This mean meeting is being recorded by the community preservation committee. If any other persons present are doing the same, would you notify the chair? Anybody? So, okay, we're good. All right. Um, so
I'm calling this meeting to order at 5:37. Um, and um, I want to call the role. Um, Becky here, Donna
here, Wisty here, G. Here, Sarah here, Peter McBy is not here, but he uh we will explain why in a moment. Um, Travis
here. And Jack, yes. Okay, we have a quorum. Um why don't we just go to the planning board um before we even start the the process. Yeah, sure. Yeah, as an announcement, the planning board has selected a new
design for this committee. So, uh Peter is out and the new design is Victor Michella, and he just wasn't able to come this month, but he'll be joining us next month. We look forward to seeing him. um like to do uh the uh has everybody had a
chance to read the minutes and uh are there uh is there a motion on the minutes? Motion to accept the minutes as presented second from guard. Second, Becky. Okay. Um is there any discussion?
Okay. Seeing none, I'll call the question. Um, we have to go through the role. Um, okay. Becky, yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, Donna, yes. Wisty,
yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Jack, yes. And I'm a Yes. Okay. Um, before we go to public comment, well, let me let me do public comment first and then I can talk
about what we're going to be doing. We are going to be going through um a process of reviewing the pre-applications for the purpose of making sure that all of them fit the guidelines of the law. We are not
looking at the um the whether we're going to fund them or anything like that. I just want to make sure everyone understands what we're going to be doing. Um with that said, is there any public anyone do want to do a general public comment? not comment
about the specific proposals that are are before us. Seeing none, we will move on. Okay. Um so as noted, we're going to be going through we've got 17 proposals that have come before us. We're going to go
through each one individually. Um and we will at at um at at as we do each one we will have whatever discussion we need if there are any questions that we might have in terms of the uh the content of
the proposal or the plan for the proposal we will ask that and our purpose as I said before is to make sure that it meets the requirements of the community preservation act and not that whether we agree with it whether we don't. Okay that's that's where we are
at this point. Okay. All right. All right. With that, um, would you like to Anna's going to put the the first proposal up, which is the Wisdom Way Solar Village? Going to go through them by category. Are we going to go through by category?
We're going to go through by the by the numbers on in the in the agenda. Perfect. Can folks see the slides? Yep. Yes. Thank you. Um, just wanted to situate you guys in the timeline, especially for our applicants.
This is pretty early in the process. And those who meet the qualifications after this meeting and are invited to apply, your applications won't be due till November 17th. And then, uh, it's a winterlong process and we would expect funding to start rolling out next
summer. Um, and last slide before we get to uh proposals themselves. The committee wanted to ask folks how they had heard about the CPA on uh this year's pre-application. So, I just gathered the
responses. Um, by far the modal most common response was that the applicant was themselves a past participant or had heard about it from a past participant, which is probably not surprising. So, what did we get? We got three open space pre-applications, four for
historic resources, six for recreational land, and four for community housing, which looked a lot like the spread from past years as well. So, the first proposal was the wisdom solar village reserve study and the applicant is the board of trustees of
the wisdom way solar village village condominium trust. Let me just ask to start out with does anyone have a particular question? I know Lyn Waldron from the Wisdom Way Sol village is here. Um, are there any questions about this either in relation
to CPA requirements or in relation to what is written before us? I guess my only question is in the allowable you know what's allowable um for housing support says yes provided
the housing asset itself is made affordable by the expenditure. So my question is how does this make the housing affordable when it would not be affordable without this extended? That's a great question. Um I I guess in
my 10 years as trustee um it became clear to me that without really good guidance about future expenses, we were not necessarily raising the dues properly. like we might
be frightened and raise them too much or we might not raise them enough. And it was feeling it was creating a lot of anxiety in in a portable community because we felt like we were just a rubberless ship and um that the success
of our community really we feel is good governance for for sure but also um really good data about what we should be aiming for. Uh we, for example, we painted our buildings last year and it
cost us $180,000 to do that. That's a lot of money for a a community that, you know, our dues are not high that high yet. But to to amass those kinds of funds in an affordable community is um
you know we already gotten feedback some of our owners that if the dues go much higher they're they're really going to be struggling um and looking for additional benefits that kind of thing. So, it just felt like the best way to
support this community is to give us good data so that we can really plan realistically what those costs are going to be. So, we're looking down the road at new roofs uh which involves taking off the solar
panels that are part of the association property that was part of the community. So there's there's a lot of expense coming up. Um and without really knowing
how to approach that, how much to save, uh I think creates there's just a lot of anxiety and I think a lot of people are feeling like I'm not going to be able to afford to continue to live here. So I help
is there anyone online? I can only see uh D curl. So is uh Jack. Yeah. So I think the issue is is that two of the units are nonaffordable. And for us to be able to fund a project, it
has to be 100% of the development under or serving less than 100% of the merit median income. And so I'm wondering if this is something that we should bring to the CPC
um team and ask them whether or not we can fund the study based on that affordable restriction. Yeah, I I guess in my initial asking around I didn't see that that was a problem.
um as long as it was majority um you know uh income limited income qualified residents and it's 80 90 um so it's obviously a legitimate question and it might take us out of the
running alto together but I didn't see anything that indicated that that it had to be 100% and the the state is pretty responsive so I think we'll run it by them just in case but my understanding Jack was that we can prorate or support. In other
words, if the study was to cost $5,000, the CP the CPC can give them 80% of that or 90% of that, whatever percent of the units. Um, but I I actually want to triple check that as well. Okay. Thank you.
So, so what what's going to happen now is that Anna will check that with our state association and the state association will then get back to us and we will get back to you. Okay. Um so um are there any go ahead make a motion that we would deem that
eligible contingent the response based on the state because we need an official vote right for each application. Yeah that's either that or we have to vote at the next meeting. Right. Right. So um
uh do I have a second for that to that motion? Second. Okay. Guard seconds it. Uh so are there any is there any further discussion about that? My only concern is that the application
will be due the full app is due after our next meeting. Right. So it would be a matter of procedure allowing them to submit the full application. Yeah. Yes. Our next well our next meeting is
in October but we will um toward the end of October but we will be having another meeting our we will then be really dealing with uh the applications will be due nove in the m middle of November November 17th and then our next meeting will be in December so we will not have
a November meeting so we want to make sure that you have enough time to be able to respond right okay so we we'll take care of that one right away and get back to you very So, okay. Uh, any anything? Well, first of all, we've got a we've got a motion on
the floor. Um, and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, seeing none, I will ask for a roll call vote. All those in favor, Becky, yes. Donna,
yes. Wisty, yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Jack, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. All right. Moving forward. And you don't have to stay. You can. Okay.
Um Okay. Um we're now going on to the bankro restoration. Um and what we have here is um a request for historically accur accurate placement of
failed or failing windows, facade improvement, and bron bronze plaques with construction dates and educational information. Um are there any questions for the applicant on this?
applicants. There's the applicant. Um, I'm I'm very excited. I I don't have a question for the applicant, but I do think that this should be rehabilitation and restoration instead of presentation.
