Good evening. Um, we are going to begin the community preservation committee meeting. We still have a few people who we expect to come in, but we'd like to start it to start moving things along. Um, I'm going to read the chairperson's statement. Uh, this meeting is being
recorded by the community preservation committee. If any other persons present are doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this time. Oh, good. you too. >> Okay. Um
I seeing none, I will uh then call this meeting to order and um we'll do the roll call of the members. Becky >> here. >> Donna >> here. >> Wisty here. G
>> here. >> Sarah >> here. >> Victor >> here. Travis, you are you are you are muted or something. I don't know what's happening here. We see Travis, we can't hear you yet. Okay. Um and then Jack is not here.
Okay. Um All right. Um do uh and it was wonderful that we Oh, and Jack is here. I can just enter the waiting. Okay. So, every So, we have a full We have full house today. Great. Um Okay.
Um and uh Sarah did a wonderful job with the minutes as usual. And does anyone have a um any comments about the uh the minutes that uh need to be made at this
time? Motion to accept the minutes as presented. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> I have conversation though. >> Okay. >> Um I just noted that I got there late. I
was in at 6:30 at 5:30 last time. I don't know if that should be noted in the minutes. That's all. >> Certainly doesn't hurt to add it. >> Okay. Anything else around the minutes that folks need to make a comment about
or make a change over? >> Yeah. Who's going to do them in January? >> One thing at a time. >> Okay. Um I'd like to uh then I'd like to call the role and um see if people are
supportive of this. Okay. Becky >> here. I mean yes. >> Donna. >> Yes. >> Wisy. Yes. G. >> Yes. >> Sarah, >> yes. >> Victor, >> yes. >> Travis, >> yes. Okay. Okay. Travis said yes. Uh
Jack, >> yes. >> Okay. Then we the minutes are approved as written. um public comment um as this is going to be a fairly
structured meeting um around us moving forward over this next couple of months. Um we're not going to do any comments around projects specifically in terms of their content. Um and we'll move ahead.
But if there is something around the work that we're doing that uh since Nancy is the only uh non-member of the committee here, if there's something in regard to that that is important, uh please let let us know, raise your hand.
Um okay, new business. Um update on Wisdom Way Solar Village pre-application and next steps. Do you want to kind of put that forward? >> Sure. Um, yeah, you guys might recall that there was a pre-application from Wisdom Way Solar Village, which is an
affordable housing uh condo development down by the fairgrounds, and you guys had voted favorably on it on the condition that we run it by the Community Preservation Coalition, and they actually um had some concerns about it. So, we ended up speaking with uh
someone from the board of the housing development and they withdrew their pre-application. And I didn't put it on the agenda last month, so I didn't tell you, but the um basically what they were looking for was funding to uh to conduct a study of the reserves for the housing
development. Um, ideally so that they would have sufficient they'd be able to charge sufficient condo fees so that they would have a big enough reserve to respond to potential future um maintenance issues. And the coalition
noted that that ultimately is a um housing rehabilitation use. They had framed it as a housing support which it certainly is in like the long trail of things but the immediate use of those funds would have been um well for the
study and then the study is for the purpose of raising funds for a project that would not have been eligible. Um but in having that conversation the coalition suggested connecting that housing development to MHP the mass housing partnership for technical
assistance. So, uh, my department has got that ball rolling, um, just to see if there's anything that can be done. It's kind of a tricky situation. It's affordable home ownership. They've been there for a while and now prices are going up and they're afraid that their income um, qualified residents will get
priced out. So, more to come and potentially a future application with us, but that's why that's not in a pile of applications. You got >> Yeah. One of the things that I've had long conversations about Lyn with Lyn Waldron about this going back over a
year. Um, one of the things is that when they started Solar Village, they did not really understand what they needed to do in terms of housing association reserves. And so, and since everybody's low income, they didn't want to push it
because, you know, it it's a, you know, it's it's an economic issue for anybody who's there. And the result is that now they're in the situation where they've got to replace solar panels, they've got to replace roofs, they've got to do a whole bunch of things and they do not have the money to do it. And so the
question is how do they move forward and keep all of those apartments affordable for the people who live there and not have them, you know, end up going to the highest bidder essentially, which is allowed in their in their bylaws if they
cannot find a bidder, someone to do it within the structure that they have. So it's it's complicated because they've been there 20, 25 years, something like that. And so this is this is you know a major change for for some
>> did you want to say something? >> I mean so Solar Village has been there like maybe 15. >> Maybe 15. Okay. Right. >> I think it might be exactly 15 because that's why their their affordable um deed writer is just now running up.
>> Oh right. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, it's like I mean up upkeep is a is a thing and right there's there's a lot of discussion around like oh everybody should be a homeowner rental renters always get the shaft. It's like
turns out being a homeowner can kind of suck too. >> Right. Right. And and and you know and this is so this is the issue. This is the kind of thing that people didn't think about when they were first pulling this together and now, you know, it's kind of backing into it. But it's also looking at it from the point of view of
if there are other similar developments around the state, how should they, you know, handle this so that it because there is an interest in some kinds of of uh affordable condo developments as well, but the same issue will come up for them. So, so that's
>> so okay. Any questions on this or comments um in regard to knowing where things stand right now? But thank you for that detailed. Yeah. >> Yeah. We just couldn't we have it didn't get onto the agenda last time so we couldn't talk about it.
>> Okay. Um, every year we try to do outreach and every year it's a rush to get all of this the work that we're going to be talking about today finished and then try to do the outreach and we never do it as well as we'd like.
So, what I I asked Becky if she would be willing to head up an outreach working group that would report back to us no later than April to be able to, you know, put together a plan that would
make some sense and and that we could then discuss and put into operation. And so, uh, first of all, I'm wondering if that's something that people would think makes sense. And then the second question would be having two people who would be willing to be on it with with
Becky to to work on it over over the next period of time. So the first thing is does this make sense? >> Yes, I think so. >> Any other comments? We've got two I think so over here. >> I think it makes sense and I'm I'm happy
to join Becky if um the board feels fit, the committee feels fit. Any other questions, comments? >> I I think it's a it's a fine idea. You know, we've sort of we've batted it around a bunch like, oh, how do we get
more people to put in more stuff? Um but the right the fact of the matter is you have to have control of the facility you want to put the stuff on. >> Right.
>> Right. And so that limits it, you know, by by our rules. Like it's great to be like, "Hey, all you random people in Greenfield, you should come up with, you know, things to tell what other people should do on their property."
Um, and then we have to be like, "No, you can't actually do that." >> So, are you signing up, Garts, or what? >> What was that? >> Are you signing up? >> Um, no.
>> I mean, I'm I'm I'm I'm fine fine with you doing it. And it I think, you know, I think it's great to to talk talk more about it. I just I think I think it's it's you know we have there's a structural issue about
how the CPA is >> is organized um such that like doing doing more outreach doesn't get more better projects. Um, so Becky, is there already um do you
already kind of know a for a format like for instance if it has to do with education not just about dates but really helping people understand where they could get information blah blah blah. Um I I might be interested in it. Depends
though on how many meetings there are and how much time because >> Yeah. Well, we don't know any of that because we haven't met. Okay. >> So, but I think that if you and Jack and I got together for an hour sometime in the next month, we can probably sort of
sus out what would be the things that we want to pay attention to over the period of time pre-application that would be helpful to the community because it's not just about what you do on other people's property. It really is
about what does the CPC do anyway. So, I think it's more about a general sense of I mean, I get asked that all the time. Oh, you're sitting on the what? The community what? >> Uh, if it helps because I don't value
free time apparently. I'm also on the board of directors of GCTV. >> Oh, we could come and have a little >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. So, that they do they do local radio and TV. >> Yeah. So, that would be a methodology that you could pursue.
