get started because we've got a lot to cover tonight. Um, I did send out let let's do the minutes at the end so we can accommodate our guests here since we have so many. Um, I don't have any mail or any news or
anything. Does anyone have any updates from your respective boards. Okay. Uh, all right. So, why don't we just jump into the application? So, the first one is the planning department, the community housing plan. Uh, Maren Tuhill
is here. Um, I sent that out this afternoon. I'm not sure if any I didn't get a chance to look at it either, but Maren, I don't know if you want to to to go through it anyway. And um if anyone has questions um hopefully we can vote on it tonight or if not we'll invite you
back and >> and um thank you very much. Uh um as Caroline said my name is Mara Tuhill, town planner for the town of Littleton. I've worked with many of you for years and I'm meeting a couple of you for the first time um which is very nice. Uh
let's see. The request is um for from the planning department um for funds to uh hire a consultant uh to produce a housing production plan. Um Littleton's housing production plan um the LA latest
one was adopted in 2014. Um what a housing production plan does is it includes um public outreach and research and um draft report and final report um that uh outlines
recommendations for how Littleton should meet the local housing need. Um it will look at things like um where our gaps in housing are. um who in Littleton needs um different housing or different
housing choices. Um so anyway, it's it's a municipal best practice um to have a current uh housing production plan and it adds uh makes it easier when we apply for um for example for one-stop
community grants um adding basically bonus points um to that process. Uh, and yes, my apologies for sending the information to Carolyn late. Um, it's been a little odd being in an out
of town hall. Um, but that's just an excuse, not a good reason for for being late with that. Um, so I'm not sure how much depth you'd like me to go into on this. Um,
yeah, let's, um, >> Caroline, I have a couple of questions about it. >> Um, I looked at it briefly. I It's I don't have it in front of me at the moment because I have so many files open, but um, so, uh, Marin, how was
this funded in the past, this plan? >> I might have to go back to 200 or 12 and check the funding source for that. >> It wasn't the CPC. Yeah. No, >> at that date I'm >> probably not. Okay, >> I can tell you.
>> So, um I guess it seemed to me that the application was pretty general and I guess I'd like to know more specifically what this plan would would cover. So, I'm wondering if you could send us the old plan so we can
see what it you know the types of specifics that it covers. The other the other thing um that I was thinking about as I read it, it seems to me that if CPC funds this,
we should be funding either totally or mostly how the CPA defines community housing. Um and that's what we should be funding. Um it sounds like there may be other elements in this plan that might not be under the CPA
definition. So, I just wanted to raise that as a possible issue. >> Okay. Um certainly I'm happy to send you the link to where um our current housing production plan is posted on the town website and um I know that quite a few
other communities use utilize CPC funding um for their housing production plans, but I'm happy to give you examples of those communities. Hello Marin. These are suggestions or
recommendations to but there's no enforcement in this. Correct. >> Um >> or is there any there's no enforcement in the in the housing market anyways? We're trying to >> corre get to a better place with their
housing market. >> Yes. help us understand um what areas of housing to focus on for housing production. Um we've got a sense that we need more
um apartment units and we know some are will be coming online. Um but as far as um ownership units um what do we need senior units for example and if we need senior units what um uh income level
should we be targeting? Is it a broad range or is it uh you know specific um uh spec specific income levels that we should be targeting. Um and it will
provide part of the um report will be an implementation guide and give a series of steps for um community best practices to to implement or best way to implement the steps um that are recommended at the
end of the housing production plan. >> Okay. >> But we're not there's no way to force developers to adhere. We can entice them but we can't force them. >> No. Right. The um town has the capacity
to set the table. >> Um and in certain cases the town could create the capacity to um produce a certain type of uh housing unit. For example, if the town is interested in
producing um I'll pick on um deeply affordable senior housing. Um is there certain uh town parcels available that we could um consider uh accessing for that purpose?
>> Understood. Gotcha. >> Yeah. >> Um just this is Sanjay just couple of questions. So one um how often this study is done when was the last time it was done? >> Um housing production plan is good for 5
years. The last time we adopted one was in 2015. So, we're well more than overdue. >> So, and you know, I'll back up a little bit. One of the reasons Littleton hasn't um done a new housing production plan is
we're always juggling, you know, what's what's the next priority? What's the next study that we need to do? and housing production plans can be very good for communities that um do not meet the 10% threshold um for affordable
housing units on our subsidized housing inventory. Littleton is uh slightly over 10%. Um but we at this point, you know, since we're 10 years into well 11 years into our old housing production plan, um we'd be well
served uh to do a new one. >> Marin, how long does it take to to actually produce one of these plans? I'm just thinking that the the town is changing rapidly and we're looking at a you know a lot of apartments coming
online in the next three or four years and >> um you know is there does it make sense to go ahead with a production plan when there's so many units in the pipeline? >> Um excellent question. Um it'll take,
you know, up to 12 months uh to work through a housing production plan process between hiring the consultant and getting it completed and adopted. I'm I was hesitant about asking for funding
for a housing production plan the last couple of years because um new units are on the horizon. Um but I think it would be very helpful to go through the process now to have the discussions on um you know who what housing needs are
um will be unmet. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yeah. I just really quickly looked on the um the coalition's datab bank of the projects and um I I got down to the ease
and it looks like Chadam everyone down on the Cape C Chadam Cohasset then conquered Dartmouth East Hampton they've all done housing production plans under CPA funding so I'm sure we there's probably a slew of others.
