So good. >> Good evening and welcome to the March 19, 2026 meeting of the Community Preservation Committee. It is 6:30 p.m. and we are meeting this evening at the Lakeville Police Station at 323 Bedford Street. We have Lake Cam recording. Is
anyone else recording? Hearing none. We do have a absolutely full committee this evening. So we won't bother with attendance. We all know who we are. And let's jump right in. We have number one review and possible vote on
recommended edits to community preservation plan. So we didn't get any attendees last month for the public hearing. Um but we do have some minor edits. I I feel as though this is the first time I've read the
plan very very thoroughly since we put it together. And I found just some minor but a bunch of little edits that I'd like to suggest. And I want to move kind of quickly through them. So if I move too fast, just let me know. Um and I'll
slow down. And if anybody has any other edits to add as we go, just interrupt me and I'll go over it. Um page five, just a couple commas. Um, reading a few sentences down, the CPA is a 1% search charge on your real
estate tax, comma, minus 100,000 exemption, comma, which goes into a special fund and receives state match annually. It just seems like that has to be set off a little bit further. Um, also a little bit further down, it says, "In the past few years, state
legislation has allocated state budget surplus funds into the CPA trust fund, blah blah blah blah blah." So now here we are in 2026. The past few years was referring to the 2020 little housing bone. So it's actually been longer than
the past few years. And I thought maybe we should just take it out um and just say in the past state legislation has allocated state budget instead of the past few years because
it's not as recent. Um, another thing down at the bottom of the final paragraph where it talks about uh the dep uh the proceeds from the
community preservation act are collected and deposited into special municipal accounts identified for community housing, historic resources, open space and recreational use. It says expenses, but it's really administrative expenses. So, I just thought maybe clarify that
with that word administrative. Um, on page six, one more comma under the CPA funding requirements section. Um, each fiscal year must spend or set aside for later spending, comma, a
minimum of 10% of its annual CPA funds for each of the three categories. Just seemed to flow a little better. Um, a little bit further down, it says any funds that remain unappropriated
at the end of the fiscal year are deposited into the CPA undesated fund balance for use in future years. But so that that's so broad it actually kind of reads as though anything not spent is now going to be allocated to this one
big bucket and it's not the case because we know that anything for open space has to be dedicated open space and recreation anything for historic the same same for housing. Um, so I think either we have to take that out or um revise the wording. Any funds that
remain um for administrative expenses go back into the unde undesated. But um it's not the case for all the funds deposited
according to mass law or so any funds that remain unappropriated at the end of the fiscal year are deposited into the CPA undesated fund.
How about the CPA funds designated by the regulations, CPA regulations into the individual CPA funds, >> but it's going to depend on if some came out of the like said some came out of open space and recreation and some came
out of the and living fund. So, it gets really complicated of where it's going back. It's kind of hard to explain to the different places it's got to go back to. I feel like you got to say something like >> um are deposited appropriately or
>> you know to sort of cover the whole >> keyword is unappropriated. So that means that the money was never designated for one of the categories. So it doesn't So it would Are you talking about like for instance when um the cemetery commission
um received the grant the the amount was $10,000 but the bill that came in was under $10,000. So there was money left over. >> Does that still stay with the ceme with the historic? >> It does. >> So that's not unappropriate. That's
appropriated but it was not used. It was it didn't the the bill was less than the appropriation. So that stays in the historical reserve money that we we build. But what this is unappropriated. So this would be if there was no money appropriated for any
of the other car categories except for historical like which will happen this year. >> Mhm. >> Then that 27,000 is going to stay in your category. But then it says any unappropriated are deposited into the CPA und
designated. >> Yeah. So that needs to be changed. >> So I think we could just take it out honestly because if you read it without that line um the the line before the remaining 65% may be appropriated for CPA projects in any category or transferred to an undesated budget
reserve account for the balance of the fiscal year. >> Yeah, I think taking it out probably >> it's probably a better idea, >> right? because I just it to me just sounds a little more confusing than >> my question is if no one break puts forth a project that we eventually
approve and that goes to town meeting the 27,000 that's listed in the thing does that still stay in historical it doesn't go back into the general okay >> so that >> I think that's confusing for people not to understand like me but
>> so yeah so any unappropriated fund for each, you know, designated fund would go into that fund. It's going to be something like that. I think they need to know where it goes at the end. You know what I mean? Instead of just taking it out, you know, >> and put it into the general fund.
>> Well, so before it it does say it says, you know, it says how each of them a minimum of 10% for this, for that, and the other, and up to five for the administrative, and then the 65 remaining can go to any of those or designate, you know, budget reserve. Um,
I I mean, unless there is a better wording for it specifically, I think it's just more confusing than anything because >> I think what it's trying to do is say, okay, if the funds aren't used, where are they going? So, we got to answer that question there. >> Okay. >> And I think people need to know that.
That's my opinion anyway. >> So, they go into their respective >> Yeah. >> through the chair into their respective >> allocated funds >> category. So if we had an excess above the 27,000 that each of the categories
get, is that what this talking about? That is not appropriated. >> Yes. >> Okay. So then that would go where does that go is what the question is >> that goes up in that >> whatever is it the budget goes into the big pot.
>> The big pot designated. >> Yeah. Undesated. So that is the undesated So, is this as simple as just changing unappropriated to undesated and that solves our problem? >> What did you say?
>> Changes unappropriated to >> maybe undesated. >> Okay. So, >> well, it is. So, it's supposed to be speaking about each fund or just the un >> Well, we spoke about we spoke about the other funds in the first sentence,
right? We said that we allocated that money ahead of time >> and now I think we're talking about the remaining 65%. So, I think if we just change unappropriated und designated, it solves the issue. >> So, that's called the budgeted reserve, right? Isn't that the main account
>> that we can draw from if we're short, >> but the whatever excess we have, that would go into that account. So, we anticipate $186,550 is going to go into that account, >> but then would be anything else above if
we had more money than that. That's talking about reserves. >> I think it's talking about unappropriated money, money not used. So, the word is that so that's what that's what when I read it, that's what I'm thinking. anything that we didn't bring to town meeting and say this is
what is happening with this money. >> So I didn't want someone who's not familiar with it to think that that meant oh they didn't spend anything out of >> exactly >> housing so now it's going into the undesated. So that's why I thought maybe remove it for
>> right >> clarification. Yeah for in case it caused confusion. >> Yeah. Well, it's incorrect actually, >> but well, so and and Lynn is making a point that people might want to know,
>> okay, what happens to them, but it builds. So maybe that's what we say >> any designated >> appropriated funds are are >> if we use the word reserves in the category here, yeah, they remain in
their respective category. And >> so that would mean if something went over their amount they're supposed to have and they got a little bit from the big pot then when it goes back it would go into their respective here and
respective there from whence they came >> right >> to category I'll just leave it as that respective category right that >> I would just I think there's some clarification there leaving unappropriated in because it's you could
be unappropriated in that it wasn't allocated to a certain pot or you could be unappropriated that it wasn't tied to a proposal. >> Yeah. >> Do you think we should still use that >> appropriate change? >> It's going to be retained according to
the above or you know >> just we're just fighting over words right now. I mean, you can you can figure it out probably outside of this meeting and make the make the sentence work as long as you know the premise behind it that we're all on the same page, >> right? It's a hard thing to explain, >> right,
>> if you don't understand how we appropriate the how we come up with the money, >> right? But I mean, she may be able to eliminate that one sentence and clarify it in two or three. >> Perhaps not. >> I think maybe just for use in future years, maybe I'll just leave that and just change.