Um, it's just changing check c check box. It's changing the check box. I I'll follow your guidance. Okay. Uh, anything else? Anybody else? Okay. With that, I will um entertain a
motion. I'll make a motion that this project is deemed eligible for the uh 15-year update for 2009 bank row restoration. Second. Second. Any discussion?
Okay, then we will go through the role. All right. Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Listy, yes. Gar, yep. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. J, yes. And I'm a Yes. Okay. So, well set and uh
we're looking forward to seeing the public. Yes, indeed. Okay. Okay. And uh Okay. Uh, the pump track by Clark. Is anyone here for that? Anyone online? Okay. Um, are there any questions about
that that we're going to have to ask Anna to to uh deal with around this question? Um I I do have I do have a question about whether they are um involved with the rec department on this and if there's
been any relationship to the rec department and um because we're talking about um right it's creating wreck stuff so it would need to be right I don't think redell is currently
under control of wreck apartment. No, it's it's not. And um there's also contamination there, which is one of the things that I'm concerned about on Ridal Street property. Um so um we need to go ahead.
In the past, this was an idea that came forward and was uh approved for um the second phase and then um the applicant decided to withdraw the application. So there is a little bit of precedence
about the project itself. Um and I know that the wreck was supportive of that, but it was um going to be over by um the Green River at the uh the park there.
Um so I think my only question would be about the property, the location. Um, so I think that that needs to be uh clarified. Athena, I'm sorry.
Athena, do you have some clarifying information? Uh, yes. Um, the Redell Street would definitely not be an appropriate site for this. In fact, I'm going to be writing a brownfield grant this fall for the cleanup of Redell Street.
Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's that's helpful. Um so really we need to see if there is um a relationship since since if they're talking about Shadic Park. Shadic Park is definitely a recreation uh department
site and so we will need to know whether they have had that relationship with um the recck department and whether that the rec department approves of that use of the site. Um, Donna, has there been any discussion of
using Shadic Park at the rec commission? Well, unfortunately, I have not been to a recreation meeting because of um life circumstances and they are currently meeting tonight. I I did not see it on their agenda.
I'm not sure what level of knowledge Christie has. So, this would definitely have to be a followup with Christie. Good enough. Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll d we'll check on that one. Static Park would be eligible though, right? As long as, um, Christy, the
recreation department would support it. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Um, and the qu, you know, the question is how much of that the land on Cheddic Park is available for this and I I we don't have all that information. So, that that would have to be part of
the proposal. So that there would have to be an agreement on that for sure. Right. Okay. I guess the motion would be that it's it would be eligible if it's on if it's on
Shadic Park and has the backing of the recck department. Right. I'll second. Okay. So, we've got we've got a a a motion and a second,
assuming those things are true. Um, do we have any further discussion? Okay. Going to follow the role. Is this a permanent I have a question. Is this a permanent piece?
I I can't really tell if it's something that you blow up and then take down or if it's made out of cement or does anybody know? It would be permanent. It would be permanent. Yeah. Kind of. Yeah. E either cement or like hard packed dirt depending on how they build
it. But yeah, the cons considered a permanent earth earthworks. I would I would hurt myself on that. Yeah.
Um Okay. Is there uh any other any other discussion before we take a vote? Okay. Um seeing none, we'll move forward on that one. Uh Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes.
G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Chad, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, moving on. Um, Royal Beltman, Inc., uh, the 176
Main Street, affordable housing, at 170 to 188 Maine. Um, okay. Um, Alyssa, could you um say what how this fits into the overall plan for um for
the project? You know, what what the funds you're going to be asking for, where are they going to be going? Yeah. So, that's a good question. um of these funds. So we previously received support through PBP um for pre-development um related to
this project. This request will be for construction. Okay. Yeah. So is this is this matched to state money or anything like that? Yeah, it's local contribution. Okay. Um obviously this is a big project and so we have many funding sources that we're
um pursuing. Um, but this would be the main local contribution that we would be looking for to show the state that the the city is in supportive. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions?
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the historical commission involved briefly in this, I think, because the the area was historic. That's the area with copycat printing and all that. Yeah, it's not it's actually outside of the historic um district, but we have to because we're
applying for state funding for this project, we have to go through the review mass start commission review and they requested that we get um sign off from the Greenfield Historic. I remember that. Yep. Yeah. And so we have that letter of
support from Greenfield. Y any other questions from people online? whom I cannot see. I just say I'm excited to make a motion about housing because this is one I could this is one I could vote on this
year. So is that a motion that you are making to support this project moving forward? It absolutely is. Okay. Do I have a second? Yeah. Okay. Second from Becky. Um, any other questions or comments in regard to this
right now? Okay, seeing none, um, uh, Becky, what? We're voting. Yes or no? Sorry. Sorry, I'm still reading that. Yes. Yes. Mard.
Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Jack, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Thanks, Alyssa. Thanks for coming in.
Okay. Uh, Museum of Our Industrial Heritage, Greenfield Tech Pendy Milestone paintings. Um, okay. Um, if everyone had a chance to read this, um, the the museum has uh
some um has been given some paintings and basically this is to restore them and to preserve them um for public viewing. I included one. I didn't want to squish it on the Oh, I remember that one. So,
are there questions? No, but you're very lucky. I want I wanted some of that. Oh, you know, in light of the can of metal plant closing, that's where we got these from. Yeah, I I worked there. I remember seeing that on the wall.
Yep. I remember I I went upstairs. I saw the blueprints. It's fantastic. Lucky. So, we were lucky to get these because some things we missed, some things we got, but this was really what we kept our eye on. So, um, anyway, they're
they're very historic. They're, um, they're in really remarkable shape. They really just need a cleaning. But the goal would be to show them somewhere public. Yes. So, that is the goal. Right now, they're in
storage in um, so shipping shipping boxes and climate control, so they're safe. And uh this would this is the plan. So great. Uh the only question I have um
has the historical commission yet determined that these are locally historically significant? Uh not officially. Yeah. Because I think that's that's the only thing we would require. Yeah. Well, you know, given that it's what
when Kennedal closed, that closed an era of over 150 years of one of the most iconic brands in the industrial world. Um, we should be doing something to remember. I mean, it made us sound
wealthy. Um and uh the thing is all every one of those paintings are totally authentic to Greenfield. Um there's examples of the other ones if anybody wants to look look. We will look later. We'll look at the next one.
Well, I'm sure they would. I think just for process, we need to have the historic commission be like, "Yes, these are officially great." Right. So, so what we're telling you is we need you to meet with the historic
commission. Sure. And try to get a get a letter from them to as part of your proposal. We'll do. All right. Thanks. Okay. So, with that understanding, um, do I have a motion? Um, I'll make a motion that we accept
this as an eligible product given a rel a letter from the historic society that they supported. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Um I uh any further questions or comments?