Um, so Linda, would you rather wait so you can look at what the plan is or >> I personally would, but if everyone else on the commission on the committee feels okay voting on it tonight, then they
should go ahead and do that. >> How does everyone else feel? Well, it's a standard um procedure. I think that um you know you it it's I mean the content is or the format is predictable. So there's not
going to be a lot of surprises in it. So I I um don't really think that there's an issue with um requiring it to wait another month. I think we could go ahead and authorize it. >> Marin, how different is this than the um
the regional housing services that used to be done? I know we we did a couple of those through CPA. Mhm. Um so the regional housing services um it did um is now paid through the affordable
housing trust but of course CPC funding from from prior years um regional h um let's see so there's a consortium of I think eight different communities now
that um have an intermunicipal agreement and we hire um a a housing specialist. Um, currently we're using um Metro West Collaborative Development
um as the consultant. Uh, they offer meetings um usually every other month. um several um staff and um um usually affordable housing trust members attend
those meetings, those remote meetings, find out, you know, what other communities are doing for affordable housing. Um and so that's an ongoing service. Um we pay somewhere around
I think it's up to $5,000 a year for those services. And it their services include some uh monitoring of affordable units and some regional outreach programs um fall workshop and spring workshop every so often.
>> So it is it is different. It is a different >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Uh Jeff, do you have any feeling one way or the other or? Um I
don't although I would say from the committee's point of view and Maren don't hate me. Um >> I know >> this isn't a timesensitive ask. I mean
it could be asked >> you know for next year. Um, and the only reason I say this is because we have a lot of stuff up in front of us, we don't have a way of sorting out our priorities
at the beginning of this meeting. So, uh, and since we've just been presented with it, I would just I I think I'd go with Linda and wait for the next meeting. And then we have the choice of
whether we fund it through the uh what bucket we fund it from. And that bucket um could be the affordable housing trust, you know, funds. Um, so I don't know. I
mean, I'll go along with whatever, but that's those are my thoughts. >> Andrew, >> I personally um if our housing rep is, you know, ready to go forward on it, Barllet, if if you're comfortable, I know Maren has done her due diligence
and uh I've reviewed the application. I'm comfortable, but um you know, if the committee would like to postpone, we can certainly do that. I'm at the mercy of the committee. Yeah, as I said to Marin, we we have the March meeting that we can vote on this
is just give us a little, you know, now that it's done. You know, you're you've done your steps. So, if we can just go and maybe, you know, chew on it a little bit more and um you know, we can look at what's what's in the the housing production plan. >> Um yeah, but I appreciate the deadline
of having it in for this meeting. So, didn't put it off any longer. happy to um um answer any questions um and be prepared for the next meeting. >> Okay, why don't we do that? Why don't we um
um just defer it until our March meeting, but definitely it'll be on the the agenda then for either an up or down. I think that's probably the way to go. >> All right. So, in the meantime, if anyone has questions, we can pass those on to tomorrow and at the planning
department and um you'll let us know where that link the link is to is it on the planning board site somewhere? >> It used to be off on the left hand side
of the uh planning board page, but we had cleaned up a lot of the the old links. So, I can't promise it's live at the moment. I will find it and send it to you though >> and we'll pass it on. Okay. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Well, if you're okay with that, we will uh see you in March. March
18th is the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Yes. March 18. I'm feels like March already. Yes. March 18th. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Lauren. >> Thanks, Lauren. >> Bye.
>> Okay. Good. So, we will defer that. Um, the next one is the school. Um, Steve Marks can't make it tonight. So, let's let's do the conservation commission um uh uh applications next. So, we looks
like we have uh Tim is with us and we have a number of um I'm assuming the the lakes people here to just want to make sure I have everybody. Okay. Um, let's see. I got confus I had my
spreadsheet wrong. So, the first one on the agenda, I know Tim, do you have any specific way you want to do these? Do we want to knock out the forge pond stuff first or long lake or?
>> Yeah, why don't we do the lakes first? Um, and then we'll get into the boardwalks and the and the terrestrial herb herbicides after that. So the first one on the is the long lake management funding uh the forge sorry forge pond
management. Um this is the one that we had talked about and we said yes it was an eligible project but um there was some questions on um whether westward would would be willing to um chip in.
>> Yeah. Um, and so since the last CPC meeting, um, Conscom met with Dave Bar and went over his, um, requests for how to amend the language within the applications. Um, and they ultimately
landed on that they wanted to move forward submitting the applications as they had been um, previously submitted with no um, changes to the language. So, does that mean they don't have an answer from Westford?
>> Um, so that's Oh, yeah, I was about to get to that. Um, I spoke with Westford's conservation agent, Matt Salem. Um, and they have not had they were supposed their CPC was supposed to meet last night. Um, but they moved it to tomorrow
night. Um, so they haven't had a meeting since our last CPC meeting. Um he he said that so so I asked him about I I enlightened him to the applications that
we submitted and asked him how he thought that um Westford CPC would react and he he said he thinks that they would um be favorable in in splitting the cost but he he can't say for sure. Um, so
what I'm proposing is that in the event that Westford decides that they don't want to match funds for the lake management plan or for the uh herbicide treatment that we would go ahead and and conduct both of those on the Littleton
side of the lake. Obviously, it's not ideal. the dollars don't go as far as if there was a herbic herbicide treatment on the entire lake um or if there was a lake management plan for the entire lake, but it is still um beneficial. >> So that was for the herbicide. I'm
sorry, the the plan itself we would just do on the Littleton side. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean, the other thing we could postpone it till our next meeting because Westford's supposed to meet
tomorrow night. It's one possibility. >> I know we're kind of chasing each other here. >> Yeah. Can you hear me? >> Um, yes, Dave. Let go ahead. It >> um Yeah. Can I speak to it to the
management plan? >> Um, yes. If you have some information on the funding of it. Yes. Um, so, uh, Tim, I don't know whether Matt, uh, I mean CPC, Western CPC is still
meeting, but, uh, the, um, Friends of Forge Pond and Western Health and Ponds Collaborative, um, uh, proposed two requests for funding from, uh, Westford CPC, but they weren't, uh,
the lake management plan because the lake management plan got moved up into this year after the needs assessment date for um the um Westford CPC. Um
uh so uh I did Matt say that there's a proposal for the management plan before the CPC for tomorrow? >> He didn't. He just said that they were favor. He think they he thinks they would be favorable to the idea. >> I think they would >> splitting the cost.