>> But so that sounds and Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And I'll put together we'll have another draft. >> Yeah. I mean, I think, >> you know, if you need more than one sentence, >> right? >> Yeah. For clarification. >> Okay. Okay. >> As long as we're defining it, then we
should otherwise we could just say as appropriate, you know. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, we'll leave a we'll come back to that and just make sure that everyone's on board. Um, next in the future when we're doing
it, we should really explain it as we're doing it, especially if we go over a category because we've talked about that before like you know that we're taking when we take out of the big pot, we usually explain it pretty well. >> Yeah. >> Right. But that's why that's why look if
somebody's reading this because we do want people to read this on their own too. >> I get it. >> Um >> okay next >> on page eight at the top. So it says gifts to the town of Lakeville are taxdeductible to the full extent allowed under the Internal Revenue Code. For
more information, please contact the committee chair at CPC at lakevillem.org. And I'm like I don't want to give out tax advice. I'm not going to give out tax advice. So, um I think that should go to the town or
>> I would think the treasur >> accountant or >> for a >> or do you just strike that sentence all together and let them do their own research? >> Yeah, let them go to their own accountant. >> Just take it out. All right. Out. >> All right. Next one.
I haven't seen the numbers come out from the coalition to put in here yet. Um, on page 12, I did add um the red the language Noel had um in the red line
draft that I sent out to everybody, I did add from Middlear's plan some language about the housing. Um, and I don't have it in front of me right now. Noel, do you have you have the red line?
>> Well, I if you're I'm thinking what I'm thinking about is chapter um >> Do you have page 12? >> Yeah, I do have page 12. >> Do you have the red? >> I don't have the red strike out there. But is that what you were talking about? ZBA number.
>> No, no, no. So, that's um >> because you had said something about the housing. >> Oh, under housing goals. >> Yeah. Oh, shoot. I wrote that down, too. >> Okay. >> On my other thing, >> but I did I found something from Middleboro and I used that and just inserted it. >> It was appropriate. Yeah,
>> that makes sense. >> Wasn't it first time home buyers or something like that? >> It Yeah, it was it was a quick line from the middle borrow that seemed to encompass what Noel had suggested as far as >> sounds good. First time home buyers or something along those lines can actually
take I could look at it. All right. I'm not seeing that real quick. >> Something like first time home buyers assistance program or something to that effect. >> Yes, something like that. Um the next one on page 15
um under historic preservation goals just on that bottom paragraph the last sentence and this is actually something we added and I don't know if when it if I typed it in if I just added a word but
um that last the building department will go through will will through a review of single applications for a community preservation grant make a determination if a like for like repair will be done of if a building
permit is required or if a structural review is needed. I think I it should have just been if no of take out the of >> paragraph was that >> it's the the last sentence of that last paragraph >> building department. I think it was one
of those of no if. >> But then the of state then. >> Um >> it should be or instead of of. >> You think it's or cuz the or is further on. >> No, I think there's three. There's three possibilities and that's why it's all.
>> Is it supposed to be an or? >> It should be or. It should make a determination if a like forl like repair will be done or if a building permit is required or if a structural review is needed. was it's those and then they're the like for like is the less serious and the structural review is the most
serious or most expensive. >> Okay, I'm glad you remember. >> Yeah, it should be or not of. >> Okay, so I'll change that to or um just another comma down below. Um under the open space recreation quiticus swamps at shores are completely
or largely protected from development, however long pond is not protected. just seemed like a very long sentence without it. Uh the next one I had was on page 20
under how to apply for funding. Uh we used to have a simple onepage step one application and it is no longer one page. So um applicants must first submit a step one application. take out simple one page.
>> Um, and a little further down it says if the CPC determines the project is eligible. Um, and actually it's not just a determination whether it's eligible or not. it's if it should move forward
because I think we had that discussion as far as is it, you know, were we just using the step one for the items that are eligible or are we determining at that point should they move forward
because there's all those other caveats. >> So, we're adding and should move forward. >> Yep. So, I would take out eligible input. Should move forward determines the project is uh should move forward, not is. >> But we would assume that if they're moving forward, they are eligible, right?
>> Correct. Yep. So, right up above it, it says step one application determines if the project is eligible for funding and let CPC know how many potential projects to plan for. >> So, you say is eligible to move forward.
Well, so because if we so say one category has so many applications and we have to narrow it down. It's not just okay these are all app eligible now it's more of narrowing it down >> which one >> which one should move forward
not just are they eligible >> so then just should move forward. Yeah >> that's was what I suggested unless anybody had a >> suggestion. No that makes sense. >> Okay. um on page 20.
So, we're I actually had the most edits on these next three pages just because of um how you know how we've been doing things. Um, under application review on page 21, um, step two, under the step two
paragraph, uh, step two applications will re be reviewed for whether the CPA funds serve as catalysts for leveraging other funding sources, positive impact on the lives of the residents of Lakeville, long-term benefits to the town, long-term cost to the town,
and I wanted I thought it would make sense to add ability for maintenance and upkeep because that's one of the things that we've been looking for. How so? Not just are they going to cost the town, but do they have a ability for upkeep and maintenance because
um if they're not kept up, that money should go back to the CPC or CPA. So I thought to add right after that comma and the ability for maintenance and upkeep another comma and if action is not taken
urgency of the project and other factors may be relevant to a specific project. Um on the next paragraph down there was at the end um the last sentence. The select board may
not increase funding nor consider requests that do not come to C come with CPC recommendation. Funds approved at the town meeting will be available for projects to begin work. And I just thought to add upon the return of a completed grant agreement or um
memorandum of understanding to CPC because it's not like as soon as town meeting is done now they can start after town meeting I send out the email I send out the grant agreement or theou depending on what kind of project and then that's when they should be able to
start um begin work. Um, >> is that duplicating what's in that last paragraph at the bottom? >> At which one? >> Oh, under so cuz it is stated down here
under award pro process, but I thought maybe just above there too. Do you think it's >> I think I don't think it's a problem to repeat that because it it needs to be really clear. >> I agree. >> Okay.