The commission, not the society. Sorry. No, no, it's it it unfortunately it actually is important to distinguish. Yes. True. Okay. And what would be a time frame for this get the lender? We will your application is due November
17th. So it would be before before November 17th. If there if there if there is any glitch in that process, explain to us what the glitch is. And what would happen is that we would until we got that letter, we probably would
not be able to if we agreed to fund it, we would not be able to fund it until we got the letter. Okay. Okay. And so in the meantime, I will get estimates on Oh, yeah. what it cost. Absolutely. Our next meeting is on Thursday. Next Thursday.
Your next meeting? Yep. Okay. Okay. I'll get on the agenda. Hasn't been published yet, so you have a chance. I know Margot is traveling, so it might be delayed, but it hasn't been published yet, so you you have that opportunity. I'd get a hold of her sooner rather than later.
Okay. Okay. Okay. So, with that, um, can I have a vote? Um, Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes.
Travis, yes. Jack, yes. Me, and I'm a yes. Okay. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Greenfield Conservation Commission.
This is to set up a fund that would be used for conservation commission um activities of various kinds in terms of protecting land or acquiring land um and
preserving agricultural land. Um so is there anyone here from the conservation commission either online? I can talk. I can you can you can speak to it. Okay. Okay. So, um and just to clarify, um the conservation
commission already has the conservation fund. Okay. This would just be to add money into it, right? The fund is currently at 0. Okay. Uh are there any questions for this? I'm not sure if what I'm going to say is
accurate, but I didn't I thought something had come up in the fairly recent past about just putting money in a fund and that that wasn't something that we do. That was the housing the which is actually back on the docket for this year. It was it was going to be a
recurring fund. I believe we we h we do have the capacity to do this both with housing and with conservation commissions. So for instance, if we had an affordable housing trust here, they could come to us and say we would like x number of dollars to have which will
only be used for affordable housing. So similarly, this would be only used for funds that are allowable within our purview. So if they wanted to buy, you know, a mansion
and um you know and and that would probably not be something we would be supporting, but we would be able to support the buying of conservation lands up at Grisswald if there were some additional land up there or or that kind of thing.
We're paying for a conservation restriction, right? Um, and that that link right there um is a website uh or a web page on the community preservation coalition's website that talks about how you can put money into housing trust and
conservation funds. Right. So that's Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Um just an administrative caveat that I would say is that uh any projects that are funded out of this get counted as their own project in our CPA reporting
to the state. So, we would just want to set up the contract in a way that like the commission reports back to CPA for each discrete project instead of in a lump, but otherwise that seems totally allowable. Wow. Okay. Are there any other comments or
questions? Yeah, I'd make the motion that it's eligible. I think we'll have more questions and comments when we actually receive the full application, but I think this is absolutely eligible.
Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Uh any uh discussion hearing? None. I will move on uh to call the role. Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. Gareth,
yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, uh yes. Jack, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Can I just clarify um for anyone who might be watching this later wondering why I can vote on that
as a conservation commission member? There is a whole thing on the community preservation coalition's website about how you can be on like conservation commission and CPC and vote on the same project on both because in both cases you're acting in the public interest and
not your personal interest, you know, your personal financial interest. I'm not voting to put this into my bank account. It's for the conservation commission which Well, that's good because I wouldn't let it go. The money doesn't go into the conservation commission. So, anyway, just want to point that out for wonder
about conflict of interest. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Travis. That's good. Okay. Next, uh GHA security deposit and rental assistance fund. This is this is something that we funded last year and this provides uh for first last
month's rent uh security deposit if that's required so that people don't lose their apartments um or lose the opportunity to get an apartment um if the landlord is saying I've got 10 people waiting for me. You either get this now or it's over kind of thing. So,
this this this allows people to move more quickly and um and and succinctly. Uh are there any questions or comments about this? Did did it all get utilized, Jack? So, we have one pre-approved applicant
right now who will be our first dispersement um for November 1st, which is the max of and they're getting a max of 3,000. So, because of the process timing of when funding can be received, we likely
anticipate exhausting all 15,000 and that's why we're reapplying. Um but as of now we have one approved and we have one that came in that actually ended up not qualifying um based on income but um
we are excited that the word is spreading. Okay. Any further questions or comments around this? I'll move that one. Okay. So Travis made the motion and G
second it. Any other comments or discussion? This one actually received roaring public approval. So I'm excited to see come back. Okay, then I'm going to call the role. Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Wisy,
yes. G, yep. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Jack stayain and and uh I'm a yes. Okay. Uh next one. Greenfield uh
Greenfield Housing Associates. Excuse me. Sorry. Hay fever. Um, and this is uh for um development of some attic space at 14 at 317 to 319 Deerfield Street. Jackie, do you want to
talk about this a little bit? Yeah. So, we have an existing four family at 317 to 319 Deerfield Street and the um housing board just approved us to continue our due diligence. So,
our hope is that um when we come back with the full application um this will actually be under construction to create the two additional units. Our goal is to have the AMI at 100% and these be market
units, not needing any um section 8 or projectbased um vouchers. And so this should be able to hit some of the medium um income need for uh green field and it's in our existing um property. Um so
we're excited about um where this may go and I hope the committee um deems this eligible. Are there any questions or comments beyond this? I have a question.
Go ahead. Um, can can somebody explain to me the difference between the Greenfield Housing Authority and Greenfield Housing Associates? Yeah, sorry if I missed that. Some happy to. So, um, the Greenfield Housing
Associates brought the Winslow application to the committee last year. And so, the Greenfield Housing Associates is a affiliate of the Greenfield Housing Authority. And the reason for that is to um help reduce the
amount of um red tape for procurement purposes to reduce the cost that the housing authority um typically um must um the increased cost the housing authority must face when it's going out
to bid for projects. And so the affiliate is designed to um help reduce cost when we're doing construction when possible. There are um there are thresholds for that like for the Winslow because the awards more than 5 million.
We still must go ahead and and follow all of the procurement guidelines. I I should also say that Greenfield Housing Associates, Inc. is kind of the um same thing as RDI for the regional housing authority. So we had just
supported um RDI's effort at 170 to uh 186 or 188 Maine. This is this is a similar in in in that sense it's a similar project and and these will be rentals. Is that correct?
Correct. Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, I look for a motion. The deer expansion be accepted. Okay. So, there's a motion from Wisty and a second from G.
Okay. Um, any further questions, comments in regard to that? Seeing none, I will call the role. Becky. Yes. Sorry.
Sorry. If you weren't on live, we could do it on We could do it by both by hands. Okay. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. Garrett, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes.