>> Okay. Okay, I'm going to back us up a little bit. We need to Oh, I'm sorry, Travis. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yep, we can. >> Okay. I I had to call in on my phone. Um Uh I guess I just wanted to point out
that if we're forming a subcommittee, then >> No, we are not. We are forming a working group. >> Okay. whether it's called a working group or a subcommittee. I I'm looking at a document right now that says it doesn't matter whe whether it's called a subcommittee, a working group, blah blah
blah task force. Um it'll be subject to the open meeting law. If what we're doing is having more than one person work on something that is to uh advise the main body to to make
recommendations to the main body. So, just pointing it out for open meeting law, I think they would need to have publicly posted meetings and I don't know how that jives with the like meetings having to be um hybrid. I don't
know if subcommittee meetings would have to be hybrid or not. That would >> Travis the mayor >> Anna and I were concerned about this and Anna has talked to Kathy and take it away Anna. >> Oh, yeah. I spoke to the city clerk with exactly this concern, Travis. Um, and if
we are to form a formal subcommittee, then yes, it um we would have to be careful that it's not approaching the volume of a quorum. Um, which if it's three of you guys is not a big deal. Um, it would have to be posted. It would not
have to be hybrid per the new hybrid ordinance, but that was my number one fear because that would mean that I would have to come and open the meetings. Um, according to Kathy, a a working group of less than um a potential quorum of the committee is
allowed to basically meet and do some planning as long as what as long as they're not making any decisions for the commission. I'm not looking at the document that you're looking at, but that was that was what I was told because I had this exact fear that we
would basically be creating a whole new committee. And if out of an abundance of caution, we wanted the three of us to meet at the housing authority, I'm happy for us to post the agenda. And so if someone from the public wanted to sit in, they could if we wanted to be
cautious. Um I I've heard Travis that it's more than two people regardless of quorum. And so I think whoever is the final say, which I think in this point would be the city clerk, but also the
city attorney has to weigh in. Uh if we want just abundance of caution, I'm happy to host. >> Jack and Becky would be great. If it's if it's two people who gather and that does not have those requirements, would that be enough that Jack and I could put
together something to bring to the meeting and ask you to consider and then we avoid I mean I'm not opposed to having it be hybrid and open, but >> it's just it's a lot it's a lot more organization to do that for something
that's basically what what do you want to do, you know? So, yeah. So, why don't we do it as two? >> Mhm. and um and Jack and and Becky and um then we'll um you know we'll ask you to come back by April if you want to
come back earlier to tell us what you're thinking about that's fine but we'll we'll move ahead with that understanding if that's okay for everybody. >> But can I ask something else then? >> Um I think that's a great solution and those two would be great. Meanwhile, I don't know like if any of us not on that
committee even have a thought or an idea. Can we send it to either of you guys or both or >> just one? I would send it directly to Becky. >> Yeah. Send it directly to >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, do we need to have any We don't need
a vote on this, right? Do we need a vote? >> I think that you do. That was what I was told when I set up the even though it's not a sub subcommittee and nobody say the word subcommittee. >> So could I have a motion then on a working group of Jack and Becky to look
at outreach activities for us and come come back to us with some ideas. >> Yes. So moved. >> Okay. And a second from Victor. Okay. Are is there any further discussion? Uh, seeing none, I will call the RO.
>> Okay. Becky, >> yes. >> Donna, >> yes. >> Wisty, >> yes. G, >> yes. >> Sarah, >> yes. >> Victor, >> yes. >> Travis, >> yes. >> Jack, >> yes.
>> And I'm a yes. Okay, moving forward. uh review of the fiscal year 2026 budget. >> Yeah. Um I'm I'm trying to decide how into the weeds we want to get right now. I just thought because as you guys saw
the the requests from the grants was large. It's worth kind of calibrating to what we actually have. Um so I think I'm going to try to share my screen. Uh Zoom people, can you see my screen? >> We can.
>> Okay. So, what I'm showing you is basically what is in the CPA fund as of right now. Um, one thing you might notice is that the fiscal year 25 revenue is not the exact
number that is reported to the state and is in uh the spreadsheet that I sent around. Um, what's reported to the state is the uh is the amount we're supposed to have. Um, and so the slightly lower amount uh reflects that there's a mixture of some unpaid tax bills and
abatements that uh might end up reducing it, but it's close. Um the total that we have uh in the fund right now is just shy of 350,000.
Um which is halfish of of the dollar amount that was asked for. Um you also proposed a budget for uh for fiscal year 26 spending back in the spring. Um,
I think I can show you what that looks like if I do that. No, maybe not. Do you have to stop the other one to put in this one? >> Sure. And just try again. There we go.
There we go. So this was based on um the assumptions you had about what was going to come in from the search charge and the state match. You underestimated which was good. Um so we have slightly more of that but the plan at that time was to
spend or reserve 10% for open space, 10% for historic and 30% um for housing. Um so that that's a commitment that you made at that time. um that will be easy to do again based on what was asked for.
Um I don't know if there's if there's other details people want to look at now, but I'm going to make sure all of both the spreadsheet that I've been working on tabulating everything and these more formal things are in the shared Google Drive so you guys can peruse it
yourselves. >> And all of these numbers include the um state money as well. Yes, >> that's correct. >> Okay. So, that's our maximum amount of money that we we we have available to us. Um, any questions about what our
budget looks like? Actually, 2:1 is better than we've had for for several years. So, yeah, we we've been we've been more like 3 one and sometimes a little bit more than that. So, did you have a did you make a decision about holding back any particular amount of
money in that spring just to set it aside to maybe add to a larger project? somewhere down the line. >> We did not at that time. We we we did not at that time. Um and we can always do that at any time. >> So basically what happens when you set
the budget is that you're setting a budget a minimum for each of those um substantive reserves and then the rest is the is also kind of a big reserve essentially. Um so you're not necessarily committing to not spending
any of that but that's all of the the extra. And so what you did last year, if I understand correctly, is um just spent out of the uh the flexible account, but you still made your minimum 10% for the
project categories. You just spent out of the flexible account. Um and that was the lowest as as you saw, that was the that was the lowest that you had spent in the three years. So there was a little leftover. >> That was to get us into sync. what what it was happening is that because we have
a um a a July 1 to June 30th um budget year, but the state funds come in like in October or November. We were never quite sure how to make it all work and know what we had to to work with. And
so, um the decision was to hold back one year, try to get ourselves into sync and and then we could we would be able to do this. So um we that's where we are right now. Um now we you know again we don't have to spend every dime of that if we
don't uh we don't choose to. We are required to maintain the reserves of 10% um in each category and if we don't spend it it just rolls over into that category for the next year. Donna.
>> Yeah we may be getting into this later. um regarding past projects, but my question is is there any we obviously have money encumbered for past projects and sometimes people don't spend all the
money. Is there any um indication that there will be some leftover from uh funds that we've already granted that don't get used? >> Yeah. Um there are uh it's not reflected
in the city's accounts yet. So I was just drawing up my own spreadsheet and I used the committed amount out of an abundance of caution. But that's a very good point. The a couple of the wreck projects came in. It's it's changed. It's like a couple thousand dollar under budget for them. Um I'm not sure that
it's all reflected in the city's accounting yet, but yes, that means that the total pot will be slightly higher. It's it's not huge, but it it is a bit When will we know? Do you have any idea? >> Um, I was told they would be finishing
closing out the fiscal year 25 books imminently. I thought that would mean before today, but I was wrong. Um, but hopefully before our next meeting, I'll have the exact dollar amount. >> Great. So, be before we start allocating. That was my >> 100%. Another question if I may. Sure.
You can do it to this committee. Um, how does it work when it comes to a process looking at these projects you're drawing? you're going back as far as 23. Do they have timelines when their monies are supposed to be spent? >> It's dep it's been project dependent. Um
uh so each project has its own contract and I've noticed some of the contracts say for a period of a year for a period of three years and then as I understand it the committee will grant extensions >> if necessary >> if necessary >> and as our payments as as needed. In
other words, we don't give them a block of money. They send us a bill and we send them a check. >> Yeah, it's all reimbursement. Um, and it just depends on the type of project, how the reimbursement works. >> Okay, that's actually not totally true because the uh the projects that are where the dollars are being spent by a
city department, which is like the recreation department does a bunch of spending. They spend directly out of the account um uh for their contracts. But all of the private contracts um is by reimbursement, >> but we don't have any requirements on.