Um, and then so under the CPA funding award process, it says following conclusion of town meeting, each successful applicant will receive an award letter. Um, I've been sending it out as an email, so thought maybe just change it to an email um, instead of award letter. So, it's the email with
the attachment of the um, and it says, you know, accompanied by either the memorandum of understanding or a grant agreement. Um, and so then the next sentence, >> so you want it to be email, not something general like notification or
>> if you think something like not, yeah, it can be more broad, >> email notification will receive an award notification. Okay. Okay. Um, and then when it said grant
agreement must be signed to return to the town. >> It says letter again though the next sentence down the letter will be accompanied by your sentence and one award. >> Okay. >> Notification letter >> notification. >> Okay. Say it again. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Put the mic on the or pink on the mic, please. And then below that where it says grant agreement I wanted to insert orou must be signed to return to the town of
Lakeville before projects start. Um, I know we've been asking for them just before the payment goes out, but I think it's just a good exercise to make sure that we're getting them before they start the project, too, because that has more information of
what their expectations are. Um, on the next page 22, uh, once again, it said award letters. So, um, notification and should it be notification email or just notification? >> Just leave it as notification. No need
to tie it down to any specific one. >> Um, okay. So, now it starts talking about CPC admin contact information. So, change that to project liaison. So,
>> uh, on page 22 at the top of the page still. >> Yeah. >> This >> it's part of the second sentence. >> Oh, >> instead of admin. >> Oh, okay. >> Yep. CDC admin. It should be project liaison contact information. So, those are the things that they're getting. So,
they're getting an email with their agreement and that agreement says this is who your project liaison is and here's the contact info. I know anybody who's been a project leazison and I know Kathleen and Nancy you guys have done it so you know that
uh that's the process and then I wanted to strike the sentence that says projects receiving CPA funding shall credit this source of funding and promotional material and we're appropriate at the project location
except uh for T. So that is duplicated. Um this one is duplicated. Um oh further down. So it says applicants must recognize the CPA. So, in that same
paragraph, it kind of says it again, but it's a little bit more specific. And then also the next sentence I thought we could strike because it says, "Except for town sponsored projects, a grant agreement prepared by the CPC must be signed by the applicant after the
project has been approved at town meeting and before CPA funds are to be dispersed." So instead of having those two separate sentences, combined it with that first sentence that we just talked about where I said, "Let's add and now just get rid of that sentence." So it's not going back
to that same issue. Um, and then it says, "Okay, applicants must recognize the CPA as a funding source for their project. This recognition ris recognition should appear on any materials involving the project such as press releases,
brochures, etc. In order for Leapal residents to see the results of their their tax funding, a CPA sign shall be displayed on the property on a case-by case basis as determined by the CPC. And I I wanted to insert both temporary signage and permanent signage indicating
CPA support. Um temporary signage shall be made available through CPC because we want both. We want to Say there's a project that is funded by CPA funds and we talked about putting
like a placard on something um as opposed to right now we just have the temporary signs which they can get through us but we want them to be responsible for paying for but we want we want them to do both because so for
example the Thompson Hill Cemetery at the end when they're done you know I would hope that we'd get >> plaque on one of the granite posters There's something we were just talking about that um at historical about a plaque for the building the museum because of the Belelfrey.
>> Oh yeah, >> we need to have a plaque put there to the side of the front door somehow. >> Okay. >> I know that we were going to see about standardizing that. Did we ever get a a print out or >> So >> we haven't had anything that was
>> we haven't been ready for that step. So >> I think that's why we had said um as determined case by case basis because some places are will be more appropriate for certain types. Right. >> Well like a cemetery there's no building structure but you want it near the
entrance main entrance >> on a post as opposed to hanging on a rail. There's this at the historic townhouse the garden club when they put that piece of fencing that went along goes along Bedford Street. There is a plaque that's about this big and it's a
just shy of the width of the post. It says the Lake of a Garden Club did it in the year. >> So, we might have something with maybe smaller letters for more printing, but >> yeah. Um, >> it's stood up really well because it's
been over 30 years that it's been there. Yeah. >> Right. >> So, I wonder does um Barbara Stanch do those kind of signs? Lex. >> I mean, it depends on what it's on, but probably not. >> No,
>> I know. We did kind of talk about it, but I don't remember exactly who I guess if they if the garden club knows of a good >> Probably the company isn't in business now at possibility, >> but we can look through the records and see where. >> So, I'll put You want me to put that on
a future agenda? Yeah, I think that we should talk about >> like uh for exterior um signage because everything will be exterior I believe unless we have something indoors that something has been repaired. >> What is that? Is it made out of wood? >> It was No, I think it's cast aluminum
maybe or something like that. It's either cast or it's engraved. I can't. >> So yeah, she wouldn't do something. Okay, >> it's highly visible but I don't remember. We'll check it out. >> Okay.
>> So, but does that make sense what I said for the edits? >> Basically, do Okay. >> Uh, moving down, availability of awarded CPA funds. Uh, the second sentence talks about invoices for work completed or CPA funds
allocated for approved projects shall be submitted to the CPC together with a project status report. Um, we haven't been asking for those. Um, and it goes on to say form prepared according to the request for funds
guidelines, which we do have it in our appendix, but we haven't been asking for it. So I would just suggest maybe changing shall be to maybe or should we just take that out as
a requirement because it shell is more of like you must do it. Um >> you could say to >> to the chair you could say CPA funds allocated for approved projects to be submitted to the CPC
together. Well, so my my issue is with that project status report. So if if we have a project that's completed like the cemetery repairs have been done so quickly and they just give us the final invoice by the end of the
summer, we don't and we're getting updates from our liaison. So it's sort of like an extra step. Maybe we want to leave it in there in case we do want to require that at some point, but I don't think it should be a shall. I think it
has to be something else like a may or a >> a generally required. >> Maybe required. >> Yeah, maybe. Maybe. Do I have to change submitted or to required or may be submitted
instead of shall >> may be requested. Okay. Maybe request >> requested. Yeah. >> Through the chair. I think that that's fair because some of these projects go are going to go on for months, >> right?