>> Um, >> right. Uh, the the applications had to be in uh December 9th though. Um, according to I mean unless they would allow something new. I'd be happy to talk to him and uh see if we could put
in uh if they would consider an application that we put in tomorrow. That would be fine with me. Um I'd be happy to put in the application um uh relative to uh where things absent
that um friend of Forge Pond uh would uh which is environmental uh group uh for the whole lake uh for um the all the communities uh that are affected by the lake and use the lake
uh will seek additional matching funding Um currently, um friends of Forge Pond can commit to uh 17,500 uh which is matching funding for the uh
proposed cost of the plan. And the currently the plan is proposed to cost 35,000 and friends of Forge Pond can commit to matching uh uh half uh so half half friends of Forge Pond half
Littleton CPC. Um we would continue to to look for additional u matching funding for instance from Westford CPC. uh and I would uh request that um the full 35,000
allocation be uh approved with the remainder uh you know the second half only being spent when matching funding is available for instance from Western CPC. Um, one of our expectations is that
some of the recommendations uh that come out of this plan could be for uh appropriate further assessments and planning such as for instance uh wetland watershed assessment. Um, and if
uh the you uh saw fit to approve the full 35 request uh and Westford um also provided 35,000 that would um provide 52,000 for uh for
further uh uh planning such as a watershed assessment. Well, if we if we if we approve the management plan, it would have to be used for the management plan. >> Yes. Uh normally uh a watershed
assessment is uh part of a management plan, lake management plan for lakes that have uh wersheds that are more than 10 times the size of um in general, but
especially uh for lakes that have wershed sizes that are more than 10 times the size of the lake. uh the the wershed is is very critical to uh what's happening in the lake. Um and in the case of Forge Pond, it's uh 70 times the
the wershed is 70 times the size of the lake. So uh typically a watershed assessment would be part of the management plan and this could be phase two of the management plan. >> So is the is the watershed assessment currently in the application we have in front of us?
>> No. >> No. >> No, >> that's an issue. which which Dave if if that if within the findings report of the lake management plan it says that there needs to be a watershed assessment um that's something that we could think about in putting in an application to
CBC in the future um whether it's the fall or or next year >> I agree >> if we had to do that >> in that case it seems to me I don't know if everyone agrees that the CPC should fund half of it and the other half is
going to come from either Westford CPC or the friends of Forge Pond. I don't know. That just seems the way it's playing out. >> Right. We had asked to include the watershed assessment in the application,
but that wasn't um deemed to be appropriate. >> Right. So, I'm looking on the the Westford um agenda for CPA tomorrow and they don't have anything about the management plan. I don't think you're going to get them to get a um put a a
application through tomorrow night. It's only for the um herbicide treatment >> and also the H&H the engineing center. >> Yes. And that too which we've already approved. >> Right. Right. No, I agree with you. >> All right. So I I think what we for the
long lake man or I keep saying forge pond management plan I think we either have to decide that we put through this 35 and um it goes as far as it goes but I think
you're right Linda if if they decide to move on I don't think we should you know there's plenty of time now if there's a watershed plan that is done we should be able to push back on Westford and say hey you know we we've already done the the upfront work.
>> I do have a couple questions about how you would view the um u work to be done in view of the uh way the application is written. >> Okay.
>> Just two basically. One is um there's a a list of relative costs of the different elements in the plan. I assume that there's flexibility in uh how those are allocated. That's not a strict
that's a likely breakdown, but it's not a strict requirement. >> Yeah. No, the plan it for to do the plan it would be $35,000. So I >> understand, but it's got >> just for budgeting. No, no, we would just expect that whatever work they do has to be $35,000.
>> All right. And then my other question was um if for instance uh there's existing data uh that's already available uh for some of these assessments that are listed for instance uh we will have uh aquatic
plant mapping as part of the herbicide treatments and there would not necessarily be reason to do them again. uh and uh similarly hydraologic and nutrient budget was done by Westford on their own last year um which uh may be
deemed to be current enough to uh uh be used the data from that to be used in the plan. If that's the case, then uh potentially some other uh uh elements that would also typically be parts of
lake management plan such as storm water uh runoff uh uh that kind of thing. Um there's I assume flexibility in terms of uh uh that sort of uh not needing to to
duplicate what's already available and put in additional uh elements that are normally uh often part of lake management plans that are not listed here. >> Tim, does that sound reasonable? I don't I don't
>> um >> or would >> I don't Dave, do you have something specific that you would you wanted to see in the the lake management plan that wasn't there? Um otherwise is your request that if that if the budget you
know is is relevant today and that gets stricken from um the plan and we have those extra monies that we already had allocated towards that that we can kind of open-endedly use that to include other things within the plan. That's
your request. >> Yeah. If we if it turned out we had data available for some of these, we didn't have to do the data collection again, uh it would make sense to uh use that money for other elements that are often part
of a lake management plan. uh that is deemed to be appropriate such as you know uh uh uh tracking storm data collection on storm water and runoff source identification that sort
of thing. >> I I think we want the the plan to be as comprehensive as possible and it'll be really up to the consultant that we wind up hiring through the commission to really determine what is going to be within the plan. But we're going to hire somebody experienced and you know
conducting uh surveys and plans um like this. So I would imagine it'll be fairly comprehensive Dave. But yeah, I mean if data is already in existence, we'd hope that they'd you know have access to it and incorporate it and if we can make it even more comprehensive, if data is already established, absolutely. But
that'll be a commission level um part of the project working with the consultant. This will just mainly be the broad approval of funding the the plan itself through CPA. >> That's great. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Um Jeff, I know you were the one that
really brought up in the um you know the sharing with Westford. Are you satisfied with this or is it still kind of uncertain in your mind? You're muted. So, we do have 17,500 is committed.
