll second it

494
02:17:04.559 --> 02:17:20.639
>> um okay all those in favor okay Um, and any opposed? One opposition. So, it's it's eight and seven. Eight and one. >> Eight. >> Seven and one. >> Seven and one. >> A lot of numbers.

495
02:17:20.639 --> 02:17:36.559
>> Seven and one. Yeah. Right. All right. >> Better when we're sitting around a table together. >> I I know that's the one thing about this. >> This is for the video and to raise her hand because when she reviews the video to be able to see. >> Also, to be fair, one of those numbers just recently changed.

496
02:17:36.559 --> 02:17:56.639
>> Okay. Miller's Meadow >> to Oh, do we have to have special language? >> Well, we need to do 7,600 from the open space and the rest from the general fund. >> Correct. >> And the one item that's on the screen.

497
02:17:56.639 --> 02:18:13.519
>> Yes. Which is conditions deemed necessary within the Community Preservation Act. >> So, they can't they can't build a condominium. I think Becky seconded it, right? >> I did. I seconded it. >> Okay, >> shall we vote? >> All those in favor.

498
02:18:13.519 --> 02:18:27.840
>> Sorry, Susan. >> Okay. Any opposed? >> Okay, that's eight. Nothing. >> Jack, can you say the numbers again? >> Uh, yep. It's 7,600 from the open space

499
02:18:27.840 --> 02:18:45.040
and the rest from the general fund. >> Okay. and uh Beacon Field uh 8730. >> All from the general fund. >> All from the general fund. >> I move to And

500
02:18:45.040 --> 02:18:59.120
>> approve. Yeah. This is the language. >> Yep. Approve the uh $8,730 for beacon field enhancements with the the language that they will follow the conditions as deemed necessary.

501
02:18:59.120 --> 02:19:17.519
Seconded. Okay. All those in favor. Okay. Unanimous. Eight. Right. Um Okay. Are there is there anything else that people wish to

502
02:19:17.519 --> 02:19:33.760
approve or change? >> Can we clarify how much is is there some left in the housing fund? >> There is two there's $2800 left in the housing fund. Oh, 2,800. >> 2,800. >> Yep.

503
02:19:33.760 --> 02:19:49.359
>> 80 of the 8280. >> And in the total in the total budget, um there is 2647 470. >> Considering the shortfall this year, I've got no problems with money staying in there. >> Yeah.

504
02:19:49.359 --> 02:20:06.960
>> Any changes that anyone wishes to make? >> I think it looks good and right. So that you know subject to what the final number is but at least 26,470 will end up rolling into our reserves.

505
02:20:06.960 --> 02:20:22.800
Um some of it may be you know allocated to to different categories but we will have some pretty good reserves and start looking at >> y >> at you know other >> other projects next you know in the

506
02:20:22.800 --> 02:20:40.319
coming years. I I actually want a a motion to increase the Museum of Our Industrial Heritage um to cover the full amount to 24,600. Um because we have 26,470 left and I don't think it makes sense to

507
02:20:40.319 --> 02:20:55.359
have them come back to us again next year for $4,600 to finish that project. >> Second. >> So that would come from the general fund. >> Any other discussion on that? Okay. There is a motion to increase the museum

508
02:20:55.359 --> 02:21:12.720
of our industrial heritage project to 24,600 from 20,000. All those in favor? >> Okay. Post. >> Okay. I have a comment then on the conditions we had on them. I that first

509
02:21:12.720 --> 02:21:29.120
condition is that I think that it will be displayed or available in in the building in you know in the industrial and that's a little tiny space and these are big paintings. >> Yeah, you're right. You're right. That should be

510
02:21:29.120 --> 02:21:45.760
>> Yeah. No, their plan is to have them displayed at different places throughout the community. So there could be one hanging over there on that wall. There could be one at the library there. So perhaps change that language to say to the public and just and leave it at that.

511
02:21:45.760 --> 02:22:01.840
>> Leave it at that. >> Okay. All those in favor of amending that language to uh say the funds will be available uh the the uh the >> that the paintings will be available to the public. >> Any opposed?

512
02:22:01.840 --> 02:22:21.840
>> Okay. vote in that amount >> 20 26 246 and um whatever that looks like in terms of the public the >> I would make a motion to just go ahead and fully fund the city clerk to 30,000

513
02:22:21.840 --> 02:22:42.960
from 27. >> Okay, I'll second that. Second. Okay, all those in favor? >> Any opposed? Okay, it's unanimous. Okay. So, any other alterations, changes

514
02:22:42.960 --> 02:22:59.760
that we want to make? >> Then I will >> I'll make a motion to adjourn. >> I think that I would like a second to that. >> Second. >> Thank you. Thank you all for coming. Our next meeting is April. >> We still have to vote to >> Oh, we have have to vote to all those in

515
02:22:59.760 --> 02:23:11.439
favor. >> Okay. Um we have um a uh next meeting is April 23rd at 5:00 pm and this very same play time and