>> Yeah. So, if it's a longer project, it does make sense to have that requested and I'll change it to by the CPC by >> um and dispersement and use of CPA
funds. Um down at the bottom uh last sentence in that paragraph, the CPC will provide successful applicants with a memo describing the completed award process which adheres to the guidelines of the Massachusetts procurement law. Um I'm not going to
send them a memo saying these this is the guidelines. Um I think it should say applicants shall comply with award process as described in the current CPP because the plan already designates that it has to comply with
procurement. Um so I'd take out that and just insert that makes sense. Um last page
up at the top it says funds may not be dispersed until there is an appropriate deed restriction or the department of revenue or the department of conservation and recreation or uh the mass historic
commission or executive office of housing livable communities as appropriate. Um, >> where are we? >> 23 top. >> Yep. At the top. But just a couple lines down. Three lines. >> I may not be dispersed. Okay.
>> Yep. Um, that I was a little confused just reading it myself like not be dispersed until there's an appropriate deed restriction. um
from applicable entity cuz I'm just the way that it reads. >> We haven't required that we >> right but so so this is this is for anything that's um you know how we need
to know if it there's a de restriction. So if there's a a purchase, so if >> um open space land, >> if um land for the purpose of housing, that's why it says EOHLC. Um
>> yeah, so the do must come into play. It's in in one of those situations. I know conservation recreation that makes sense for parkland. um historical commission. I guess that's if you're purchasing something for historic.
I think that if it was a structure that was not owned by the town, you'd want to make sure that there was a historic um restriction on it because if there isn't um suppose somebody buys the property and
decides to go through the bylaw um demolition to eliminate the structure or something like that, then the money that you've spent of the taxpayers dollars on a CPC grant disappear, you know. So, I think that's why the historic that we we haven't had
any well, we had >> the museum, but we didn't have we haven't had an individual who's actually applied for something like that. So, that would it's going to be a new one of those things that we've never done before, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Right. Um so, does it does it sound right the way
that it's written though or is it straightforward enough? I think so because there was the other element that's on the um on the checklist too which if you go to the checklist on required attachments as applicable on page 30
there are things that talk about um inventory or letters of support building review requirement or structural review but it doesn't say um because not always it doesn't say the um historic says it's
someplace historical. >> Yeah, but it's not what I was saying isn't here. Okay. So, that is that's straightforward enough you think the way that it is. Yeah.
Okay. Uh, a little bit further down, the sale or gift of organ the sale or gift of these properties or artifacts. I think it should say
uh something else. Properties project or artifacts within 5 years from the date of the award letter shall require the reimbursement of the entire award amount unless CPC waves this requirement in part.
>> And that's to protect t the taxpayers dollars that are being awarded. Yeah. Um, and I think it it's supposed to say or failure to upkeep and ma maintain as well because we've talked about that how if
the money is dispersed and it's not upkept um that they'll have to pay it back. So, is properties or artifacts enough? Is there another word that we could use to describe the
or is project an appropriate? >> I think you say properties because you think structures and or land >> and artifacts would then be objects really any kind of objects. Um artifact sounds like it's historical
>> as opposed to or unless you said artifacts slashobbjects so that people would know you mean anything. the sale or gift of these properties or artifacts. So, I just want it to be all-encompass encompassing so that
someone can say, "Oh, well, this isn't a >> But every time we have one of those, this isn't that's when we make a little edge of change, >> right?" >> Um, through the chair. So, are you saying that
or failure to maintain? >> Is that what you're getting at? So I I would like to add um yes under the sale gift or failure to maintain these properties. That's why I guess project makes sense too. Project
or artifact. >> No >> yeah project. >> So the sale or gift of or failure to upkeep and maintain these properties, projects or artifacts within 5 years. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense. Okay.
>> Um So you're adding another sentence. You're not taking away the sale or gift of right. Okay. >> Nope. Just add in a little bit. Um, oh, down at the bottom of the next paragraph, paragraph two, where it says,
"Proof of coverage must be submitted for CPC files prior to first request for reimbursement." Um, so it's talking about insurance asking for construction projects to
submit their um liability insurance. I know we haven't gotten to that point. So I I don't really want to take it out, but right now we're asking for W9's anyways. So should we also include W9's because Nancy, you've been asking for a
W9 payment? We >> have to. Yep. um require all contractors and just show proof of coverage must be submitted. Proof of coverage um and W9. Is that a good place to put it?
>> I don't know. Shouldn't that be in the process? The funding award process asking for a W9 then? >> Well, I only Well, when they won't pay unless they have a W9, >> right? >> So, it's nice to submit it with the payment. I mean, if we have it up front,
who knows where it's I mean, we'll keep track of it, but um >> they want it on, >> right? They want they need >> So, if it's if it's the same, uh vendor more than once. They've they keep that
>> the cemetery. We keep the W9. So, I didn't have to do it again, but that's >> So, you don't need to do a W9 each time. >> No, unless you change the guy you're working with. >> Okay. So, I'll just add in W9. So that that's part of >> I think that people say, "Oh, I needed to do that." Because they haven't dealt
with a municipality. That's what the issue is. >> And they might not have it, which you want which is why you want to get it up front, >> right? So they don't know that they need because I think that held up something at one point. I think >> it got complicated because you paid for part of it. So when they said bill, it
wasn't for they were like we can't pay this little piece and leave that out because it was a larger amount that you had put some money in. So I had I just called and had them rewrite another bill so I could pay it the amount that was >> due. You can't just line us off for no
reason. What where did that go from? I I think part of the issue with that whole project was it took so long for it to go from the beginning to completion because of the uniqueness of the structure and the building and a lot of it was offsite and there was a lot of complications
with the vendor and >> personal life and stuff like that. So that >> was why it was unusual. >> He gave you a break too, right? It was he gave you a little break too. It was a little less. >> It was very he was a big break. >> Yeah. All right. the Yeah, it was very nice that they had
>> good. >> All right, almost done. Um the ne the low paragraph under requesting awarded funds. Um just that first sentence make it into two and invoices for work completed or funds allocated for approved projects shall be
submitted and signed by the applicant. Period. CPC may request that invoices be accompanied by a request for funds form submitted to the I don't want it to say you know shall because that's the the sentence above says shall so I don't
want it once again how we were saying you know we may request but it doesn't have to be for every project um each request for funds form must include and I just crossed out an updated
project status report and uh skip to the original invoice, receipts, cancel checks. Um because I think that was covered up above. And then payments will be made directly to the applicant unless the applicant is the
town of Lakeville's department, which it's been um paid to the entity on the invoice. We haven't been paying the applicant. So Joan Martin would have been dispersing money, you know. >> Um, so I think we have to change it from
applicant to >> entity on the invoice. Is there something better than that? >> Vendor. >> Vendor. >> Yeah, I was think too. >> Okay. >> To the vendor. Uh if
required each other oh yeah this is the other part I had forgotten about this uh down at the bottom fourth line down uh from the bottom state law prohibits reimbursement for sales tax. I forgot about that. I don't even know if we've been checking to make