>> No, Steph, you're on mute still. >> Uh, no. Dave's uh scenario of the matching of the forge pond groups that goes some way to um modifying that concern.
>> Okay. And I think worst case scenario too, what we could do is plan right now for um you know, Westford kicking in their match. But if they don't um you know, we can just be prepared to do our best on our side, but we can plan for the best
for now. And uh what's that saying? Plan for the hope for the best, plan for the worst. >> Well, I mean, we've got matching funding. It really doesn't make sense to do a plan for half the lake. That's not really >> uh >> Yeah, >> certainly less than ideal.
>> Yeah. >> And and uh you know the Littleton would be paying for half of it and uh their funding would be matched. >> Okay. I mean, there there are times when Westford has paid for things and not
asked for, like I said, they paid 30,000 last year for a nutrient and hydraologic balance without requesting matching funding from Littleton. We we've gone back and forth on um uh paying for different things uh
individually and it uh pretty well balances out. >> Okay. >> In this case, we do have matching funding for half the cost. Okay. >> All right. So,
we forge pond. I don't think so. We didn't vote on the eligibility. I think we started to and we we didn't. So, we have both the eligibility and the funding request for this one to um to go through. So, I think we sound like we're we're pretty much in favor of
moving ahead with this tonight. Um So that we're talking now about the forge pawn management plan. >> So do we want to vote on the eligibility?
>> I move that we vote on the eligibility for the forge pond management plan. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion from Jeff, a second by Andrew to vote um to approve the Forge Pond Lake Management Plan.
We'll do a roll call. Linda, >> yes. >> Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Um, Sanjay, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes.
>> And Carolyn is a yes. >> Okay, so that's seven nothing. And then we have the funding which is for $35,000. >> Okay. make a motion that the comm uh
commission committee approve the uh funding application for the uh Forge Pond Lake Management Plan in the amount of $35,000 to be taken from the Open Space Reserve. >> Do we have a second?
>> Second, Sam. We have a motion by Andrew, a second by Sam. Um, Linda, >> yes. >> Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes.
>> Sam, >> yes. >> And Carolyn is Yes. So, that's seven. Okay. So, that one's all set. We'll go ahead with that one. We'll >> Thank you. >> Put that one forth to town meeting.
Now we have the herbicide treatments that as Tim mentioned he he changed the dollar amount and they have not changed otherwise. They are substantially the same as they were before. Um we
we voted the eligibility for Long Lake and I think that's then when we kind of stopped. So um are there any further questions? I mean, we talked about this quite a bit. I don't know if there was anything.
>> How did the funding change? >> Um, it went to the Long Lake is now 45,000. I think it was 42. They added 3,000 and then the um Forge Pond went up to 35 from Was that
32? >> Yeah. So, they just added another $3,000 for just in case funds. >> Yeah. Wiggle room. >> Yeah. >> Uh I have um a couple questions
uh again on how it would be viewed. >> All right. If it's okay. >> I mean, I don't have to I I'm just kind I guess raising my hand. Sorry. That's okay. Um, yeah, go ahead. >> Um, there's a timeline that's laid out
for July, uh, July and August for treatments and, um, those are, I assume, flexible. Um, they could be, uh, that the work could be done at different times, different months, uh, during the year.
>> I I guess I I would say yes, committee. All right. I mean, I think it's until the funds are I mean, because you could, you know, like we've done in the past, sometimes you have to halt a project and continue it. We would just keep the money out there until it's spent. >> Okay.
>> So, everybody, somebody jump in if you don't agree with me. >> No, that's >> Did you have anything else? Um, Dave, >> uh, just two other things. Um the um the activities in this case uh would be
specifically herbicides not any other uh plant mitigation. Uh right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh that was one of the things that we as we had talked to you about last summer and the suggestion was that we
make the requests more flexible. Um but the conservation commission wanted to stay with strictly herbicides. >> Correct. Um and then my other question is um uh can these uh if you decide to approve
the funding, can the funding uh be from a uh a balance that uh I I understand that there are some balances that would allow spending to occur after town meeting without having to wait for the beginning of fiscal year 27.
Yeah, we typically we typically do um from the reserve account which means it's the money that's there. I'm hoping that we have enough the u the reason I'm asking is because uh for for some of the plants uh it
would uh it would be appropriate to do the treatments in June or even late May. um rather than waiting until July. By July, it is rather late. >> Yeah. No, we have we have in both open
space and undesated, we have enough to cover these. So, we'll do it from the reserve so that they can be spent um right after town meeting. >> All right. Thank you, >> John. I'm sorry I didn't see you. I I just You're allowed to speak if you have something to say.
>> Quite all right. Thank you, Carolyn. Uh just wanted to weigh in and say that it's it's likely that uh being herbicide treatments uh that it would be uh earlier in the uh in the season uh typically rather than waiting for things to mature. They like to catch things very early on. >> Okay.
>> Uh also helpful uh at Long Lake uh to coordinate with the uh with the with the beach activities. >> Okay. So Timmy, take note of that. >> Yep. >> All right. Anyone else have anything to
say or are we ready to vote on these? I think we've we've talked about these pretty extensively. So, why don't we start with Forge Pond? >> If we're talking about Forge Pond, I have another question. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Sorry.