Jack, and I'm I'm a yes. Okay. Uh Franklin Community Cooperative. Um this is um to do a historic
rehabilitation and restoration um for the uh Greenfields Market um in the former Wilsons uh to to restore the uh building facade. Um is are there any questions about this that folks would like to have any comments? I think the
historical commission's already gotten their approval, but if they need a letter or more than one last year. Yes. Yeah. I don't know if we need another one, but yeah, we're super excited. This is This is submitted and then withdrawn the first year, right? Just because Yeah, just because they weren't far enough along on the
process. Is there any other So, would you need a second letter? Yeah, it would need to be part of the proposal. So, okay. I mean, we still have the old one. Yeah. Or the building on the Massachusetts State Register of Historic
Places. Um, it surely is. If it is, then you don't need a letter. Yes. Yeah. So, I I think Yes. Okay. The um I can tell you in a minute. And there's two I guess another clarifying thing is that there are two
different kinds of letters. You could it could either be a letter of support saying like we support this project. That's right. or historic projects need a letter saying this is locally historically significant to Greenfield, right? So a historic project has to be either
on the Massachusetts state historic wait what is it from Massachusetts state registry of historic places or it must be determined to be locally historically significant by the Okay. I mean my question is if they have already heard that if they've already done that then I
think include that letter and and and if you have have a letter of support from the historic commission as well that would be welcome as well. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um okay. Are there any other questions or comments?
Okay then seeing none I would entertain a motion. Yep. I move that we accept the former Wilson's building facade restoration project. Second. Second. Okay. Um, any other
comments or questions? Okay. With that, I will call the RO. Okay. Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. G, yep. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes.
Jack, yes. And I'm a Yes. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Um, St. James and Andrew Exterior Restoration. This one is for
I looked it up before this. Yeah, I can't hear you. We We said that you're officially that we know you're on the uh the offic. Yes. Okay. Yes. Um, and
also I I'm very new to this, so I'm feeling a little nervous. That's okay. That's okay. We're We're friendly. We're friendly. We are good. Um, so we're coming to you, you know, not as a religious uh
association by any means, but as a historical building of almost 200 years, landmark in the city. Um, we have met with Margot Jones of the
historical commission and she has encouraged us to go this route. Um, we're a nonprofit organization. We don't receive payment from anyone except
for the goodness of our members donating money. Um, we have found that our building is falling into disrepair and it would be a real shame to let that continue to
happen. Uh, we just don't have the money to take it on oursel. I don't know if any of you uh know about our latest um disaster,
but on March 1st, our roof uh decided to almost blow off of the building. Um which is a metal roof with some weight to it. And the bill is something like
$450,000 for the repair. That of course we've um gotten insurance money, church insurance money for. But our our buildings are used a lot for office space and
neighbors and picnics on our lawn. So, um, it would be great to be able to fix some of this rotting wood and falling stuckco. And that's it. Are there any other questions? That was
a a a great explanation of what you are applying for and why. Um, are there any other questions about this? Are there is the church aware that it would need to have a letter from the historic
commission? Becky, which one's Beck? Hi, Becky. Hi. Yes. And Marggo Jones when we met with her said that she would be um more than willing to uh give us a letter of support. So, is that all we would need?
Is it is that um you need the letter? You don't since you are on the registry of historic places, you actually you don't need a letter saying that the historic commission recognizes you as a historic building.
However, a letter of support saying that the historic commission thinks this is a good idea is is very welcome. Um okay. In in terms of other things, if there are um letters of support from your comm from the community that uses the
building, if there are any of that kind of stuff, when you once you look at the full application, if you have questions about whether what things you need to do, you can contact Anna and she will be able to help, you know, let you know what the
what what we mean by the things that we're requesting. Oh, great. I'm gonna need a lot of help. Anna, I got you. Okay. Okay. Are there any other questions uh for for Dy about this?
Just one thing. I I recall the the church across the street. I think the Methodist church on Yeah. On Church Street. Yes. Right. They they were um hoping to apply a few years ago.
um hit the stained glass window, right? And I and I I think they were it was deemed ineligible and I don't know if that's because it was the the window or because it's the you know
religious organization or um I I don't think it was the religious organization. I think it had something to do with what they wanted to do and I cannot remember that. I'm sorry, G. I can't. I thought it had something to do with handicapped accessible bathrooms. Yeah,
that's what it was. They wanted they wanted That's right. You're right, Donna. That's what it was. I'm sure that we actually rejected it. I think that they withdrew it. That's my recollection. Yeah, but it was because it seemed that was we they wanted that was not
within the the the scope of what we can do and and it was so it was an issue of what they wanted to do as opposed to um whether we could support the church or not. Right. It wasn't Yeah. wasn't part of
restoring historic resource. Correct. Correct. Um, I was going to point out that there is, you know, like the community preservation coalition has a whole thing talking about the town of Actton, a
lawsuit where they funded CPA money to a church and then the um the Supreme Judicial Court said that they couldn't do that and they laid out like a threepoint um a three-point analysis to determine
whether you can give money to a religious inst. institution or not. And it's like whether the grants for the purpose of maintaining or aiding a nonprofit or religious organization, whether the effect is to substantially aid a nonprofit or religious, or whether the risks meant to be avoided by the
anti- aid amendment are implicated by the grant, specifically blah blah blah. And they say on their website that uh the coalition recommends forwarding them to your municipal council for review and eligibility determination if you get an application religious institution.
So So do you think we should we should contact our our lawyer about this? I think that's we did that at other church or we were going to. Okay. That's that's what the coalition recommends just because there's like
that court case like raised the bar for what's allowable apparently. Yeah. This is I just want to point out one thing that this is exterior only building. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, can I have a motion with the
stipulation that we send this off to Gordon and that he says it's okay? I move that what you just said that this is allowable if uh given the go ahead. Yep. That's
Yep. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Um, so what so what we're going to do, Dye, is um we will send off this your description to um the city's lawyer and we will get back a determination
from him. Um I I think this is probably going to be fine, but we need to we need to have that so that we are we're not in a situation where someone accuses us of supporting a religious institution. Yeah. Of course. Yes. Okay. So, we will
we will take care of that. We'll get back to you as fast as we can. Uh in the meantime, you know, think about what it is you need to do for for the application for November 17th. And just don't write anything until we let you know that it's okay. Okay. All right. Um so, with that stipulation,
we have a second. Um do we have any discussion? Okay, then I am going to ask for a vote. Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. Guard, yes. Sarah,
yes. Travis, yes. Jack, yes. And I'm a Yes. Yeah. So, um I just have one question. Sure. So, what do I tell my Reverend Heather? Like, we're almost eligible or like
we're not until you get the answer from the lawyer. We're not eligible. Right. You you you can tell um your reverend that um we are we have to check with the town lawyer to make sure that you are eligible. We
believe that that's true that you are but we want to make sure we want to cross you cross all the tees all the eyes and we will get back to you as quickly as we can. Meanwhile, you know, you should just look at the application and think about what you want to say and
we will get back to you as quickly as we can. We don't want we don't want you to be disadvantaged if u for an application to go in in November. Sure. Okay. Thank you very much everyone. Thank you. Okay.