sure there is no sales tax on these invoices. Um >> some won't be >> they won't. No. >> Okay. No. >> Um, invoices shall identify and appropriately reflect this. CPC may appoint CPA administrator or authorize CPC chair. I want to change that to
treasurer, that's you, Nancy, not me, to process certain payments. Uh, requests for funds above 10,000 are to be voted on by the community preservation committee uh prior to payment. I just figured that to be a more complete,
right? That was that. >> Thank you. >> Um I felt like I hadn't read it thoroughly in um a couple years cuz I was like there were things that I as I
went through that I thought were in there and weren't and um yeah where I guess I haven't read it thoroughly. Um, oh, the only other thing on that request for funds project status
report on page 31, it does say on number nine, it says the fourth Wednesday, which is when we had been meeting. Now it's the third Thursday. And then um it says CPC administrative assistant, and I've just crossed that
off and put uh project liaison. Um the step one application is in our packets because I realized that um Kathleen had made a suggestion that we had approved a few month a couple months
back. Um and so when I had added the you can barely see that blue where it says please be sure to include the cost of the signage. Um, I also added, had the applicant read the
current draft of the community preservation plan on that cuz that was something we had talked about and I didn't see it in here. So, I wanted to make sure that was in. And then the other part on page three of that application is what Cathine had suggested. We've already gone over and we approved put it in. I
just had two different copies and now I made sure that they're combined into the one. So that will be put into the plan appendex for the step one. Anybody else has have
any question, comments, edits on that? All right. Um a discuss and possible vote on input from board committee commission representatives. So did anybody have a chance to go back to their respective board committee commission? Get any
feedback from anybody? I had um through the chair uh I had let them know about the 19th the hearing the CPC hearing for the public for input and nobody um turned up. Um
I guess this is where I let you know the feedback that I've been getting from my parks. Okay. Um well, so I've directly addressed some repetitive negative statements about parks. I mean
about CPC made at parks meetings. Um I've heard the same words repeated. CPC doesn't want to give us any money more times than I can count. And I'm going to be honest with you, it's it's at every meeting. I've heard it said that CPC only wants to spend money on land. I've
heard that many times. The attitude that I'm getting, it's it's one of entitlement. It's very unprofessional and it's at every opportunity. It was even at soccer league signups on Saturday. It it just it's it's every
single meeting that I have. Um when Zenith Engineering made their presentation at John Pon, you know, for the John Pon part project, the chair, >> at the end of the presentation, she asked him if he had gotten paid. He said, "Yes, I got the installment that's customary." And he would provide an
invoice for the remainder. And and the response from the chair was, "I hope he gets paid. I hope he gets paid." And it was embarrassing to observe. And the ungrateful derogatory suggestion calling it into question.
These statements just, you know, it points to unprofessionalism. And you know another complaint and and every time I hear that I try to explain the guidelines that we have and the way the process works. I heard from
um Scott Holmes. He he said, "But we did everything that CPC asked." And I said, "So tell me more." And he said, "I filled out filled out the entire application." And yes. And he he felt very slighted that after filling out the
application, it wasn't approved. So um this is what I'm getting. Um the derogatory statements continue to this day, you know, and I try to explain that that completing an application doesn't
guarantee it's going to be approved and >> or eligible >> or eligible and and it's just >> I I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not. It's at every single meeting and and it's it's very unfortunate to hear
it said in front of an entire league of of people that play soccer. So that's going out into the community and um you know the the flat state and CPC doesn't want to give us any money. So this is what's being said and I'm sorry
to have to report that. I really am. That's that's what's going >> Well, I think that we should know. Maybe there's something that we can do as far as if you're going to be they didn't come to the meeting. So maybe if there's an educational where we can explain to them if you're going to put in an application, this is your training
session. I mean that's I I I've heard the same things, >> right? I mean I had a few friends that were at that meeting come back to me and ask me what's the CPC isn't, you know, approving projects. So I explained it to them and then they said, "Oh, okay. That
makes sense." So they're not getting the full story and it makes CPC look bad. >> So maybe we put something in the newsletter. >> I think one of the biggest issues is that people have to understand what the limitations are for applications because for instance historical you we can't do
anything new, >> right? >> We're preservation basically. We can't recreate something new. we could preserve something old, maybe rework it to a certain degree, but we can't do anything new. And a lot of the
projects that they put forth were really good projects, but they didn't follow the criteria for what the limitations are. They if you go look at the a very colorful piece,
there's a whole things that says the things that you can and cannot do. And we even I know we've added definitions to the plan for this purpose because capital um project to make sure that the definition is there because it can't be
something movable like the socceret. So it can't be something movable like the moy mats >> has to be something permanent. has to be and that's the definition of capital um project that Stuart at the coalition had sent back to us and we're not experts and we pay to be the dues to be part of
the coalition so that we can get their guidance because if we don't take their guidance and somebody submits a 10erson lawsuit against the project and saying it's not applicable they would have to pay the money back
and >> and who wants to do that >> exactly so Even like Stuart has said, even if other towns have done things that maybe aren't eligible, it doesn't mean that anyone else should because that it could always
come back >> through the chair. I explained that very fact on at Saturday's soccer signups and it was just met with a a blank stare. And unfortunately
these, you know, the the same criticism that I'm getting, these people are not clearly not reading >> right >> clearly not reading it. And I, you know, I really am not um don't feel that I should have to spoon feed it. >> And so
>> can I just interrupt you real quick? I have to head out for another commitment. Okay. >> So >> we we have >> Isn't there a list of things that are not there's a list of things that are not acceptable, right? Bye. Thank you. >> Bye. Bye. >> Are there
>> Well, the coalition is available to everyone. Are we not putting their email out there enough? I mean, there's that anybody in the state could call the coalition and say, "Can you give me a little advice on this project?" >> That's a really good idea, but I think that we have to do something as far as
communicating. >> So, I think I can I can put together a memo. My thought is to bullet point specific pieces of the plan where it says right in our plan the definition of capital project and
include that as one of the bullet points and this the project must be meet this criteria and I recall like um one of the projects was a fence we didn't say no they withdrew because they didn't want to submit the necessary information that was needed for that
fence because of it was in a roadway and they we had to know what are those um obstacles because there's gas, there's water, there's all those things that are in the roadway and you have to know where's the town property, where's the
road layout. Um they withdrew that. So I I feel as though we're getting um accused of not approving projects when it's really they don't fall into the criteria >> through the chair. I'm not I'm not
hearing planning and I'm not hearing planning and and I know that parks is poorly funded right now. You know, it's it's the situation we're in. However, if there were planning, you know, there's frustration that this that the soccer
fields are not they need maintenance and and so, you know, maybe planning nine months out or or a year ahead is what needs to be done because because it's not
it's not a fund that is that is instantaneously available. There's a whole process and there's dispersements and step one is in September. Soccer fields need to be done now. So I'm not >> even be qualified.