Uh the application uh shows a request for 35,000 which would in the application it's added to the 20,000 that um you have approved uh to be reallocated from the original echohh
harvesting uh request to be used for herbicides. Um, we don't yet yet know if a $55,000 herbicide treatment is uh uh appropriate for 2026.
It may be or it it once we do the plant survey, we'll know whether or not that's appropriate. Um so, uh I'm just asking uh I assume that the 35 the 35 would be used for for herbicides only. Um, can
the 20,000 that's listed there as having been reallocated from the echoh harvesting uh be determined as to what the best use for it is, whether it's herbicides or echo harvesting.
>> Well, I thought you guys had it. We changed it from echo harvesting to >> I'd have to go back and see what what we said >> at the time. Yeah, at the time we came in this fall, we didn't know we were going to have this request for herbicide
funding from the conservation commission and absent any other funding. We wanted to be able to do something this summer and so we asked if we could continue to uh use the 20,000 that had been
reallocated allowed last summer but wasn't able to be spent. Um, >> I'll have to look it up and see exactly how we voted that in. I can't remember if we voted it to be specifically for herbicide or just to be able to include I don't know if anybody remembers.
>> I I think what wound up happening was we approved it for uh mechanical removal solely based on the language of the the application and then down the road we determined that and then town council ultimately sided with us that um herbicides were an allowable use. So
Dave, I would assume uh down the road, I mean this year we're planning to use that full 35 for um herbicide treatment of um forge pond, but if down the road uh we wanted to use it for either mechanical or herbicides within the three-year, you know, realm that it's
approved, I would imagine it'd be allowable. >> The the 20,000 >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. In the original intent. Yeah. Could be could be used for shall be used for echo harvesting. doesn't reference any other two. It could be interpreted
that it would be for both. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You got that, Tim? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay.
So, we're back to the um forge pond herbicide. We need to do both eligibility and funding. And this is for $35,000. >> Oh. Um, open space or, um,
did we think we were going to take it out of undesated? >> I think that's where we were kind of leaning last time around, just um, as we were talking about when it comes to land preservation in the future, kind of leaving as much of that intact as possible. Uh, you know, for invasive.
>> Yeah. So the two herbicide treatments together are 80,000 and we I believe we have about 315 in undesated. So we certainly >> so both of those could be spent after
Tom meeting without having to wait for FY. >> Yeah, I think for any of these and then we also have the herbicide treat. Well, we'll let's do these. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Okay, so forge pond, we want to vote on eligibility. I'll make a motion that the committee approve the eligibility request for the
forge pond herbicide treatment for calendar year 2026. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Andrew, a second by Bartlett to approve the eligibility. Linda, >> yes. >> Um, Bartlett,
>> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. and Carolyn is a yes. Okay. Uh funding.
Try it. Andrew, >> I'll make a motion that the committee approve the funding request from the conservation commission for herbicide treatment at Forge Pond in the amount of $35,000 from the undesated reserve.
Second. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Andrew, a second by Linda to approve the um funding request. Linda, >> yes. >> Uh I'm going to Carolyn's a yes. Bartlett, >> yes.
>> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Okay. 7 nothing. Okay. So, Forge Pond is done. >> Thank you. Um, Long Lake. Same
same story. Uh, just a little bit more money. It's 45,000. We did uh vote the eligibility at the last meeting. So, this would just be for the funding request. >> Perhaps the email um is not updated eligibility was voted.
Um, >> I'm just seeing in all the emails it says uh 218 204. >> Yeah, there was one I missed and I didn't realize it till I was doing the minutes. Let me just go back. I got the
minutes open here. I had flip-flopped two of them. Long Lake deemed it projects. >> I think we may have done funding now that I think of it. >> Did we do funding for the
>> No, I don't think so. >> I think we only did there was only funding done for the um the lake management plan at Long Lake. >> Oh, yeah. >> Ah, that's right. >> Yes. Oh, yeah. because you we made the motion and we got the second but before
the vote was done we said wait stop and we did not vote on the motion >> because >> um because we were talking about um that's when clean the clean lakes committee wanted some of the the wording changed and so we said well hang on just
you know go back and figure it out. So, we never we made the motion, but we never voted on the motion. So, I guess we make the motion again. >> Sounds good. >> Andrew, >> I'll make a motion that the committee approve the funding request from the
Conservation Commission for herbicide treatment at Long Lake for calendar year 2026 in the amount of $45,000 from the undesated reserve. Second anyone? >> I second it.
>> Thank you. We have a motion by Andrew, a second by Sanjay. Um, and that's from the undesated reserve. Linda, >> yes. >> Carolindy, yes. Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. >> And Andrew,
>> yes. >> Okay. Thank you everybody. >> Phew. Now we can talk about something different. >> Um this is the herbicide treatment of terrestrial invasive species and this is
at the Heartwell Yap and New Town Hill Conservation. And we have haven't talked about this one yet, Tim. >> No, we haven't. Um, so what we're what we'd be asking for is is um $60,000
to do multiple multi-year um herbicide treatments uh at at each of these properties. We had a survey done for general locations of um of populations of terrestrial invasives at
these properties. And we've really picked these properties um because they rank high on um we we used uh gosh uh the Metro West Conservation Alliance.