In other words, if it's a 20 22 23 project, we say, "Okay, the end of 26 is done. We're taking the rest of the money's being pulled back and put in our pot." We don't do that. >> What do you think? >> Gen, generally speaking, we ask that the projects be as close to shovel ready as
possible. Um, and we try, you know, but sometimes there have been problems that nobody anticipated. Usually we want them done within three years. But if it's something that, you know, nobody foresaw and they will come back to us and say,
"We think we can get it done in another year," then we're probably going to say, "Yeah, go ahead." >> I was just thinking of tying up money. We just got money that's hanging there that's doing nothing. You know, that's on the onus of the people said they said they needed it, but you said you needed it, >> right? >> You haven't used it, so maybe you don't really need it. We got someone else who
could use it. Pull it back. So, I don't know if we did that. That's all. >> Yeah. No, we we absolutely would do that if it if it makes sense, but we would re it would be on a a program by program basis. >> And it partly depends like when they were do trail building and stuff, they thought that they could get a contract with the trail builders at a certain
point, but then that took much longer. That was out of the hands of the people who had applied, which was the rec department. You know, there are those kinds of issues that come, >> right? I'm not used to that, but that's okay.
Okay. Anything more around the budget um that we would like >> Can I can I stop clarification? >> So we looked at two numbers. We looked at the one that was 348 or whatever that first number was that we saw and then the second number was
two something which is how much we had budgeted for this year. So unless we do unless we budget more money for this year, we only have the two something right now, right? Like >> for this fiscal year.
>> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, that's the amount that you budgeted for this fiscal year. So there is 350 and change um in in the fund itself. But um I guess that isn't a question I know the answer to of how
much flexibility you have in spending beyond your budget. >> The issue was >> since our budget was only it's like right it was 10 10 1030 and then everything else >> well we didn't have
>> we could like everything else could be you know any of that overage >> or we could add it into the 10 1030. >> Yeah. Yeah. It would it would still be we would still have to do 10 10 1030. >> We'd have to minimum.
Um that's the minimum that we have to do. They the we didn't have the amount of money from the state to include in that which is when when we set this budget up. So that's part of the difference for sure. >> Yeah. At least partly.
>> Okay. And I clarification >> that's how it's been every year. Like we typically have more money in the accounts than what we've budgeted for that year and then that gets rolled over to the next year and then we budget that as part of the budget for the next year.
So I guess I I'm I'm just I guess I just want us all to be clear on what the actual number is of the amount that we can put towards projects this year. Um, and it sounds like it's probably the two
something unless we go through some process we don't normally do to try to access the remaining funds. >> Well, that was a that was an estimated budget, right? Because we didn't know exactly what was going to come in. Um,
so I'm I'm assuming that that is the framework that uh that you're supposed to follow for allocating projects, but I don't know that you have you certainly don't have to spend that much. And I guess what I'm not sure about is whether you're allowed to spend more because there is more in the account.
>> Can we put this onto the agenda for next month? And meanwhile we will check on exactly what the number is that we we are working from because I think they this was an estimate based on not having the information from the state and so
based on what we had in in available to us at that time. Um and so this would um be helpful to know, you know, what we can access and especially since the books are being closed out in the next week or two. Um then we'll have we'll
know exactly what is available to us also from things like the projects that um that we uh we still don't know if they they spent all their money. Jack, >> I was just wondering if it makes sense for us to have this discussion after we've met with the applicants before we
do our final deliberation because maybe we do want to talk about doing a revision to, you know, make the budget 300,000 if that's something that's allowed. I'm just thinking since we we will ask the applicants questions about
if we can't fully fund you, what is your alternate or how much would you need? I think it'd be a better discussion to have after we've had those questions answered. >> But if we can get a verification of exactly what the total is there, then we
can make the allocation discussion afterward. >> Okay. >> Hey, can I ask one question? >> Sure. >> Is since this now is our first year since we've cleaned everything up. >> Yeah. So what we did in the past um won't necessarily apply to this year
because this is a clean slate year, >> right? So so this what has happened in the past is that we've ended up not knowing what the state money was going to be and when it and we were and it came in after we had done our deliberations, right? So it didn't make
sense. We couldn't we couldn't go back and and do something. Now we know what this year's money is and you know but we don't get that information until until fairly late. So we don't get it until like >> Yeah. I just we don't have to worry about doing things differently because it is a different year.
>> Right. Right. Right. So, you know, and we could spend all of it. We could spend some of it, but we need to know exactly what's available to us. Okay. Anything more on this that folks want to talk about? Okay. Okay. So, we'll move that along
and put it onto um the the um part of the January agenda. All right. Now, scheduling. Um what we learned last year was that we
had always done three proposals per meeting up. Um and last year we found that we had worked with the pro um the proposal process enough and with the proposal um
application enough so that some of the questions that we had had previously asked of of uh a of prospect of prospective applicants um we didn't need to ask anymore because we had the information already. So it meant that
the meetings went more quickly. So what what I'd like to suggest is that we do four applicants per meeting. And with 11 applicants, that means we have we need three meetings instead of four to be
guaranteed over the months of January and February. Have a snow date meeting in case we need that. Um and then uh look at look at the possibilities of of having um having
further you know being more deliberative in in March and whether we we would need we could make a decision in February whether we needed a second March meeting but we may only need our one meeting in March. Does that seem logical to people? Okay, I've got thumbs up and heads
shaking and all that kind of thing. Okay. So, now comes the fun part. Um, January. Uh, let me start. I'm going to what I'm going to do is start by week and see
what what what people are available for. Okay. The week of January 5th. I just got to get this turned off. >> Okay. >> Are we are we looking at dates other than our normal meeting dates? >> Yes. Yes, we can. we can look at uh we
need a date. We can probably do our normal meeting date as one day, but we also need a date before that um in January. So, I'm just going to start um >> Are we also making meetings at 5 now and
not 5:30 or is that >> We haven't determined that yet. >> Um and we'll get to that as soon as we get some general meeting dates because that may make a difference for folks. So, the week of January 5th, is there a
date that folks would like to meet? Is Thursday the 8th a possibility? Let me start that way. >> I'm not good on Thursday. >> You're not good on Thursdays. Okay. How about Tuesday the 6th? If people could give me a thumbs up or
something just to let me know. Tuesday the 6th. It's okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, and are you going to be here or not here? >> Uh, probably not here, but I am emailing Terry.
>> Okay. Okay, good enough. Okay. So, um, so then Tuesday the 6th seems like a possibility. Okay, then let's write it down and not then freeze it in stone. >> What time? Um, now this is going to be a
question of when facilities are available. >> Does look like city hall and John are both booked starting at 6:00 p.m. on the 6th. So, um, >> check here and check the fire station. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'll have to email the fire
station to check, but I can check the library. >> Okay. And then if we go by our normal meeting date, our normal meeting date would be >> 22nd. >> The 22nd.
>> 22nd. >> Yeah. And and wait, the 22nd, not a Thursday, though. >> Yeah. Thursday. No, >> that that one works. First first one's in the month. >> Yeah. >> First three. >> So the the um that's our regular CPC meeting.
>> Terry says he's not available on Fridays. >> Okay. I we're not looking at Fridays right now. Okay, cool. All right, then let's look at February. Um, so we've got two two already. This is good. This is very good. Okay, week of
February 2nd. So, >> do we need we need four? >> We need we need a Yes, we need four. We need three that we're you know, we can definitely and the fourth would be a a snow date. So, for instance,
>> I don't know whether we'd want to just say we're going we're going to do our our February our February regular February meeting and but then and wait until March, you know, if we have to do an extra or if you want to um if if you
want to start with a an early February meeting and then we've got everything done and then we can start deliberations on at our meeting um at the end of of February. It's your call. >> So these meetings are to meet with applicants. >> That's correct. >> So we only needed three.