City of Greenfield planning and community development community powered open space at Miller's Meadow. Um okay. And I know NY's here around that as well. Is there is there anyone
else from the city um here as well? Yes, I can speak on this application. I wrote it with our MVP team including Nancy and um Dorotha and also the conservation commission. Great. Thank you, Athena. Okay. Are
there questions for for either Athena or Nancy on this? I have a question in general um which is uh this uh is under um open space creation
and I'm kind of struggling to um see how this is a creation of open space when it feels like it already is open space. I can respond to that. Go ahead. Here's where I wear the both hats in the
public interest. Um, at the conservation commission meeting when they talked about this, um, I did point out that I believe this would be an open space rehabilitation and recreation, which I did not think would be eligible. Well, if it is an open space rehabilitation,
it's not eligible unless the property was purchased with CPA funds or or preserved CPA funds and it wasn't. Um, so I personally I believe this is ineligible because I believe it's open space rehabilitation, but at the
conservation commission meeting I said it's not for me to decide that. It's for the CPC to decide. So we decided to send it to the CPC anyway. Okay. I I'd love to to speak to that if I could. Sure. Absolutely. Go ahead. Thank you. So we are creating more
passive recreation. We want to expand the uh we are currently working on um creating native habitat and forest on 2.5 acres of the
total 12.5 acre project area. So we want to expand that create additional forest more native species habitat which would bring more animals and creatures and birds and pollinators and butterflies
etc. And I would point out that the site is a rare habitat that supports highly vulnerable and imperiled species that are at high risk. So by planting additional native species, we are um reducing the rare uh we are we are
facilitating more planting of the rare habitat area. And also we need more passive recreation space that is very lovely. And when you're walking around uh Miller's Meadow now, you can see all the trees that we've already planted.
So, you can envision even more trees and more pollination because we haven't started the pollinator garden yet. We've got it all under silage to get rid of the weeds. And so, we're going to be planting that this fall. Um, and additionally, and um, perhaps most important to this application, we want
to get rid of all of the invasive species that are lining the Green River um, on the project area. And if you've ever walked around there, you can see all of the um, bittersweet and the notweed and the barberry and the veetch,
which is humongous. So with our project and and eliminating those invest invasive species, we would be creating more vistas of the Green River, which is really what we need around our city. And especially because this is an urban area
and it would be a day use or a recreational open space for um the urban area and walking around and all kinds of dog walkers, etc., and people who just want to sit and look at the birds because we are proposing also to get some uh benches in there that would be
acceptable under FEMA. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions? Um do folks feel like they want to check this through with Stuart? Um or do they want to uh do you want to move it
forward as is? Okay. So would you explain would you say that again run by what what I said before um so just looking at the chart open space um oh this I'm actually looking at a
different one right now open space creation is what it's under right now to bring into being your cause to exist so when I talked to when I talked to Stuart before basically the left hand side of the chart acquisition
creation preservation support uh you apply that to the like for open space and recreation it's to the land. So is this creating open space land? It's not creating it. Is it rehabilitating open space land? Yes, it is because it's
existing open space land. Um so that's why I believe it would be rehab. I would love if we could do projects like this on conservation land that uh wasn't purchased with CPA funds, which is none of them right now. Um but
um yeah, but if they're creating new walkways, is that not creating recreational land or an example of one we've done before? Well, it would be the same as like putting in the trails at what park did
we last year we voted at Highland at structure hillside we voted to add a you know a trail at hillside that was rehabilitation of the land. We weren't creating new
recreation. We were rehabilitating the land. I just think that we really need to get some clarification from Stuart because it's always been really confusing with what's happening with open space and what's happening with recreation and
what you can do with each. I mean, I I love this idea. I'm not against it whatsoever and I think it's very important and needed. I just think that we need to have clear CPC guidance on what it truly is so that it
meets the requirements to be eligible. And I guess I I talked to Stuart about this previously and he he broke it down very simply. If it's under the open space category, it's on conservation
land. If it's on recreation category, it's on recreation department land or land that's, you know, preserved with a recreation conservation restriction or whatever. If that seems the land, but conservation commission manages and
controls Miller's meadow. The city owns the property. The city owns property. The conservation commission hear my phone ringing uh is the steward of the land. So it would open. It's conservation. Um I mean my sense is
basically the grid like the really what you can you know the acquisition and creation are sort of the fall into the same thing under the open space right you can kind of use open
space funds to you know to buy right actually get the open space or to do a conservation restriction on it or something like that but you but unless you you know you you can't do any stuff
with it which is the rehabilitation and restoration unless you initially bought it with the CPA fund whereas the recreation stuff right we've done also we've done stuff in Highland we've done stuff at Beacon we've done all that because you are
allowed to you know do those extra capital improvements on that wreck land okay Donna so I think that this is sort of a a harbinger of what we're going to get
into with the recreation um requests because they're all looking at uh school playgrounds and this is something that we've experienced before with recreation request um there um when we did the ADA
um track at the high school, right? There will have to be some sort of you know first of all if it's not eligible as conservation and open space and it does shift to the recreation
piece then there are going to have to be some agreements made regarding how it's designated for recreation in order for it to be eligible. It would have to be transferred from the
conservation commission to the recreation recreation which would require I think it requires a vote of the state legislature because it's protected uh conservation land.
Okay. So I thought that the city I thought that the city owns the land but the conservation commission just is the manager of record. That's how all conservation land is. It's the same as other conservation land.
Okay. Um, so can I just ask Travis? Go ahead. Yeah. You feel this could be eligible under recreation, but there would need to be a change or are you saying you don't think
this is eligible at all? I'm a no on this. Yeah. I mean it, you know, the only way it could be eligible is a number of steps that I think are nearly impossible to achieve, you know, to to transfer it
to another. I don't think the conservation commission would vote to uh get rid of conservation land and turn it into Well, actually, I don't even know if it can because it the it was bought with FEMA money that provides
stipulations, right? Making it conservation like they didn't say like, "Oh, you can make this into a playground." No, there's no permanent structures or anything. So, I do not think it would be appropriate. Okay. Um, did you
those want to define open space? Was it just vacant? There's nothing there. Or is it is there an actual definition of what open what does the CPC definition the CBC
tell you what says it's a valid question so community preservation act says open space shall include but not limited to land to protect existing and future well fields aquafers and recharge areas wershed land agricultural land
grasslands fields forest land fresh and saltwater marshes and other wetlands ocean, river, stream, lake, and pond frontage, beaches, dunes, and other coastal lands. Land to protect scenic vistas, land for wildlife or nature preserve, and land for recreational
uses. That's the definition that it has. How do they define protect? Well, it has to be permanently just like with recreation land, it has to be permanently protected, right? Um I don't know if they have the word protected by well it has to be permanently protected by law by
conservation restriction or either conservation restriction or managed by conservation commission is yes and and this is watershed land because the reason that it is does not have any permanent structures on it is
because it flooded and FEMA um and FEMA uh allow gave money to the city to buy to for for it for it to stay as un land without structures on it. Right. And so the caveat is whether we're creating that open space.