They put together a tool that showed all of our conservation properties and which ones rank the highest in in biodiversity. Um and these properties all ranked uh I think above 94% in uh the percentile for for biodiversity. And so with terrestrial invasive species
that they're a threat to pushing out the native populations and and disturbing that biodiversity by creating these monocultures of of invasive plants. Um and so that's why we chose these locations. Um we we threw in there a
bunch of the um invasive species that we we plan to go after. I don't know if we after all of them um but those are some of the more aggressive ones. Um, and so that's why we included those within uh our our funding requests
>> questions from anyone. I'd just like to make you aware, Tim, or maybe you are aware of Sudbury Valley trustees challenges out at Smith property with a similar proposal that they used a certified
contractor to do it and they had a a tough time with a one individual to get it. >> Oh, yes. They had they had to really really um put forth a lot of comment and
support um chemical support and everything. Yeah, they had to go through the mill. >> Yeah, >> you might be in touch if it happens. >> But yeah, they had a tough time out there even with a certified contractor and very specific
programs and treatment. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's unfortunate. That's why we requested, you know, the multi-year multiple treatments for for these populations because we anticipate that that some of them will be um there will be quite a bit of of regrowth and and
they're they're aggressive colonizers and rec I'm not talking about regrowth. I'm talking about neighbors. >> Oh, neighbors. I'm sorry. Talking about I see. Um so you're saying the abutters were were giving them >> a problem? >> Yes.
>> I gotcha. I mean, Sbury Valley is a trusted conservation organization and they had to go above and beyond what they usually do, which is a lot. >> Yeah. In in the past, we've >> So,
>> I mean, I'm on I'm on board for you. I'm just letting you know. >> No, I appreciate it. Um and and if if these are if we do go after populations that are close to a butters um a lot of times we do make the neighbors aware um
and sometimes there's populations that span multiple properties right so for example over at Milill um we had Japanese sn we treated um but it it it spanned um off the property onto the butter's property as well so we we
reached out to the abuter um we had with with the butter to to also treat the um invasives on on his property as well. Um understanding that that that um probably wouldn't be possible here with the the CPC funds, but just we using
that as an example that we like to uh to make the abutters feel comfortable. Um so I will >> thank you for bringing that up and and uh we'll definitely keep that in the back of our heads. >> Okay. Do you have to have for this kind of stuff?
>> If they're if they're within um wetlands um or within the buffer zones of the jurisdictional wetlands, we will have to get a a permit from the conservation commission for for the treatments. Yep. >> How did you come up with um the the amount?
>> It's a good question. Um we we did not get a a formalized quote on this. We kind of left it open-ended um because while we have an idea of of what invasives uh exist on these properties, it would take a a better survey, a more
in-depth survey um to to get a a more formalized quote, an accurate quote. Um and I if you look out the window, we we've got so much snow, you know, it might be a while before we can get out there and and actually get a good uh idea of of the populations. Um, so we
just threw out this kind of an arbitrary number. Um, but we know that that 60,000 would last us uh a couple years based on some of the the other invasive uh terrestrial invasives that we uh have contracts for and have been treated with
herbicides the last couple years. >> Okay. I um uh sort of witnessed a mitigation across the street at the Northern Bank property. There was a huge uh growth of Japanese knobweed and
>> um which I had been battling on my own just to keep it off of my property and um >> you know it just never ends. Um, >> yeah. >> But anyway, but I did notice, you know, they were using some pro, you know, they were using some so-called organic project products from
>> the UK and blah blah blah. And uh, you know, this spring, well, they they've completely developed that site. I hope I hope they got rid of it, you know, because could be a big problem for them. Yeah, I think as as part of that permit, they were required to remove um a
certain depth of of soils um where those populations were and then that's that should be a part of their order of conditions that um there's a multi-year treatment over there. I know they had to isolate the soil and in in a specific
stockpile separate from the other soil stock piles on site. Um but yeah, notweed's a tough one and um and that's one that we do anticipate like we're we're having notweed treated over on Lakeshore Drive right now and gosh, are we in our second or third year? But it's one that we anticipate we're going to
have to do for for multiple years. I will say I have seen some surprising success with with um hand removal of notweed. Um I don't know. I I think he might actually be in the uh the attendees, but uh yeah, Rob
Rance actually um he did some mechanical removal or or uh hand pulling of uh notweed over on Beach Drive and he was very persistent about it and um it actually reveated with um with pokee um
jeweleed, a bunch of other natives pretty well. I was very uh impressed. So, >> which poke weed really isn't that much fun either, but you know, it's not >> nothing to brush up against either. You're close. >> No, it is a matter of persistence. Yep. Yeah, I'm I'm actually glad that you're
that this is on the radar screen because they're just, you know, you drive around town and there's just pieces of notw weed that look really bad >> and and there's so much like our It's a shame and it doesn't, you know, it's not
just the conservation properties, but terrestrial invasives, they're everywhere. And you really have to be, you know, you really have to prioritize which populations you go after because there's is there enough money in the world to to to go after all these invasives because there's so much. Um yeah, so we we really have to
prioritize. Um but we talked with the folks over at LCT um a bunch the last I'd say six months and trying to figure out, you know, how to expand our our efforts um to really tackle this this problem. And um and this is what we've come up with.
Great. >> And committee, I mean, we could always request, you know, in two years or whatever, every year for for some kind of update, um, you know, if we're not comfortable with the the dollar amount, but I mean, if this is going to be for three years, that's, you know, 20,000 a year, which is about what we're spending
for for the other projects. So, I don't think it's too far off the um I mean, I don't I don't really know, but I guess does anyone have any more questions? Is anyone uncomfortable with this or we
want to go go forward? >> I think it's a good investment cuz the invasives just keep coming. >> Ju just a quick question. So the other projects just annual request and for this project why multi-year request?
>> That's a good question. So, a lot of the um the past uh invasive populations that we've had treated, we've had funded through our budget. Um and during the the budget process this year, um they were trying to identify areas where we
can request funds from other places outside of um out of our budget um request. And one of the places they identified was was CPC. Um and so they they had asked us if if that's something that we can do to help um cut the uh the
deficit to balance the budget. So we to it we had been getting I think gosh maybe like5 $6,000 each year um to go after terrestrial invasives within our budget.