>> We only need three for meeting with applicants, but then we you know so we can >> four and and we want to have a snow date just in case we have to not have to close the meeting down. So February second and the 10th. I'll I'll be away
on the 26th regardless. >> Okay. Wait, is the 20 when when is president's? >> It's the 16th >> President's Day 20th. >> 23rd. >> It's the six The 16th is the President's
Day week. 16th through 20th. >> You're right. 16th is President's Day. Our our meeting is scheduled for >> our meeting is scheduled for the 26th.
>> So we could just do our meeting on the 26th and have that be a meeting with um with applicants and then if we needed another meeting we could do an early meeting in March and we could decide on that. >> The conference room is not available on
January 6. >> Okay. So library is not available January 6th >> on the on the 6th. It is available on the 8th. It is available on the
uh 7th and you and we'll we'll need more than an hour. >> Yeah, yeah, we'll be we'll need we'll need our full hour and a half. I think if we're meeting with four people, we should four groups, we should
plan on at least giving them a half hour each. You say >> what we found is that it what I'm trying to do is say say that last year we found that >> we ended early, >> but we could still plan two hours and early.
>> Yeah. Right. Right. Right. But but we we what we generally do is have them come in do a short presentation and then we ask questions and what we found is we don't have to ask as many questions as we used to. That's what we learned. So >> you said the seventh is available here.
>> Um no I did say that but it's not conference room. So Susan, I just want to say one thing about what you just said is I think one of the things that we found was because we had so much information on the applications, we didn't need such a presentation from them. Yeah. And that was one of the
major places where we saved time is they didn't need to introduce. >> No, they just needed to, you know, quickly >> answer questions and stuff. >> So it it it worked pretty well last time. So, um, we should be able to do four. And in general, we were able to do them in an hour and a half. Maybe, you
know, there was an extra 5 minutes or so, but we were we were able to do it. Okay. So, I'd like to get back to February. So, do we want to have a regular meeting in February be another one of our meetings and then decide on
uh the 26th if we need anything further um in March, another meeting in March. I mean, let's say let's say we're snowed out. If we're snowed out in February, then we're going to have to figure out a March meeting. >> So, do our regular CPC meeting on the 26th,
>> but let's hold that. Yes. Good. >> And then let's get get ourselves a March date. >> So, we didn't say anything February. >> We didn't decided to just do the medic regular >> if Gar's going to be away. Should we move it so that Gar can be here and you have maximum visibility?
>> But, but then we but we have to that's our regular meeting. So, we We I suppose we can change it if you want. G, can you be here earlier in the month in February? >> February 3rd is open here. >> Just wouldn't I'm probably not be able
to make that that >> Okay. How's February 3rd? >> Okay. >> I can't do the first week of February, unfortunately. >> Okay. Second week of February, the week of the 9th.
>> How's the 10th? Does the 10th work for people? >> The 10th was doable. It sounded like there wasn't a room. >> I I have a conservation commission meeting on the 10th. >> Okay. How about the 11th? >> 11th.
>> Sure. >> Going once, going twice. Okay. Our CPC meeting for the month of February will be on the 11th. What if we don't have a space to have it? Then then we'll get back to everybody and we'll make a change in the meeting.
>> We have a full on >> no the diff this is why our working group >> February 11th. >> So February 11th is what we're looking at right now. >> The library is not available. It will probably be city hall.
>> Okay. >> You could keep the 26th on as your backup date. >> That's actually a good idea. >> That's a good idea. Okay. So we'll keep the CPC. This is the CPC backup is the 26th. Okay. So, we have four dates. >> Yep. We have four dates.
>> Oops. Go over them again, please. >> The four dates are >> January 6th. >> January 22nd, February 11th, February 26th. >> Generally speaking, somewhere 530ish. Is
that what we're >> That's what we're looking at. Yeah. It we just don't know if it will be 5 or 530. that'll depend on availability of space. Um but the idea would be that the if we can do it and we have we don't have snow days then we'll do the two
January meetings, the first February meeting and the uh the backup meeting is our regular date on the 26th of February and then we'll have our um and then we'll move to our regular meeting in in March. Does that sound right to folks?
>> Okay. Yeah, >> I think this is the hardest part of this effort to try should try to get everybody's schedule. Okay, that was good. Okay, >> that was pretty simple. >> Okay. Hey, so can I say something else? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Okay, so just remembering that we were
able to streamline. >> Yes. >> One of the things that I I just now I might be wrong. So I think that I distinctly remember this that we said we don't need people to reintroduce their projects and that was a huge time savings. Then when we stop that, so when
they're invited to come to the meeting, I think we should be real clear on what they need to expect, which is mostly questions from us. >> Okay. It's a good question. >> So the onus is on the committee members to do your homework. That's absolutely correct. That's correct. Absolutely. >> Prepare your questions
>> and and fully know what's in that application. >> Right. And we'll be so Yeah. and and and what you need to know is four of them for that particular night and Anna will tell us who is
coming um before before that date. So everyone will know which groups are coming in what uh to do their presentations and all that. Part of part of the scheduling is also to contact to be able to contact people and say can you what which of
these dates can you make so that we can we can make sure that we have everybody um has an opportunity to do to answer questions. >> Um to that end, can we add Terry to this shared drive? >> Yeah. Who's Terry? Terry Voodoo me.
>> That's right. You're leaving. >> Oh no. Oh, I think Terry should take notes. Okay, >> I was gonna I was gonna leave my template. >> Yeah, >> because it's helpful. It's so helpful. >> Sarah, can you email him and me so I
have his email and then >> Yeah, because I'm going to show all this to him tomorrow, but I don't want to print out a ton of pages on my work computer in black and white. >> Okay. Um so the other thing will be that we will need to I I don't know if we
need to go back to our rotation um process for taking minutes. Um it has been so nice since Sarah did this but we may need to go back to rotation. Um if so what we start we what we did before was we started with people's
first names alphabetically and went and went around to do them. That's the way we did it before. Um, what do folks think? >> I think Victor got lucky. >> I just left the clerk office planning, so I'm not looking forward to it.
>> Should start at the back end. >> Thank you. >> Actually, I am the last one. PW. >> Oh, true. Yeah. Yeah. >> We're going by. >> Okay. Does that make sense? So, in that case, Becky, I think you're up. Is it last name or first name?
>> I'll do the one for this one cuz I'm >> You'll do this. >> I'm in it. Yeah. But for still a member. So, >> right. But for January, I'm talking about for January. >> Yeah. No. Sol you guys. Sorry. >> Okay. Do we want to do first names or last names? >> Whatever you say. >> Do first names. You did first names
before we do first names again. >> Okay. >> Are you going to send us all your template? Will you send me your template? >> I was going to include it in a copy of the minutes from as well. >> Okay. All right. I mean, I would to do them, but I don't think I'm allowed to do them. >> It's over. >> I understand transcript of the Zoom
recordings. >> Oh, yeah. I want to sit and look at all that personally attest is incredibly helpful. Get it off of YouTube. >> I'm sure it's the time frame issue is for me. >> I want to get it done while I'm in the
meeting rather than later. So, what I do is I take a live set of notes and then I go out I go back towards the minutes since so I can get like the exact verbiage of like motions and stuff like that. It helps a lot. >> Okay. >> Never did as well. >> Um,
okay. Let's see. Um, I put I asked how that means I'm taking notes when? >> January. >> January. >> Oh my god. Becky >> for that first meeting. first meeting in
January groups. >> Yes. >> I think if this No, if this is a hardship, then let's then we can we can work on that. >> I don't mind helping. I don't know if it's allowed, but I
don't mind helping. It's I I can show you how I how I've been doing it because it's not >> I I would like Can Can you skip me and come back to me cuz January is >> Okay. All right. That's fine. That's fine. In that case, I'm sorry. That's
all right. Uh, Donna, can you could you do it? >> Yeah. And I um I I'm just gonna say it again. I've said it before. There is also an option to pay somebody to do it out of the administrative funds, but I will do January 6th.