>> If you look on page nine, there's a whole list of things that you can't do like gymnasium, stadiums or any similar structures and including any indoor recreation, removable structures and artificial turf. So, I mean, that's one of the things there, but there's more. There's more things. Most of the things
that came through were great ideas because of the educational thing, but they just didn't fit the criteria of the stuff. It's got to be permanent. It can't be something you can move around. It's >> and it can't be maintenance. It can't be maintenance. >> And you can't do just routine
maintenance as defined as the upkeep of any real or personal property. So right there, anything that you're talking about like fields, you probably couldn't do because it's general. It's something that you would do on an annual basis to get the fields ready.
>> So it's not a pro, it's not a a project above and beyond something like that. >> Well, through the chair, what I'm getting what I'm hearing is not constructive. How can we make this work or it's it's we want the money now. That
that's what I'm hearing. And it's and I know and it's hand over fist too because John Pawn Engineering is just coming to fruition and he did a beautiful presentation and I'm telling you promise I know there's going to be an application for a playground which maybe
will qualify but I would have loved to have heard a thank you. I I would have loved to have just heard thanks CPC for making >> Well, they do have to credit CPC as we just went through the plan. So they do have to credit for the plan, the John Palm Park plans. So
>> but the smart thing to do is not just try to grab the money for every little thing. Let it build up so that you can use it on something much larger instead of every year. Oh, we got to submit an application to spend this money. I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
>> And then to turn around and bash the CPC because we won't it's just >> And then the problem is is that the open space and the park are together, >> right? That's a problem. So, right. >> That's a real problem. >> Crazy. Yeah. >> But at the same time, >> we would like land to be purchased,
>> but we have the ability to go ahead and move on land because of the time it limit, but that's the only thing is the purchase of property, not um something that would be recreational as opposed to >> open space. >> Land came available with, you know, not
in the cycle of the step one, step two. >> That's when we can you know, approve something like that. It would have to go to a special town meeting though, but it's been done in other towns. >> I know this has been a whole learning process for all of us because we've
never been liaison before and until we get a new >> thing that we don't understand or look at or need to talk to the coalition to find out what does this qualify or not. The thing is that liaison people are the people they should be talking to. So
either members at large who are just in the community or the people for specific things. So a lot of people ask me about projects for historic and I can tell them right away whether or not they even want to do step one because it doesn't
qualify. You can't build a powerhouse or powderhouse or something like that for an for a museum site. You just can't do that because it's creating something. You can do it but not with CPC money. >> Right. Right. Okay. >> So, I feel like it's still fairly new
>> and I still think some folks think it's an instant grant, >> but it really isn't. And I mean, if you look at the categories, they're not >> short-term, you know, like you're talking about housing, you're talking about land purchases. I mean, you know,
um, so I, you know, like anything, we've talked a lot about communication and I think folks, maybe in the newsletter cuz if the applications are due like in September, you know, you back up six months, which
would probably be around this time of year, and say, "Hey, if anyone's looking to do this, then this is and speak to someone, you know, call any kind of office who can give you um or even some information,
>> right? And and you know um I I can sense their frustration, Noel, because as can you like you just said, there's not a ton of funding for the parks. So, they're just trying to do what they know needs to be done with the very limited resources and I think they're just
figuring this out that >> this isn't like an instant grant or, you know, so >> available for everything. That's right. That's what it is. >> So you have to plan an event. You have to look down have long range plans which is what this could qualify for.
>> You should be on a capital plan >> so that if you're thinking about something that you want to do in in 2026, you should have applied at least a year ahead of time. You know, I mean, so some of that is preparation and people don't realize it because we are so new.
eventually people will say, "Oh, if you want this for 28, you better get it in before 27." You know, that type of thing. But the other thing is that all of the things that the park had, the ideas about the education and the greenhouse and all of those things were
all good projects. It's just that we couldn't fund them because of the limitations of the requirements for our for us. It has to be something permanent. It can't be a supply thing. It can't be we need new field nets or
something like that. I mean, all the things that um that came forward were good, but they needed to find another source for funding, >> right? >> And they could be getting hung up on the word recreation because to me, recreation is like >> that's why it's outdoor recreation and it's very specific and it is said
outdoor recreation a number of times because >> nothing can be indoors. Outdoor recreation only. But to me, recreation is almost like instant gratification kind of, you know, and they're like, "Well, it's recreation. The kids use this, right?" So, >> you know, I feel bad that, you know,
Noel's getting the brunt of their frustration, >> but I still think that CPC is so new that most folks >> through the chair, um, the the other thing that came up was the ADA mats and I I said we really wanted to fund that.