Um we were planning to expand that this year. Um, and we were told we we had to request a uh what was it? A uh service level uh budget. And so we we couldn't we were able to request funds for
repeated treatments for those ones that we have currently been um in a multi-year treatment uh plan with, but none extra, >> which technically we're not supposed to be supplanting um town funding, but that's all right.
Well, we do these a lot anyways, but uh All right. Any other questions? Do we want to see how a vote goes? >> We have to do both eligibility and funding. >> I'll make a motion that the committee
approve the eligibility request for the herbicide treatment of terrestrial invasive species at the YAP Hartwell and New Town Hill properties as an open space project. >> Second. Okay, we have a motion by Andrew and a
second by Sam to approve the eligibility. Linda, >> yes. >> Okay. Carolyn's a yes. Uh Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. >> And Andrew,
>> yes. >> Okay. Are we going to do this from open space? I imagine probably >> promotion. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That was for the eligibility component, but for the funding we can do maybe
undesated. >> Yeah, because that's another invasive species if we want to keep all the invasive species coming out of undesated for >> Okay, >> sounds good. >> So, do we have a um a vote on the funding?
I'll make a motion that the committee approve the application for funding for the herbicide treatment of terrestrial invasive plant species at the Yap Hartwell and New Town Hill properties in the amount of $60,000 to be taken from the undesated reserve.
>> Seconded. >> Okay, we have a motion by Andrew, second by Linda. Linda, >> yes. >> Carolyn say yes. Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. Sam. >> Yes. >> And Andrew.
>> Yes. >> All right. That one was easier. >> Thank you everybody. >> All right. So, check that one off. All right. So, that's um
that's that's all of the invasives. Now, we have boardwalks. So, Tim, we have um boardwalk at Webster Woods. Let's do that. All right, let's start with that one. Um, so um you know
what was it last year or the year before we we were we acquired um Webster Woods um through the help of um of LCT and Jim O'Neal um identified areas where the trail system could use boardwalks. Um,
and so we've identified six different areas that that could use u board blocks and they should be um they should show on we have four of them shown on the map within the application. The other two are not shown. Um the
other two that are on the the orange uh trail, that's the Foster Street connector. Um we are in talks with um uh actually we heard that the folks over at 300 Foster are favorable to us um or to
giving us uh public access from 300 Foster. Um there's an an area that you can park probably two or three cars off of Foster Street. um they're not going to give us an an easement. Um they don't want to give the permanent rights, but we are going to enter into a license
agreement uh with them to get access from Foster Street because it's it's more ideal for parking there than off of Bulkley. Um and so there's two areas along that uh orange trail connector to Foster Street that could use um boardwalks that aren't shown on this on
this map. Yep, that's the map right there. Um, and so I apologize for the the resubmission of applications. Um, at the time that we originally submitted our application, we only had um heard from from one of the uh the builders
that we reached out to and got quotes from from them. Uh since then we uh we got another quote that came in luckily um much cheaper and so we submitted the the revised applications for both um the
Webster Woods boardwalks and uh the Castle in the Trees boardwalk. Um and so we are requesting $138,000 to construct six boardwalks at Webster Woods which will be uh fully ADA
compliant boardwalks. um we will receive building permits from them or for them um and and everything as well as uh permits from the uh the conservation commission. >> So I I have one question on the ADA
portion. >> Sure. Is the so that you if you make the boardwalk ADA accessible, is it accessible from the parking lot through >> like is the whole trail system um ADA?
Is that what you're asking? >> How does that work? >> Um it it wouldn't be. No. >> No. Um, I believe the I believe it's a requirement from the from the uh the building department side
that uh the boardwalks need to be ADA um compliant. And in an ideal world, the entire trail system would be ADA ADA compliant, right? Um but but it it it is not at this time. But can someone park in the
parking lot and get I mean is it a ramp or is it a step? I mean so if you're in a wheelchair, can you can you really make it is it really a >> you know what I'm trying to say? >> I know what you're trying to say. Um that that connector um that goes from
from 300 to Foster that's a uh it's a maintained it's a mode area. Um, >> I don't know what it's like to to use a wheelchair to to access. So, I don't know that I would have the best opinion of whether or not it's wheelchair
accessible. Um, it may be, it may not be. Um, >> yeah. I'm just wondering what the definition of the ADA is for something like this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um Okay. >> Yeah. We just know that the plan for the
boardwalk that we're going to be submitting is is going to be an ADA boardwalk as far as the the building department sees. >> Okay. >> Does anyone else have a question before I have a couple of other things?
>> Well, even if it's not wheelchair accessible, an ADA boardwalk for elder hikers would be a help. Right. Um I also had a a question from um
someone about the cost. I think now with the the change to 138 when you put the all of them together it's about six. What did I say? It's like 200 feet. 200.
So, it's about $690 per square foot, which seemed high um >> per lineal foot. >> For line. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes. Right. But
when you got the when you got the cost, did they actually cost it out or is this kind of a general budget? They they they sent us a quote and it was um it was all line item
detailed. >> So is it a specific type of construction that they're proposing to you? >> Yeah. So they they actually gave us I think it was two options um for different design plans. um both ADA
compliant um difference in in materials and this was the um the cheaper option. >> So making it ADA does that does that increase the cost a little bit >> um just from a what could be a general
boardwalk certainly. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I'm assuming this is prevailing wages if it's being done for the town >> believe so that'll do it. Um, I don't know if anyone I see Jim
O'Neal on the phone on the phone the call here. I don't know if um if Jim if you have any comments you're you're muted. If you I think I made him okay to talk. I've lost my And now I'm going to stop sharing for a
minute so I can see. There's nothing. >> I don't know. Does anyone else have concerns over the dollar amount? Uh just just a quick question. So is 138,000 is it the full cost or is it shared with uh someone else too? The total cost?