>> You can pay me. >> Oh, let's pay Sarah. >> Sarah, are you serious? >> Uh, a little. I like money >> and I've been doing this forever. Plus, I want to keep up with what you guys are doing. >> Oh, I love that
>> because not, you know, under no circumstances did I take minutes like she does. >> Okay. >> Um, if Sarah is willing to do this, we will figure we >> legal. If it's legal, >> I will. >> Yeah, we'll check. >> Yeah, cuz I really don't mind. Honestly, I have to keep up with you guys.
>> No, you're not hanging around. Okay, we will we will check on that. If that's legal, we will do it. Not. It's up to Donna >> administrator. >> We'll let you know, Donna. Donna, that was brilliant. >> I'll chip in. >> Yeah. Really? >> Okay. But I charge by I charge by the letter. >> All right.
>> We'll put $10 on the table. >> Right. >> So, we No, we have we have a 5% admin fund. We We can We can actually pay her. >> That's not even part of the city, so there's no one to complain. >> Okay. Okay. Um, we I put on the agenda
the >> Do you need a motion that or No, >> I don't think we need to do Do we need to do a motion? >> No. Let me investigate first. >> Okay. >> That's huge. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> But you'll warn us in plenty of time, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I know. I can literally I can keep
doing it for forever now. Plus, if I'm getting I need like the cortisol crisis to do the minutes. So, having a reason like I don't get paid if I hold minutes. >> There you go. Oh, they're going to be so mad at me if I don't get the minutes. I need that. >> Okay, we'll work on this. All right,
going on. Um, I asked to have an initial discussion of fiscal 2026 applications. This is this is really about I looked through it and I didn't find for this project that's a
historical project that they had gone to the historical commission. What we're talking about is are there things missing that you noticed when you did a quick look through the applications that you really think are important to remind applicants. We're not talking about
content. We're not talking about usefulness, not usefulness. It's really like is there something that you thought was not being done that needed to be done and that we it would be important to get um the group, you know, aware of
that. That's really what we're looking at right now. So, in looking at these applications, did anybody have anything like that that they Go ahead. >> I have an issue. I It's with the um Miller's Meadow one. >> Um I I think it's been common or
generally accepted that there are no herbicides used. There's not We don't use chemicals in Greenfield. And it seems like that one's heavily on chemicals. and um I know that I personally had a meeting with DPW about
something different and um was told that they were having trouble finding a document but they were sure that it was there someplace. So some you know I mean I think that's important to know. >> Okay. Um
Okay. So was this was this a resolution of the council? Do you know if it was it was a >> I don't know because I just when I read that I was so surprised to see that it was in there in the application and just you know just the assumption that we were not supposed to use chemicals.
>> Okay. So >> I if I could add to that um >> I from a conservation commission perspective um I haven't heard that before and there are people that have used herbicides in Greenfield. Um they
just have to get the proper authorization if it's near a stream or wetland or whatever through the conservation commission. So, um, to the best of my knowledge, that's not true. >> That's good to know. >> On city property, is that >> Well, what I'm sure that what what
Travis is saying is accurate. It's just that other thing was my assumption um, and what I had heard from other places, but he works on the conservation commission. >> So, do you have any document, Travis, in on the conservation commission that
would shed light on this? I no I mean I that's the first I've ever heard that there even could be like a blanket ban on that in the city. So I I don't even know I I can't prove I can't prove the negative that that you know
there is no do but Donna has her hand up too. >> Donna y >> um my comment was not about this one so I'm happy to let you guys keep talking about this one before we move on. >> Okay. So are there so how do fe people want to proceed on this? Um should we
ask the group to check on this? Um do we want to ask Anna to check in with DPW on this? How do we want to do this? You want So I just want to ask this of Travis. Is that okay? >> Sure. So Travis, so um
when NHSP is involved, which it isn't in this, right? Uh, I don't believe it is or well actually I I I don't know. I don't know that off the top of my head. Sorry.
>> But I think they also have their own, you know, recommendations and I I don't think it's like a blanket you can or can't. I think it's it's like project specific. >> Okay. Okay. and and and this project doesn't
need NAGSP. >> I don't know that off the top of my head. >> I would have to look into it. >> Can we let the applicant know that the committee has had some concerns and they will have an opportunity to answer and
respond during their section. I'm just wondering if maybe that's the best approach since they're presenting this as a solution for some reason. Maybe they they have looked at alternatives and this is the last the only thing that's going to work
>> and and for instance it would be good if they were told that they were you know like that they had a a month to look into it and stuff >> right >> like not just hear it that night >> right no that that's why that's why I'm asking these questions so okay so if we could go ahead and I
>> I think the applicant is actually aware of this question um I don't know that they know the answer so if the question is really just is there a city policy against herbicides or specifically on city property? >> I can I as much as we can, you know,
prove a negative, I can dig around and see if anyone has has heard of it just as a task. >> Okay. I yeah I think that >> and I will make sure the applicant knows that that's >> and um because I have heard it from quite a number of places and if it's if
it's not so that would be really good and if Travis's thing what he's saying is so that's a really good explanation. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Any other things? And Donna you wanted to bring up something. Um, yeah. I just I noticed that the city
clerk's um application didn't really have like the budget filled out. I know that they're asking for $75,000, but I'm not sure if that's just for the scanner or if that's I I I was having a
hard time gathering what their um process was going to be and what things cost. Thanks D. I think that's important. Yeah, I I remember going through that myself and wondering about that.
It appears it appears that it's just for the scanner, but we should have that clarified from the expensive scanner. >> Yeah. Um, additionally, there are a few of the applicants that have not come to the historical commission and the vice
chair has been very adamant that if they don't come to us, we're not going to them. And so, if they want our letter of support, they're going to have to reach out to Margo. >> Okay. So, we should we should check each of the >> I believe know which ones because I'm
I'm trying to remember and I can't right now. >> The city folks have not, but I think they're going back and forth with Marggo and I will double check. Uh Museum of Aral heritage, they have one. Spike Sagundo has one. I don't believe the Church of St. Andrew has one, but at the
time of the last meeting, we were in flux with them whether or not they were going to be allowed to proceed. Um and so they would probably be good to have them like come back for the CPC application specifically and that and especially where um a lot of the members
are didn't they come to us for the roof but this is a different project. It needs a new letter of support. >> I think that's the last one if I'm not mistaken. Okay. >> Uh, no, they had one already and Margot
uh, she rewrote it and apparently I'm told it was like an enthusiastic more than very happy report for them. So, they're all set. I believe the Church of St. James Andrew would be last one. >> Yeah, because to us like immediately
>> Can I ask a clarifying question about that? Are we talking about letters of support or letters determining that the historical item is historical to Greenfield? Because those are kind of two different things and they could get both or either of those.
>> So I know that the letter for example of for the Museum of Our Industrial Heritage includes uh verbiage that talks about both. So I think if we can we can request both from the applicants but I believe generally speaking the letters that Margot has written in the past include language that talks about both of those
things in the same letter. >> Yeah. My understanding is that if it is already on the historic register then it doesn't require >> right >> the historic commission sign off. >> But um >> but enthusiasm is appreciated.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, but and these these paintings in particular would not be on that registry because they're they don't have like a like a documents registry of things like that, but like a building automatically would not necessarily need both. But I remember in this one the
verbiage was I it's pretty I think it was pretty clear. >> Um I don't know. >> I think we're going to vote tomorrow on whether or not like I we sent out the draft. So tomorrow we're going to vote on that and then I'll email it to you if it's approved. >> Yeah, I I'm looking at the St. James now
and I don't see anything. >> Yeah, they have I don't think they have they don't have it yet. So, and they they will need it because we need to staying it's old is not sufficient unfortunately. So, >> yeah, it is I believe their buildings are on the registry so they'll need a letter of approval but support would
certainly be would be helpful I think. >> Can we when are you is that completed? Yeah, I think so. Can we go back to the city clerk thing? It seems to me that turning in this application without a budget is an incomplete application. Why
would we accept that at this point? I mean, they had a deadline like everyone else. Other people filled out a budget. They didn't fill out their budget page at all. They left it completely blank. >> At least from what I'm looking at on our
shared drive. And I I don't need to I just feel like that's a little unfair just because they're city clerk. we're going to let them not do the work we're asking everyone else to do in a timely fashion. And believe me, I work for Kathy on
election day and she's not going to want to know that I asked this question, but I am asking this question because I question. >> Yeah. I mean, we have on the first page they say that they're asking for $75,000. Okay. And then you expect >> But they're asking for 30 of the 75.