Right. Right. Jack, I just had one other question. So it saddens me that we can't necessarily without some more information from Stuart. How else does conservation land
receive money? Athena is my question. Like do you guys have other pools of money you can apply to? Well, the mass wildlife fund just opened up, but it's extremely competitive. I
mean, we'll apply similar to basically for the same proposal because that it allows all of that, but other than because there's no federal money coming through the pike and so that would be pretty much it. And I can also add that if uh the
conservation commission acquires land with CPA money, then CPA money can be used for this type of project on that land. Um it's just why you're you're applying for a to make
a fast acting conservation fund. Sure. Right. Okay. So, it sounds to me like we want to get some clarification from Stuart to make sure that we know what we're doing here.
Is that correct? I feel like I'm clear and I'm clear that you know, but if other people want to check, it doesn't feel like it would be a eligible one. Okay. I'm just trying to get a feeling of the group as to where we are. What kind
should make a um Nancy? Yeah, I still have a question. Going back to the initial thing about um I wasn't clear about whether it seemed reasonable to create native habitat or create, you
know, forest stuff and to to that's free of um invasives for example, you know, just that part of it. I mean that would be better defined as preservation, not creation. All right. No, because it's not preservation
because there's no forest there now. Well, along the bank there is. Yeah, Chinese. That's not It sounds like Travis has a motion and G has a second. Should we try and see if
uh I'll I'll make a motion that um this project is not Okay. And Cara, is that a second from you? Yes. Um, go ahead. So then we have we can have discussion. Yes, have discussion now.
Okay. So if we check about it and then then then um Steuart or whomever says yes, it would be eligible then can we change our vote?
I'm wondering if if we can have an amendment to the um to the motion that says that um pending that that this is ineligible
pending a um a a um a different response from uh from Stuart from the from the coalition. Sure. So that would that would give us the opportunity to at least check on it and
make sure um that we we are correct on this one. Does um is that a friendly motion? Is that acceptable? Uh Athena. Well, and um I understand where uh
Travis is coming from, but I this proposal meets all of your open space priorities under your CPA project evaluation. It meets all of them and I don't it's kind of seems to be kind of nitpicky whether it's restoration or
creation but we are creating all of these these goals that you have under our project and we're creating open space and we are creating vistas and we're creating natural habitat for new animals and creatures and humans to walk around.
Athena, we agree with you on all those things. The issue is is where it fits within the law. And that's and this law we have we've gone through these kinds of conversations before where we've it feels like we're tap dancing, but we we really need we what we don't want is for
the city to be sued because we have violated the law and I understand that. So I'm just into civil disobedience sometimes. Not okay. I understand. I understand. We have we have had to do this with with a number of projects that everybody likes,
but we can't we can't necessarily um support them. So, um I'll just add that I I would love to be able to fund the site, right? I just don't think it. So, we will So, the the motion that's on the floor is to
reject this project unless we receive a um a statement from the CPC, the CPA coalition that says that this actually does qualify. Is that what everybody understands?
Okay, then with that, unless there's further discussion, I'm going to call for a vote. Okay. So, a yes vote says that we are rejecting this proposal. Just so everyone knows what we're doing. Okay.
Unless we hear otherwise. Unless we hear otherwise. Right. But it's within but Okay. So, Becky. Yes. Yes. Yes. Donna. Yeah. I know. I know. It's like the referendum. Donna.
No. Wisty. Yes. G. Yes. Sarah, no. Travis, yes. Jack,
abstain. Whoa. And and I'm a yes. Um, okay. So, we have I think the the vote has gone forward and Anna will check with um with uh with
Steuart and we will get back to you guys as quickly as we can about whether it meets the criteria or not. So, it is it can can I ask why people said no just because I'm curious or not really. Well, it's it's quarter seven.
Okay, never mind. I'll ask you. Okay. Thank you all for your time very much and for all your work you do. You too. Thanks Athena. We appreciate we appreciate the the efforts you put into this. This is not this is not without my pleasure.
Yeah. Okay. Art space, outdoor classroom and sculpture garden. Um we um this is the creation of a covered pavilion for outdoor arts construction,
landscaping and creation of a pollinator garden and installation of some sculptures by local artists. Um and um even when the building is closed, we anticipate the space to be open for public access.
Um the question that I have um is whether if this building were sold the the um garden would be available for public access. Is there anyone here from Artspace?
Hi, I'm Maggie Nuie. I'm here representing Art Space. Hi, thank you Maggie. So what would happen if it were if the building were sold? Ah that's a big big question. I guess I I don't know that we have
thought that through. Um I think that uh I think the land and the building are owned together as a property. Um so you know we aren't considering at this moment that possibility of selling
selling the building. Um I guess it would become the new owner's responsibility to make that decision. So I don't know if that um I also just I will say we're very new to this process as well and we very much kind of wanted
to enter into it to learn. So um we we recognize that um you know it's a discussion to figure out if this fits your fits your needs. Thanks. I I appreciate that. The the issue is that we need to have public
access for this project right if it's a recreation thing it needs to be permanently preserved as as a recreation correct thing
is it currently privately owned by art space correct yeah the building is owned by art space yeah the building and the surrounding land and and and parking lot. Yeah.
So the the question would be would there be a way within your the structure of what you are planning to do to essentially deed this as as public access regardless of what happens to the
property. Okay. Okay. Is that so is that something we could investigate and um talk with the city and and kind of take some next steps um before perhaps a full application? Certainly. I mean that's that's why
we're asking about this is that unless that public access piece is a part of this, we can't fund it. And um okay, and this this is something Anna and I talked about briefly this week. Um, so it's it's one of those we love the
project, but we're we're we're we're limited in what we can do. So if you can look at that issue, um it may be that it's not this year, it's next year, you know, if you if it takes a long time to deal with this legally or um it, you
know, so we at this point I don't think we can we can fund you unless we know that that that public access piece is is there. Okay, that makes sense. Um, yeah, I think it sounds like we're more at an
exploratory place where we need to do some of that leg work still. Great. Um, so go ahead, Anna. Just the other thing, Maggie, as well is that, um, if if you were to do it, you would probably have a stipulation in the
contract for the funding that the funding would have to be repaid to the city if if the building is sold, which is important to think about if that's feasible for you guys. Okay. Also, thank you for bringing exploratory things. It's actually really helpful for
all of us to talk through them. So, okay, great. Yeah. So, um I don't know. Is there a motion here on the floor? Um Well, I I guess I would just also add that I don't think it's eligible because
it's not on protected there. It's not protected land, right? Yeah. Just for everyone's knowledge here, there's a um there's a web page on the community preservation coalition's website titled CPA is all about the land protections and requirements for the
outdoor recreation category that breaks down like what is allowed um for outdoor recreation land, what's conservation land, who who can own it, blah blah blah. Um and there's uh is are they a nonprofit? Yes.