We wanted that to work. >> And I was told by the chair of parks that another town in Massachusetts did get ADA maps through CPC. And I asked I said
what town? Because I wanted to find out and she would not tell me. She refused to tell me. But >> yeah. So like so like I I think I mentioned this just because other towns have done it it doesn't mean it qualifies and if it doesn't qualify we
have been going by the guidance from the coalition because we are not experts and we don't want to see something happen >> happen that they have to return the funds >> right so I mean you worked with the coalition through each one of those processes so I think people need to know that I think they need to know that
we're just not randomly making these decisions okay our process is this we're knew we depend on the coalition. This is how you can contact them, but each one of these applications was reviewed with the coalition and they guided us. I think they need to know that, >> right? But even the ones that
>> they told us weren't eligible and we told the applicant that and it came from the coalition, we got backlash on that, too. So the other thing is maybe they need to look at what projects have been approved by communities and what in
terms of like a park department what >> there there must be a whole list someplace of >> yeah it's online >> right >> on we we should probably recommend if you're thinking about applying for a grant >> but that's not a good because if if they can go online and see oh somebody's done
like remember there was a shed so oh instead of a greenhouse let's call it a shed, but you can't just go off of this town was able to do that or this town was able to do that because it has to be a capital project. And if that capital project encompasses other things, then
that's how other towns have gotten around it. >> But maybe the coalition has it. Does the coalition have a list of accepted approved think grants? >> I don't know. I don't know. Because if you could look at what other towns had done correctly, >> they do a list of what other towns have
done, but it's not necessarily all correct because we know that from looking at other towns that have done certain things that aren't >> because they could have to pay it back. >> Correct. >> Exactly. So the person to get on their said, >> so my thought is I I'm happy to put a
memo together, send it out to everyone here. If you have individual feedback, send me your individual feedback so I can make changes. and then we can um is if no one has any feedback, I will forward it to the park
chair and um clerk and ask for it to be placed on the agenda. >> Um because I'd like to just bullet point the things in our plan that very specifically outline what are and are not possible with CPA funds. And
I'll even include that they are supposed to give credit to the CPC for funds and that's something that they have to do. They can't >> it's going to go straight to the parks department. But we talked about the newsletter so it goes to everybody would seem more than singling out the park. I mean
>> well so maybe it's twofold maybe. So I'd like to send a memo. Okay. >> Because if if Noel feels as though she's >> not being heard or understood. I think maybe a memo from this >> a simple memo maybe and then make it more extensive in the newsletter
>> like refer it to the newsletter. >> So I'll I'll put together the memo. >> Okay. And I'll I'll take care of that first and then we'll put it on our next agenda. Send me your feedback. What do you want to see? And then if I'll put it on the in the agenda packet and we can go over our next meeting what we want to
put out there as far as information. >> Yeah. >> People need to understand that we're just not in control and making decisions on our own. really has to be the message. >> And maybe once we have our updated plan for this year, once we have all the edits approved and um then we can do like a maybe something in whether it's
the newsletter or the masket or however >> and something that says that you know this the 2027 plan is available. Please review it here and maybe give some snippets something like that. But we can put that on another agenda. I do think
offering to meet with the parks commission is a good idea. >> Yeah. So, in the memo, offer to have a joint meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. All right. Agenda item number two, review and possible vote on final invoice for John Pond Park engineering
plans. So, in our packet, we do have an invoice for ZCE for $15,500. Uh they have the site plan with associated storm water calculations and drainage report, septic design, notice
of intent which includes one meeting with conservation commission. And uh this is the final invoice. We'd already um paid the 9500 plus this 15,500. That's a total of $25,000 for this um
John Palark engineering plans. Would someone like to make a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. Um, Zenith Consulting Engineering invoice for $15,500. >> Second. >> Second. Second. All in favor? >> I.
>> And Nancy, you'll be able to get that paid. >> Y. >> Agenda item number three, review and possible vote on recommended edits for affordable housing trust language. In our packet, uh, we had discussed previously and I mentioned I could put
this in our packet. This is the existing town of Lakeville um affordable housing trust bylaw. And one of the things that Shelley Goring had uh suggested when she had met with the select board was that
uh instead of a a board of appeals member um she had said it could be another member at large but this committee had discussed having it be a member of the CPC to keep the continuity
um which makes sense. So, um I would suggest replacing board of appeals with committee preservation committee. And then I did think that uh where it says one member of planning board or their design because um it would be nice to have
if we had a planner be able to designate someone uh to do that. Um, Madam Chair, >> yes, >> I totally um misunderstood, >> I think, when we were talking about this. >> Um, I totally agree with adding um a
member of the community preservation committee, but I did not realize that it meant getting rid of a zoning board of appeals member. So Shelley Goring had suggested that that was not a recommended member for the housing trust because zoning board oversees approvals
of 40B and so that could be a conflict because they oversee the comprehensive permit. That was that was from Shelley when she met with um the select board. That's the guidance that she had given saying when she had read um read through our our language,
>> but they are the overseers of of the larger 40b affordable. I just don't I would like to hear from C council that that's really a conflict of interest because that's how this was written and
it if we did do this and it went by um it would have to go by the attorney general I guess and he could say if it was I just not that's one person's advice I guess is my thing. I really didn't get that part from her. >> So she didn't say it to us. She said it
in front of the slate board. >> Okay. And I was there. Sue and I were actually both there that evening. >> Um, and that's where I heard her say it and it's it stuck out with me to think, oh, well, instead of CBA, I maybe replace it with CPC and that would be the >> I just can't see how some input from the
zoning board would be bad or complicated. >> So, because this is an affordable housing trust. So now this is overseeing Lakeville's affordable housing units, but they're also sitting there and approving a comprehensive permit for a developer for 40B. >> I have to tell you, they don't like it.
They don't like it sometime. And maybe they would have some ideas. I don't think our zoning board at all likes to approve these 40bs. I think they're trapped and they have to because of state law. >> Oh, I don't I don't think it's whether they like it or not. It was just what she had recommended. in I wish I
remembered what meeting that was. So, was it back in >> October? Maybe it was when Shelley finally um >> they could have some >> I just feel I could have some insight into some things that we could help
with. maybe that I I just don't >> but >> I don't want to say I don't believe whoever said that because that's one person's opinion and I know she's a professional but I just I think I'd rather hear it from our own town council that that's really a conflict of
interest because um >> will they will they be looking at this anyways town council >> should be yeah >> so this has been approved since like it says right above >> 2005 >> yep 200 I'm sure the change, right?