>> Okay. Sorry. Sorry. But yeah, and and therefore like what >> where did because that's the other thing that we ask where does the rest of the money come from? What's your income? I mean we have two we have like what's it going to cost? What's the breakdown? Is
it going to be staff? Is it going to be equipment? Is it going to be a contract? You know, those are all the kinds of things that we pull together. And then it's also like what's the match? Is it people that are going to work for free? And what's the value of that? is another
grant that you got going to cover the rest of it. So yeah, it is it feels like it's not complete. >> So in my reading of that thing, I thought that that that amount of money was just for the scanner. >> I don't that's >> because there was that picture of the
scanner. >> Yeah. But that doesn't say anything about how it's because they didn't fill out the budget. >> Anyway, that's the point. >> Okay. So, is this a question then of an incomp and I need your thoughts on this. Is this an incomplete application or is
this a um a clarification on what they're asking for for the $30,000? Because we can look at it those two ways. >> Incomplete. I mean, if there's a deadline and that's why it say it's incomplete. It's not a clarification. There's not information. We're not trying to clarify information. It's on
the application. There's no information on the application. >> Yeah. And it does set a precedent. I >> mean, if we wanted that detail, we should have asked them before the deadline >> and or they should have been aware that it it's pretty clear that they should have filled that out.
>> So, wasn't there something about them like we didn't see their pre-application or there was some sort of kathuffle about a pre-application with them, which I'm wondering is a mitigating circumstance. Yeah, that was a separate issue that they were actually the first
one to send in their pre-application before the email address got moved over to me. So, I didn't catch it until afterwards, which is why you guys didn't review it. I'm not sure how that would connect to the budget, though. Yeah. >> So, what do folks want to do? Uh,
Travis. >> Um, yeah, I I guess I was going to say that I I don't remember anywhere in our um like rules or anything about the applications that we won't accept an
incomplete application. So, I feel like whether someone completes the whole application or not, we have it. And then that can be part of the scoring rubric at the end is I think one of the questions is like did they provide all
the information or like did they >> things on time. I think we can rate them lower for that >> at that time. >> That's a little bit of a setup for them to find out all the way at the end they didn't get the money. Whereas if we were
>> upront >> clear about that, if we haven't been clear to date, we should start being clear about what the complete application means going forward. >> Could we not ask them right now? >> I'd agree with Becky, although I'd also
say like we don't really have a particular process for rejecting people at this point, right? We've let people in past the preapp. They've sent in their application. It may be a completely crap application,
but I think we're it does feel like we're committed to reviewing them and right we can be like, well, this one doesn't have the information >> all in favor of rejecting this one.
>> Okay. So, do we want to say that the application again is incomplete? Do we want to notify them that there are there are things that are missing? And then in order for them to
come to us and talk to us about it, we're going to need that information. Well, >> I thought we just said about Miller's Meadows, does that would it help if the person knew it ahead? >> Right. And what I'm asking here, what I'm asking is, do we want to contact the
clerk's office now and say we're missing some information here a and we need that information before you come to meet with us. Um, and give them a date, you know, by by which we need that information.
>> Well, they did submit an application on time and met the deadline. We, you know, it doesn't seem >> it doesn't seem strictly favoritism to say, "Hey, we're going to push back a little bit on something in the application." You, they could submit a revised application
>> or they could, you know, they could come back and have that information at their presentation. >> Okay. Um, what about it? >> They it may be there somewhere. They just forgot to include it or who knows. But >> yeah, I think that um we I mean the
purpose of us having the people come in so they can answer questions is about this process, right? >> Um we don't like say give us your applications and go sit in the corner and we're not going to talk to you until we decide. >> And and the other thing that I think we
need to think about here is yeah, there's the well it's not complete but we've never rejected applications before. we've scored them and if they've scored low, they didn't get funded. And furthermore, we're, you know, this this process and
this money to me doesn't feel like it's about um the meritocracy of filling out applications. It's about us gathering information about what's best for Greenfield. So we could have like a
stellar application that's, you know, just smoke and mirrors or we could have, you know, a really application for something that's really good. Don't we want to give ourselves the space to be able to fund something that's really good and not, you know, be
worried so much about the checkboxes? And it all comes out in the scoring is what I think. >> Yeah. and and I we're being inconsistent because we just said about the h the historical commission that there were certain things that people needed to
turn in late is I mean did I miss that? I think that I think that we're talking about this in a different way that we just have talked about two other issues >> but that's not reviewing the application. The application was okay. There's there's documentation that's
needed by them to support the application. We had no issue with the application. Point of Becky's point for us as a committee, we should have all our information before we meet with the application applicant. We shouldn't be at the at the meeting with the applicant saying, "Okay, what's your budget?" Because then we're going to have to deliberate at the meeting on something
we've just been told. So if the if they can't complete the application ahead of time to complete, then at least they should be told you have a good chance of being denied. you have to reapply next year because we didn't have the information we needed at the time we needed it to deliberate your
application. That's just being held accountable for your actions. And I think that's perfectly reasonable, especially for the clerk's office. Goodness gracious, you know, they should definitely be accountable. So, why not do that? Why not look at it and say it's incomplete? It's going to chance it's going to score low and chances are
you're not going to get it. If you want to let them know up front, that's fine. Part part of the question that we're asking right now is >> should we inform them >> that we need more or a more complete >> um budget than what was given to us because basically what they gave us what
they gave to us is we need 75,000 we're asking you for 30 of it which and we have that information. What we don't have is is a more complete budget of what it is for >> and probably >> and where the match comes from. >> I would just like to ask them for that.
You've seen this. I'm the second. You're the newest. I'm the next newest. So, it's only been a few years. I don't think there's solid rules about any of this so far. And I would like to say that if this is for
the community to be able to respond, if we want to be able to invite a range of people with a range of backgrounds and a range of writing skills and a range of tuning into applications, then I think that we need to have an amount of flexibility.
Otherwise, you can imagine who we're going to keep kicking out >> and that's not fair. Okay, so let me let me try to summarize where we are. Um, I'm hearing from several people that we
would like to get back to the clerk's office and say to them, "We're missing a more detailed budget. We need that and give them a date by which they have to get it to us so that we would have it before they come in to do their
presentation or and the other the other thing I'm hearing is this is an incomplete proposal and therefore should be rejected. based on the fact that it is not complete. >> If that was going to happen, that should have happened at the last meeting when we went through each of the applications
and said, "Yes, there that's eligible. That's >> No, no, because that was a pre-application. This is the full application." >> Oh, I see. >> This is the full application. Um, so I'm going to I guess I'm going to ask for a straw vote. um in
how many folks are supporting the idea that we should go back to the clerk's office and ask them for further explanation of their budget and have that be something that happens before um >> before January before before our first
meeting. >> It's fine. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Complete the >> Okay. Okay. Um, how many people are just really feel like this shouldn't we we shouldn't be doing >> well, but they don't if they don't have in January, then it's done.