Okay. There's a section. What if a nonprofit is seeking CPA recreation funding for land that they own? Providing CPA funding for nonprofit organizations can be beneficial for a community, but can be difficult to reach the above level of protection, which is
under the control of uh parks, um protected as landed, uh chap article 97 protection, conservation restriction, etc. Um, if a nonprofit is applying for CPA funds to make recreational improvements on land they own, it is very unlikely that it
will be an eligible project without first restricting the land to recreational use. Um, okay. Right. So if you deeded the land to the town of Greenfield upon sale of the property
presumably then it could be eligible but and would have to be deed specifically for recreation purposes. Yeah, it would have to be deeded before we could fund it is that's correct. So, I'll just mention that last year, Greenfield Housing
Authority put in a recreation application and following the eligibility, I kind of did a deeper dive and I do agree with Travis that unfortunately this one isn't eligible in my opinion based on that restriction of
article 97, I think it is. Right. Just my two. No, that's that's fine. Do I have a motion? I'll move that this project is not eligible. I'll be the bad guy to go ahead Travis. Is there a second? I will second it.
And Jack will second. Okay. So, uh yes vote is that this is ineligible. Um are there are there other comments or questions? Okay, seeing none, um
can I just throw out one more line? Go ahead. One more line. A good mantra for CPA recreational projects, restricted funding should be used on restricted land. That's what it says in Okay. All right. There we go. All right. Uh, bringing this to a vote. Becky, a
yes is to not allow this to be funded through us to reject the the proposal at this point. It makes me sad, so I'm going to abstain. Okay.
Sadness abstension. Okay. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Jack, a very sad yes.
And I'm a sad yes as well. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. We're sorry we can't do it. No, no worries. Okay. the federal street playground enhancements.
Did we look at all these as like there's four of them, right? Okay. Yep. It's pretty much all all the schools, right? There's three playgrounds and then the corn three playgrounds and the cornhole which is the number 16 on this at Beacon
Field. This one makes me feel old because this is second iteration. I guess I guess Beacon is a slightly separate thing, right? Because I guess the question with the school ones is does the wreck wreck department
control that land or does the school department control that land? Right. Right. Right. The corn cornhole obviously we put the um put the botchi courts there. So, right. It seems like we're safe on that one.
the only right the and we did the fitness cluster at Shadic because the wreck department owns that portion but I think the the playgrounds right they need to be
permanently under wreck control and I think that all these are under school control yes so this is really tricky and G you're absolutely Right. It's um it's it's a weird sort of a thing because
they are under school control and yet the wreck department is responsible for maintaining upgrading um checking for safety on all of these playgrounds. So
when a swing set is, you know, unsafe, it gets put onto the recck department to fix it. So, and I mean I've been on the rec commission for years and I still don't understand how or why that is. But um but I think that these three school
ones are going to go the way of the um the ADA track was where there's some sort of an agreement with the schools and I don't remember the fine print of how that happened. But if these are to
you know be fundable then there has to be that understanding in place. Mhm. So, one of my concerns is that my understanding is that those
playgrounds are not available to the public during school hours. And so, um that's a lot of time. You know, I um I just remember being a a new
grandparent or parent and wishing I had places to take little kids and they couldn't go to the school playgrounds at all. So, yeah, that's a good point. And Christie Christy is not here, I take
it. Christy is at the rec commission meeting. Oh, that's right. That's right. You mentioned that. I'm sorry. Okay. Um yeah Jeff I I just feel like we vote on this one
yes contingent the disapproval from Stuart or someone because to me it logically sounds like with an agreement these do qualify.
Uh, but I don't think I'm comfortable without hearing back because you did fund those ADA. Right. Right. Right. So, it must be eligible. We just need to
make sure the right language is used. I think that's correct. I think we I think we need we need to ensure that there is an agreement that this will be considered recreation
recreation responsibility. I don't know what the what the wording is, but there needs to be something that makes this recreation um compliant compliant or however however that wording is that so that so we can we
could do something where we say uh providing that there is an agreement similar to that of the ADA um u work that we did at the at the high school um that that we we would move this forward.
But isn't the track the a the ADA track stuff at the high school is isn't that available to people during the day to walk on or no school time. I think you're right, Wisty. I I think or I share that view that that's closing
off a fair amount of recreational to all. Um, I can also add that back in 20 December 14th, 2022, I have notes from meeting with student, okay, when we talked about the track and he said
schools are not dedicated recreation land. And he when he um he like wrote notes on each one of the projects and for the ADA track, he said might belong to school department. That was his like initial before we had the meeting and
I think going forward at that point I thought the ADA track was not eligible but then we did vote for it. Mhm. And if you on that um I'm sending this link to Anna so she can send out to everyone, but that same
website about what counts as outdoor recreation um it says uh that outdoor recreation has to be um on land that does not have buildings. Um
it it says all the examples blah blah blah. There are no building structures or incompatible uses on the property. Um and it even has said like what about open areas outside municipal buildings um like around town hall or the library
blah blah blah. And it said these uh do not qualify for CPA funding. Um look back at the definitions does not have buildings or structures blah blah blah. So yeah, I think it's not Ellen. I mean I I I be
that guy again, but you know, Donna, it's your job tonight. Yeah, I think that um you know just to add further confusion, we have some um you know like the the cornhole
boards or the chess tables like the the citywide enhancements that we funded a couple of years ago are not necessarily on um strictly recreation land. So, it's
uh I'm not making I'm just I'm just noting that I don't really have an answer. I just have more questions. That might be something we want to look into because I'm pretty sure the language was that it would only be put on recreation land.
Yes. Yes. So, if it's not, then we might need to get that put on recreation land or get our money back. Well, I know that there are cornhole boards at the Green River Park and that is definitely recreation land.
Right. Right. Um, but I thought that we had and maybe they were just purchased by the recreation department without CPC funding. Oh, yeah. But there was like a chess board by Mesa Verde, but that's that's
a different Yeah, that one was a different grant. Okay. Yeah. And Beacon Field is controlled by recreation, right? Right. Right. Let's treat let's leave the Beacon Field one and just deal with the recreation department, school things
as as we can treat treat them as a group because they're all basically the same kind of project. Um, so if I could have a motion, I don't know what the motion would say. Gosh. Yeah. Um,
I just I don't I find it hard that we've approved this before and just making it clear that we're not voting today to fund it. We're voting whether or not it's recreation. So, we might all not
feel like a, you know, funding a school that would only allow for 12 hours a day of use or less isn't valuable use of CPA funds, but I'm just wondering how we
deemed it eligible before and do we need to look into that we shouldn't have? And so, this is a real complicated motion, but I Um, I'll second you, Travis, if you want to vote it as not, but uh, it's a hard
one. Part of the the track stuff was ADA. That was part of the reason that we we needed we wanted to do it. And I wonder if that was a big piece, the the ADA.
It was it was ADA accessibility. Yeah, that was a big part of that. It was not for the recreation aspects of the track. It was to allow there to be ADA accessibility to the track. But that's not in the CPA regulations
anywhere that I see. Right. I'm I'm just trying to figure I'm trying to remember what what our logic was in terms of of doing that that um Well, it was a great idea, but we hadn't I mean, I think Donna was correct. It
was like Christy came and was like, "Yes, we don't own that land, but we are we are responsible for those recreation." Like the recck department is is responsible for those those recreation things.