>> Without the change, right? >> Well, I'm sure the lawyer should be looking I would think they would be looking at any bylaw change like this. >> Right. >> So, the red part is the change that we're proposing and the black was or the um line through was what was there to
begin with, right? >> Correct. Yeah. Okay. >> It just says board of appeals, but I don't think they'd respond to that unless they were asked if it was a com do that. But my question is really is it really a conflict of interest? >> Yeah, I'd almost rather go with Shel's
advice because she is massousing partnership. She >> that's fine. It's up to the committee to decide. I'm just saying that's my opinion. >> She helps towns craft these, you know, craft the bylaw and craft the plan. But I mean >> I mean I'm sure you could talk to just
ask for an opinion from the lawyers. >> So now it's not as easy anymore. You have to fill out a form. you have to take a vote in order to get town council's opinion. I mean, I guess if this committee wanted to bring this to town meeting as a bylaw edit and put a place on the warrant and then have town
council review it with all the rest, but I don't know. >> I mean, like >> how far >> do we know if this where the plan is with this would be put sent to PL? It wouldn't be this town meeting coming up. >> So, would it be >> I think it would be up to this comm. Do
we want to try to undertake doing this? Because right now it's not appointed. It's still not appointed. Um I maybe bringing it to town meeting for some changes would bring it front and
center and residents can discuss it. Maybe they're not even aware that we have this. Um >> and why hasn't it been appointed? I mean, we know why because we didn't have >> right. We didn't have CPA. And as you can see right in it, it mentions the power. So under powers of board of
trustee, the power of the board of all of all of which shall be carried forth and further master law chapter 44. Oh uh a including money from master law chapter
44b that's CPA. So So I just kind of see this as a little bit of a conundrum here. It's like we want to bring it forward. So this group is going to spend all kinds of time working on this to bring it forward. And
then if this is just a subjective change, you know, then I just hate to see everybody put so much time into it when, you know, someone could read it and tell us what needs to
be done on it legal legally wise like in a >> Well, I I don't even think I don't know if anything really substantial like this is minimal in my opinion. It's literally just taking off one and replacing with another and then the option of a
designate for planning board cuz I know other towns do have a planner that fills that role. Um how far do you guys want to take it? It's up to you. I just >> well I think we answer the question >> together with the zoning board if they
could ar because they're if there's a 40B coming with an affordable housing um component I mean is it at all possible that they could make some that we could help it be more affordable unit so it could last longer that we could work
together with them >> I forget exactly what she did give specific reason why I and I would recommend watching that segment go back and But all zoning boards are different, too. Like I say, I look at our zoning board and they really don't like doing
this and maybe they can be helpful in suggesting some ways that we can extend the affordability. >> It's not whether they like it or that they don't like it. It was a conflict because I think I could be wrong. She may have said something about if you're
providing first-time home buyers incentives through housing trust, that's money, right? Yeah. >> It's a first And then you have people sitting on this trust allocating that money, but then they also approve the project. You know what I mean? So there can be
>> there can be overlaps. It was something like that that she had explained >> because you're dealing with money that's in the trust >> and as well as approving affordable projects. >> Right. I'll have to go back and watch
>> like watch it again because >> Yeah. I want to understand it better. >> Was it? Yeah, >> I think it was around October, the end of October. >> And I mean that could be her recommendation, right? But someone could stand up at town meeting after hours and hours and hours have gone into changing
it and just say I don't think it should be changed, you know. So, >> um, then the people decide, >> right? >> So, is this something we want to pursue? Is this what >> I would think you should you know I mean just you know >> just for clarification
>> purpose it doesn't mean that it's anything against our board because that board can change any time right but it's not that it's the conflict but I think clarification from council is probably a really good idea you know we don't we want to do it right >> right and if you if it is going to go
forward at least >> you know someone can have these answers and say >> this is yeah this is you can do it either way majority chooses or whatever, so folks aren't asking. I That's one thing about town meeting that drives me
crazy is when people ask questions and there's no answers for them. You know, I always feel like we need to answer people's at least try to think of everything people are going to ask. >> And legally, if it really is a conflict of interest, then that says right there, that's why we're >> changing it. Right. The answer is
simple. >> Yes. So, so I'll reach out to the town administrator, let him know that CPC discussed we're interested in potentially bringing a change to this for town meeting, but we would like some guidance from town council as to whether
board of appeals is a conflict. Yeah. >> Do you want me to make that motion so that >> Okay. >> I make a motion of what Michelle just said. I make a motion, you know, that uh Michelle can the chair can reach out to
the town administrator, discuss um possibly getting a legal opinion on conflict of interest >> and this would be a focus of for fall town meeting >> probably. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, we have a motion
>> and a second. We get a bunch of seconds. >> All in favor? I I >> motion carries. All right, I will do that. Agenda item number four, old business status updates. Um,
approved projects. I don't, it's not a project, but just status update from the CPA fund. The projection is uh 15.5% that would be based match for the November 2026 first round CPA trust fund
distribution. So, yep. Is that up or is that down from last year? >> They're about the same. >> Gosh, I can't remember. >> I think it's I think it's up the same. It's up.
>> No, I mean, no, it's down cuz it wasn't I can't remember. It was over 20% when we first joined, right? >> Maybe. I'm pretty sure it was over 20%, but like we had in the plan, that was because they were getting extra funds
and now there's no extra. >> Madam Chair, um the um when you're talking about updates on the projects, um I'm just curious about I guess I will see the plan through conservation, but did a plan come with
this bill? >> Where's the plan? >> No, we didn't get the plan. Just I'll get the plan. >> We should have it on record of the plan. We paying for it. I would like to have the plan, >> right? >> I think he said he was going to talk to Concom about something before he did the stamped final plan.
>> Okay. All right. Yeah, >> I'll call cuz Yeah, he said there may be some changes still. >> Okay. >> Cuz I had asked him about the invoice and he said it wasn't going to change. He wasn't going to add anything for any changes needed. So, he was going to get the invoice over, but I don't know if
the plan is finalized yet. Okay. Yeah. >> I think they were adding a couple of light poles or something. I'm not sure. >> Parks has um one copy. I know. >> Okay. >> But yeah, but it wasn't the final standpoint. So, I thought we'll be
probably seeing it soon. I hope. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other status updates or is this this is the only outstanding project finally completed, huh? >> Yay. >> All right. Um photos of completed ongoing projects.
Maybe we can get a photo of the plants. >> Okay. >> And post it. >> Yeah. >> I'll have it electronically. >> Okay. Um, agenda item number five, review and possible vote on meeting minutes for February 19, 2026. Sue, you did an
excellent job. No edits. >> No, I don't know if anyone else has any edits. >> I did read them. Don't see any issues. >> Okay. I was going to make a mistake on purpose to see if anyone did. Did you make one? >> No, I didn't.
>> I didn't find one. >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> All right, we have a motion. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor. Meeting minutes are approved. Agenda item number six, discuss next meeting date, which is April 16, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Police
station is not available. Would we like to do a Zoom meeting or should we look into an alternate location? What would you ladies prefer? >> Maybe the library. >> I know it's difficult for Lake Camp. >> Okay. >> To do the >> COA,
>> the library or the COA? So, I didn't know if Zoom does anybody prefer Zoom or you want it in person? >> I can. >> I don't prefer Zoom. >> I don't like Zoom. >> We don't. Okay. So, we do want it in person. >> Yeah. >> Can make it work >> in the library. You can make it work. >> The library. The library.
>> Well, I'll have to see. >> They have programming like on Thursday nights, so they may not be available. >> I think that's why we have to go to the COA because >> Okay. >> It'll probably end up in the COA. Then I'll have to look as long as they're available. >> Thank you. >> Um
I will check COA library and if not nothing else is available then we will have to do a Zoom but I will check. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Have >> a motion. Second. >> Second. All in favor? I
>> is ajourned.