>> Okay. Okay. Why don't we give them our first meeting is what? January 6th. So, why don't we say to them that we have to have it um >> we have to have it by the end of this month. We have to have it by the end of December so that in case they are there
for the January 6 meeting, we have a chance to do >> this. That's a good thing for going forward with other applications too that all missing parts need to be in place before the end of the year >> or or at least before the deliberation happens. So, you know, I mean because
there may be, you know, we may I would like it before the end of the year. we're asking them for for for the end of the year, but there could be other situations where that is a little bit more difficult and we have to make be flexible about >> and I I would like to point out that new people really do have valuable stuff and
you have to and I would appreciate you realizing that every year we've made more rules that have been helpful and we've had more procedure changes that have been helpful. So if you think that even this year we'll get it all in place, you won't need to make changes,
>> forget it, right now. >> Forget it. Okay. Um >> um can I just make one comment? >> I think that Yeah. Uh I agree with Wisty about our process and I think that if we know that this I mean this meeting right
now is flagging things so that we can get back to applicants and say hey you know what you're missing this or we don't you know And it's in preparation for our meetings with them at which point everything should be in. So like
by the time not before our deliberations which are going to be in March but by the time they are scheduled for to come in before us they should have everything at that point. But right now it's the it's the first pass. Let them know what
they're missing. >> I'm just going to beat the dead horse here. when Jack and Becky meet >> about how can we help the community tune in to this conversation. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Based on >> they just don't know yet and how it's
going to get broken up. >> No, they they need to know that. >> Fair. >> Okay. They that that's that's a requirement. They need to know. >> Um and if they don't know, then that's a that's something that we need to talk with them about. Does it make sense,
Susan, to for Anna to send a message to all of the applicants letting them know that this year if there's anything else that you know if they've reviewed their applications and there was something that they wanted us to be aware of prior to our January and February meetings
because we're only going to be reaching out to three or four applicants, but there were nine or 10. I can't I don't have the list in front of me. It's 11 >> 11. So, I'm just wondering if we should >> just send a blanket email to everybody
making sure they're aware that we don't want any submissions past the end of the month for missed items. >> Except then you're not telling the city clerk exactly what they need to produce or anybody else. >> Send them a separate one. You like
>> I guess you could send them Yeah. separately. But >> Well, do we have any other applications that are missing information? I didn't get that impression. Okay. So, that's my next question is is there are there is there anything else that we're concerned about? We obviously have historical comm commission
questions. We have um this question about the city clerk's budget. Are there other things that have come up as you were doing a quick review of of applications and and the herbicide issue? >> Well, and yeah, >> say that this is a new
we didn't do this last year. No, no. I'm just saying that we didn't do this part last year. Like, we didn't do a pre-review. So, I flipped through, but I didn't go through it looking to see if there were missing items. I just got the general overview of what
everyone was looking for. And so, I think this is a great addition. I just I wasn't sure. I wasn't aware we were going this deep. So, I didn't have a chance to analyze it to that level. I think yeah I think this meeting has evolved really cool.
Well, would folks be comfortable? I'm going to have to reach out to all the applicants anyways to schedule when they come in. And so I can say, you know, we are I I'll send that email obviously e either this week or next week. And so say you know if there is something
missing from your application or if there are any pieces that I didn't receive the drop dead date for that is December 31st but like please don't just take that time to get five extra letters of support that we don't care about but
like you know if you if something is jumping out to you just let me know and again the flexible way of doing it this year and then be a little more next year Notably, a good example of that would be that by the time the meeting where we
would vote to approve to send a letter of support for the church is tomorrow, right? So then they're going to have to come meet with us in January and presumably we will give them a letter of support, but at the same time it's like if they're considering that
>> Yeah. if they if we notify them that they need that and we make sure therefore that they have it with them when they come. I mean the letter of support is not as big a big a deal as making sure that we know what the budget looks like. It's kind of it's kind of a
different thing. But I think if they know that they've got to have something to us as early as possible, preferably by December 31st, but if they can't because the the group isn't meeting >> as long as you know that they were approved from that committee
>> because yeah, the church the church >> in in the case of the church, if they are on the registry of historic places, we need something that says that or >> Oh, yeah. I could that too. >> Yeah. But but we we need we we need something. That's what it is.
>> Okay, that's easy to do. I like Okay, tomorrow. >> Okay, go ahead. >> So So that one that has Eric Turog and who's not going to be with us any longer and he's the contact person and and and I think there was reference to that needed to somebody else needed to be on there.
>> Miller smud. Uh yeah, Athena the grant writer and I believe um the conservation agent are both listed as well as contacts. So >> okay, >> I was going to rope her in. >> Okay. As contact. So where his name is
sort of substitute in my head >> their names. >> Ella. >> Sorry. Oh, Jessica Seagull and um and >> and Athena Bradley. And we have a new planning director who is starting. >> Okay. That's no problem. >> Yeah. So there's a no shortage of
bodies. >> Okay. Anything else that anybody ran into that is more specific than generally get your stuff in on time. Okay. All right. Then I'm going to move on. Um
the review of the community project updates. >> Do we want to do this or do you want to table it? It's totally up to you guys. Are there updates like others? >> They're, you know, >> I mean, um, I can I can buzz right through these if you'd like. I just realized that we
>> we hadn't done this in a little while and, um, you know, everyone submitted their quarterly reports um, at the end of September. So, I'm going to buzz through the updates I have for these ones on the list, but obviously for like the housing authority, concom if you
know more and want to share it or people have questions, just chime in. But um the Highland Park trail restoration is complete as of this summer. The water bars and bog bridges were installed to prevent erosion. That was the cool pictures of the uh Aderondac Club um
that we got from Christie. There was an o there were about 3,300 in unexpected funds which will be returned to the CPA fund. So, that one's done. >> They were only able to do half the
initial project, right? >> That was not mentioned in their final report. Um, do you mean by like by like like geographically or like half of the scope? They said >> um I mean initially the Boaz project in
year one there was you know much discussion about the you know degraded path over like around basically around the corner on Bears Den going up a a steeper portion there. Um
I honestly had had no idea that of that they were doing something up up by the the parking lot. I mean, it it looks looks great. Um I'm I'm you know, I'm psych psyched we had a crew crew in there doing it. It didn't didn't at all feel
like what I thought I was voting on. Um that may might be on me. Um you know, I'm I'm fine with >> we did some good stuff for the trails. >> I mean, I think that it was still good value. That was a good example of what um you know what Victor was asking about
earlier because that took forever to get all of the permitting and then when we thought we had everything that we needed in place we were getting Americanore people to do the work and then by the time we got permission for that they were done with
theirs and it was just like a bureaucratic kind of a nightmare >> that project. Um, and so, uh, it took a lot to get it done. And I think that some of the things may not have been done because we weren't allowed to do them. I don't have all of the details,
but I know that it was it was it was a slog. So, it's as done as it's going to get. >> Yeah. >> For now. >> And also, the land changes within like three years. You know, you try to stop erosion, but you got to wait two years
to stop it. What? Okay. It'd be good to get clarification from Christie. Yeah, that was news to me. Um >> my memory is what G was saying. >> Yeah. That >> um Hillside Park, which was a 2024
project, is ongoing. Um so it include included two pieces. There was the shade structures by the splash pad and then extending the walking path at the park to cover the full perimeter. And my understanding is that the shade structures have been installed and the paving will be done in the spring.
>> Um budget >> how's your budget? >> It's tough to say. I mean they I think they had spent um when I looked at the accounts it looked like about half of what they had been but I don't know you know what what parts of that they've spent yet. Um, also in Hillside Park,
they uh have installed the Rube Goldberg STEM play panels um in November. So, that project is actually done and they just need to submit a final report for us. Um, for Rocky Mountain Park and Highland
Park trailfinding. Um, I guess this is another one, uh, like Donna was just saying where basically they had to do all of this mapping of the trails before they decided where to put the wayfinding, which makes sense. My understanding is that the mapping is just about done. Um,
but they have not spent any CPA funding yet. So, they're hoping to do the um, the actual wayfinding signage in the spring or summer. Bike racks at parks. Um, same thing, still deciding on the final locations of the bike racks. Um and then they will
need conservation commission approval or maybe have already asked for that but that's the bureaucracy be behind that and that is also one that hasn't spent any of their CPA funds yet. >> Can I ask another silly question? Who is the they in all of these? When you say they like
>> so far it's the recreation department. These are all recreation department. >> All recreation department >> but they were all put forth by the recreation department. The Highland Park Trail Restoration was a citizen that submitted and whenever someone does a
CPC application, they have to partner with a city department. These things have to be on city land. So, that one also the bike racks was another individual >> application that then um partnered with
the recreation. >> That's a good question. So, do we ever check to see that the group that they're partnering with has the resources and the depth to do what the citizens are asking them to do? >> That's part of this process. >> I mean, I mean, if we're putting things
on the recreation department, it has two guys in a broom, you know, how do we expect it to get done? Do we do that? One of the things we ask is that they have to get they have to have a relationship with the in the case of the
recreation department, they have to have a relationship with the recreation department. They you can't do anything on recreation department. >> I understand. But I mean, but but if we're telling if we're if we're putting things on the recreation departments and uh this year we're going to put in
bike racks, we're going to do trails. They have the resources. Do we find out that they have the Do they come in? They come in. Yes. They come in. >> They say, "Yes, we can." No. >> Yes. We're not the ones who put that on them. >> They come and request money from us.