And so we, you know, we said, okay, that then it's, you know, then it's recreation if it's, you know, to per permanent installation, right? the the recreation stuff is is still controlled by the recck department
even if the you know the base land is you know in theory owned by the school department. It's all really just owned by the town, right? Isn't that sort of like the other the Miller's Meadow where it's owned by the
town but controlled by the conservation commission? I mean, so there's that. I think this should be addressed through, right? Well, the the thing is with the Miller's Meadow, we can't like we can do enhancements to recreation things. We c
we can't do enhancements for the open on open space ones unless we have like initially purchased it with CPA funds. I see. But but recreation does not have that restriction, right?
So, you know, part so it seems to me part of it has to do with um city policy or something to make the recck department responsible for maintaining the playgrounds.
Well, one of the offshoots I think of putting of putting those playgrounds in schools is then they aren't put on other places that are open to the public all the time like Beacon Field or something because the money is taken and it's put
into the schools and that's a chunk of the year and of the day that nobody has access to it except the kids and the kids should have good parks and everything but meanwhile then that money's not taken and good playgrounds
created where they would be open all the time. So it seems like it's a city issue, but right that that's that's not whether it's eligible or not. That's whether you you
like it. So, if I could also add from this all knowing web page that I'm looking at, um, it has tests for like if like if these are met, if one of these are met, then you probably have protected recreation land. And the first
one says the land is under control of the board or park commissioners, whatever board, committee or department has care, custody, and control of parks and recreation land. And I think we saw that the first time and we're like, oh, well, they're managing this. But it says the land is under control and
the land is not under that not under control. Yeah. So that's where I think it was our first year and I think may may have gotten it wrong the first year but I don't want to perpetuate that going forward if that is what happened. Um and then Travis there's there's also if
the land is for another purpose use general municipal funds. Did you see that little arrow? I'm at I I'm now as I read more thinking that I agree that this is not eligible
because it serves a purpose other than only for recreational use because there's a school structure on that land. Yeah. Okay. We're ready for the motion. Okay. Are we ready for a motion? I'll
motion that the three school uh play were they all playground playground enhancements playground enhancement projects are notable. I'll second. Okay. So, a yes vote is saying these are not elful.
Just want to be clear. Okay. Uh any other discussion, comments, suggestions? All right. We've beaten this one to death. Um, Becky, yes. Donna, abstain.
Wisty, yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Jack, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. So, these are not included.
Okay. Now, the cornhole, which is on recreation land. We know that. motion that we allow this one to go forward. I'll second that. Is there any discussion? Okay.
I want to know how often G has actually gone and played botchi ball. That's what I want. Actually, I know of a young I know of a young person who lives right nearby who plays botchi there all the time. Great. I've never seen it. I believe you. I've never seen it.
Okay. No. All right. Um, I'm going to pull for a vote. Becky, yes. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes.
Jack, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, we got one more. One more. And um we because of the unusual nature of this one um I actually had a long talk with
um with Anna about it prior to our um our discussion. Um I don't know whether you I've been talking a lot. Anna, do you want to say anything? Yeah, I mean I I don't think this is eligible. In fact, Stuart confirmed to me that it's not, and I've already
spoken with the applicants, and um and they were very gracious and understand why. And the reason is just that um what they're proposing is is wicked cool. It's movable planters, but the movable nature of it is exactly what makes it not eligible for
because it's not about the land because it's not tied to any land. Yeah. However, I I've got to say that what you haven't said is that um they uh Sarah Yeah, sure. Anna and uh Amy came up with
a number of other possible funding sources for them and they were very appreciative of that. Oh, good. Okay. I would love to see this happen. Yeah, I would love to see it happen, you know. Yeah. Okay. So, we need a motion on this one. I'll make a motion that this project is
not elegant. second. Who second it? I'm sorry. Thank Okay. Um, a yes vote is to make this not eligible. Um, let me call the role. Okay. Becky,
yes. Donna, yes. Wisty, yes. G, yes. Sarah, yes. Travis, yes. Jack, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, we have survived.
Um, okay. Um, the one other thing we need to talk about is where and when the next meeting happens. Yes. Um, so we had talked about the possibility of moving the meeting to five o'clock.
Anna, do you have any information? Yeah. So, it seems that um not only is the John Zon Gallery open at 5 on the what are we fourth third fourth Thursday also that someone possibly Christian had
kind of slated it off as potential CPC space. Yes. So, that's totally an option. I also have a email out to um the fire department about their space as well, but uh the John's on is is doable and um
it's really up to you guys if you if you want to meet at 5. The only conflict is that if there's people wanted to attend SGIC and CBC, they'll be overlapping a bit, but So, what do folks think? Do you want to
move the meeting to five o'clock in in general or just for October? In general, I'm open. Wait, in general? So, week after I mean month after month, month after month, it would be it would be a 5:00 meeting as opposed to a 5:30
meeting. Why don't can I since this is not a a a big deal, can people just raise their hands about whether that that would be appropriate for for their lives at this point? 5:00 meeting as opposed to 5:30. Okay, Donna, you don't know?
I don't know. Okay. Okay. Um, and we don't and and we don't have information from Victor or
um who else is that the only person? Um, yeah. Um, to try one. Should we want to try it at the next meeting at 5 and see how we do?
I mean, it it could work for me. I just um hired somebody to work at the New Salem Library for me and she seems like she's gonna work out. If she doesn't work out, then I'm at the New Salem library until 5 and I'll be late, you know. And I just I think that you guys should
go ahead with whatever works best for you because my schedule is just very fluid these days. So, um and we're looking at October 23rd, right? Yes. Yeah.
Okay. Why don't we why don't we try it for October 23rd and um at the So it'll be at the John's on um and uh and um at 5 and we'll see how we do and
then we can make a determination because the next meeting won't be until December. And and so and and so we're going still to 7 o'clock. I thought we were moving it up. Moving it up. So we were going f we're
going to try 5 to 6:30 and see how we do. Okay. I think that was that was the hope is that if we met a half hour early, we could finish before 8 o'clock or 7:30, you know. Right. And is this the 23rd is the
meeting that we're going to establish all the the meetings for the upcoming? Is that correct? Because we're going to start meeting more than once or does that happen later? No, that happens in December. Oh, okay. because we'll know then you
know um right now we think that there are one what uh one 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 I think we've got 12 applications um there are a couple of may so it it um so we'll we'll have a better idea we'll have have the full applications We'll know then how many weeks that we really need to have double how many we need to
have double on that. Um okay. Um anything else for the good of this order as it is 7:15 7:16 at this point right there no updates on the current
on the previous projects. No not since last time. Motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? Actually, just as a sort of we should have the social media guy post about the projects that are done.
Yes. To make them exciting. Yes, they're done now. We can say that. Yeah. Now we can. Okay. Okay. Is there a second? Sure. Second. Okay. All those in favor? I. Okay. Good enough.
There we go. Okay. Thank you all. I know this was tedious and difficult, but I appreciate all the work everybody did. [Music]