>> Donna said it was a citizen application. >> Yes. But the citizen put that on to onto the recck department because the rec department's going to do the work. The citizens didn't go out and >> the recck department doesn't do the work. the citizen is required to work with the recreation department and make
sure that um because the recreation department does end up doing coordination around it and sometimes work. Um but yeah, it's it it has to be cleared through the recck department before it'll move forward. Last year we
had one application that had not been at all done nothing had been done with the recreation department and we rejected it because it it it had not it had not cleared those hurdles. >> So if a citizen comes forward like the bike rack thing
>> and they have this relationship with the recreation department but it's really their responsibility the citizen to hire the people who are going to put the bike racks in. Is that what >> you know the the record department hires
the people but the >> because it is city land and it is city respons says this is a good project we like it then the the people putting the application go hire Joe Smith's bike rack and they get it put in at under
budget for why do we care >> why why does the >> money come out because this yeah because the city the city is ultimately responsible >> I agree but if the city signs off on it and says, "This is a good we agree with this application. We like this idea. We're perfectly fine with who you going to use. Let us know who you're going to
use." And they say, "Yep, we know that company. They're perfectly >> I think that's that's negotiated by that's negotiated by the recck department." >> Interesting. >> You know, it's not negotiated by us. That's their That's their call. >> So, it may just be that the recck department has too much to do and hasn't
gotten around to the bike rack issue. Is that part of it? It's like a timeline thing. >> Yeah. >> Procedure simple. four people in the recreation department. >> If you've gone to the parks, if you've gone to the fireworks, if you go to Winter Carnival, Jingle Fest is this
weekend. Yeah, they're busy. They run after school programs. They're super busy. >> Look, I'm I'm I'm also supporting direct department, but I'm saying if we're putting things on them that they really can't manage, that's an injustice to them. It's an injustice to us because we we're not doing
>> We're not putting anything on them. >> No, >> we are. Are we just could she just we are they have to have the relationship. So therefore >> we are not putting anything on them. Somebody asks for money they say yes we wanted to do that project. >> They either do it or don't.
>> Yeah. And they and they do but they are but they're also busy. I mean that's >> it's a ton doesn't give anything to it. >> Right. If Christy came in here and said, "We don't want to do that," then it's a dead project because it can't be done on
city land. And there was one last year where they had not the people who proposed it had not talked to anyone at the recck department had not talked to had not talked with anyone in the project overall and just it was a nice idea. They wanted to do it. They put it
in and we rejected it because it did not happen. I don't I don't disagree with that. It just seems to me that >> seems inefficient. >> We have a rec department that likes to take on a lot. And you know, as a
recreation commissioner, I've been like, you really shouldn't have to do so much, but they sign up for it. So, >> so wait, I I just want to say too, >> the conservation preservation commission, not just here, but around the state, people come in from the
community and they request money. We're not putting that on them. They're request Just a minute. Don't please don't interrupt me. We are not putting them putting anything on them. What we are doing is saying if you want to do that, you need to go to the correct
department and then the department says yes or no. But they're not necessarily putting that on them, nor are they necessarily saying that they're going to do it. >> What I mean by putting it on is we're agreeing to fund a project and then that project is being handed off to the
recreational department to implement. >> That's what I mean by putting it on. >> No, but you got the you got the the the process wrong. >> We the the the person goes to the recck department. person goes to the recck
department and says this is what I would like to do. The recck department at that point makes a decision yes or no. >> Then they come to us and we say yes or no on the money. >> Okay. So that the recck department has already said this is something good. If
you can get the money to do this, we'd like to do it. >> So it's it so we're not we're not saying we've got money here now you got to do it. But Susan, they're not necessarily saying we would like to do it like Christy would like to do it. They're saying we would like to have this done.
>> In some cases, in a lot of cases, it's not done by the recck department, but they think they can trust the people who have come in and asked and that those people will follow through and do what it is. That's correct. But the but it's but the rec department makes a decision about
whether they're going to do it, whether they're going to hire someone else to do it, >> you know, all that kind and that that's all part of of that process. >> But it's not something that we are saying to the rec department. We we've got money here now. You have to do it. >> That's not
>> I think that's what you were saying. That's not how I heard it initially. >> That's fine. We'll let it go. >> Okay. We're at 6:31. Do you want to stay here and finish up these few things or do you want to call it a day?
>> What are the rest of the rest of the project? >> The pickle ball court security deposit. >> I would like to hear it. >> All right, >> go for it. Anna, >> stop me if I'm moving too fast. Um, uh, pickle ball court expansion. Um, so
this was a a a contract that the rec department has with Bergkshire to design to draft the plans and bid ready documents for uh pickle ball at Abberwami Field. Um, according to their report, they hope to have bid ready plans by the end of this calendar year.
That is imminent, so we will see. But they but they are close to the full design for that and they have expended um most of their funds. Um security deposit and rental assistance fund. Uh I just mentioned this cuz it was cool that we got one payment out there. So one
individual has been assisted so far with that. Uh they received I believe over it was just over $2,000 for security and first and last. So a significant significant chunk but you know a huge help to that
>> pay people's rent out of the committee >> uh the security so security not rent right >> you said first and last months >> yep yeah that's for the purpose of letting them move in right so um this was I think I understand a
quite a back and forth with um the community preservation coalition last year but that type of project which is report that would be the dis deciding factor between whether somebody is housed and not is allowed. And that's in contrast to like what we were talking
about earlier with the um the reserve study. Jack, did you have any >> No, I think you covered it well. This um this person would have been homeless without this assistance and they didn't qualify for raft. So this is was using
it exactly how the committee last year wanted to see it and the public feedback um asked us to do. So I think it was a big win. >> Thank you. >> And there's there's an additional one for this year, right? Because last year
there was some discussion about like could could we up it and there was a lot of community support for having it be more. >> Yeah. And so that's why we came back and I'm sure there will be questions when we get to that. But um we did come back based on that feedback last year
>> that qualifies in our little grid as something that is valuable >> housing. How does it preserve housing? >> It's not just preserving housing. The >> there's a grid. >> I saw the grid was saying how it fit in.
>> It fits in the square that said support. I see. Yeah. Okay. Um, also on housing, Habitat for Humanities home on Birch Street um finished their site work this fall, so they've been paid most of their CPA contract, but we keep uh a 10% um that
they will get paid when the project is done. Uh it's wicked cool. Jack and I got to go for a habitat build day and make a little table. Um it looks awesome. And I don't know if this was shared with the committee, but uh they did their lottery, their process of
filling the home, and the person who is going to be moving in uh is being displaced from her apartment right down the road, >> which is right next door, >> which is really kind of amazing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um and lastly, the Wall Street shelter expansion. Speaking of projects from
20123, we have finally uh chipped in our CPA funding. So that we is about to be closed out as far as we're concerned. They're about halfway done with the construction is what they're reporting now. Uh you can see our banner on the outside. It's really cool to see it
progressing and they still plan to be done with the um with the PSH units by May of next year. >> Yeah. >> Wow. May late May, early June. We can expect that there will be people living there. Amazing. >> Wait, not not in 2026.
>> 2026. late May, early June, there will be people living at in that in in both the the shelter and in the new apartments. >> Holy cow. >> Yay. >> And that's all I have. >> Okay. Any any questions for Anna on any of those?
>> Okay, with that, we have talked about when our next meeting is going to be, so I will entertain a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All those in favor. Okay, we're good. Okay, thank you very,
very much. We'll see you in January. Have lovely holidays, everybody. >> Thank you. Take care.