>> Nope. That is the that is the the full cost. We're not sharing costs with u with any anybody else. >> And what's the timeline on the construction? >> Um I believe we had it um I think the construction was supposed to occur in
the timeline this fall. Um I think we had submitted it as Yeah, it's >> September. >> We still have to get the permits. We still have to get the building permit. We still have to get the the conservation commission permit, which we
we can do um before uh FY27. But again, it and I don't know this these ones we really have that same concern that with uh the same as the the lakes where we need to get them done
like right away. Um, I think if it's it's fine if these ones, you know, don't come out of reserves and need to wait until FY27 to send out the the RFP and and everything.
>> Uh, are you waiting for quotes from anybody else or >> uh we are waiting quotes from from others as well. I think we have two more that we're waiting on. So it is possible that the cost for this actually may come down and and we tried to emphas emphasize
when we sent out the costs because there there was no site uh site walks done for these um we tried to emphasize please give us a a conservative um estimate. you've touched on um
one of the comments uh that I would have is that does this have to be done this year? The ex the next comment is um could it be done in phases? >> Um
I I mean I I I think it could I don't it it might not be ideal. I don't I'd have to go back and look and see if there's like um mobilizing costs um which you know if it's done in phases would
>> you know would add additional costs um >> but I I I I suppose that it can be done in phases if needed. Yeah, because we have Let me try this again. Sharing
here. We go back up here. Yeah. So, there's really really three loops. Blue, which looks like it's just two each one has two separate um is it two separate pieces or how does
it work? So this is the orange one. >> So here's a boardwalk here. >> Yep. >> Oh, from B to B. Is that what it is? >> No, no, that's just the general location of it. It doesn't show that the span of it. >> So it would be kind of like this this
portion here. >> I don't think it's that that whole part. Um but it is it's in that on that section of the the the blue trail. Yeah. So if we had one coming on the what do we say blue or orange?
Blue, yellow, and orange. So you're saying like the Foster Street one is really the most one of the more important, right? Because that's that's that's the nice section that that have nice parking and everything, right? With good access there. >> So we don't have that yet. We're still
um working with town council to put together license agreement. um and going back and forth with 300 Foster and their lawyers on coming to an amendable license agreement to get that access. Um the there is access from the Orange
Trail from Bulkley Road. Um they just it's just that the parking um situation over there isn't as ideal as it as it is over on uh Foster Street. You have to um you basically have to park on the on the shoulder um
on Bley. >> Have are these trails extent? I mean, have they been constructed or >> Yep. So, so Jim O'Neal is actually um I think with the exception of And and Jim, I know you're on the call. You are on the call. I don't know if the full
extent of the orange connector to Foster Street is um is constructed yet, but the the others um the orange trail coming from Bulley, the blue loop, the yellow uh and the red, we all um we walked with
with Jim um a member of the conservation commission and and Lauren and others. So, I know that um >> Oh, go ahead. Well, I'm just gonna >> Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. Um I was just gonna say Jim
has done a lot of work um making these these trails um as accessible as as they can be. I think he said they could still use some some more um work just to make them easier to walk through, but they are because in some areas there is some
encroaching vegetation. Um but we were able to walk through it and it fairly easily um after Jim's um work that he did there. >> So uh recently you had a big boardwalk
project um in I don't know what the parcel was the Brown property from to Hadawan over to um uh you know the Foster Street development there. And I happened to be
on it when it was under construction. It was really quite an undertaking. I mean, how do you how does that compare with I mean, can you extrapolate cost from that onto this? >> Not not so much. Um
a lot of the um a lot of the boardwalks that we've had done in the past have been u volunteers doing boardwalks. Um Jim has done many of them. We have >> Thank you, Jim. >> Yes, a big thank you to Jim. Um I
believe we have had some boardwalks that we have paid uh individuals to do. However, I I don't think they went through as formalized of a process. um to to basically require the cost that these
ones do um to to go out as an RFP um and to um to be fully entirely ADA compliant. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jim. >> And I will point out um I did get a text
from Jim. He can hear us, but he can't um his microphone isn't functioning tonight. >> Yeah. And I think that was the the concern the person that I spoke to was, you know, we'd have Eagle Scouts doing these. We would have, you know,
volunteers. So, of course, the the cost and um you know, getting the even the material was would have been cheaper. And I think but if we have to go through a formal process, we have to have you know prevailing wage, we have to have it
con you know constructed to certain standards. I suppose everything like that would just up the cost. Ex >> Exactly. And and this kind of stems from um I sat down with with uh Henry Fontaine, the building uh commissioner, and
in in the past um we haven't gotten we haven't received uh building permits for for all of our boardwalks. Um but he he made it clear that that we should we really should and that they really should all be um fully ADA compliant. So, this is kind of the the start of a
new phase of um of getting into contracts with with builders um to have these things constructed. >> And then if we So, this is 138,000. If you get the other two, you know, quotes back and one of them is less.
I suppose at town meeting, what would we do? Would we how would we handle that committee? >> We we could even um keep it as is and if we don't wind up spending the money, it'll get returned to the open space bucket or un Well, actually, we can't
use open space for this, but undesated or recreational bucket. >> Recreation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I I was just thinking, you know, to make it, you know, once we get up to town meeting floor and they see 138 and if we think we're only going to be spending 110, we could always say that, you know, we have
another quote for 110 and whatever doesn't get used can go back. Um it's just kind of hard, you know, having to vote in a a a figure now, which could change between now and May 7th or whatever the date is.
But we could certainly I mean it could even be amended on the on the floor if we wanted to, but I don't know if we really have to go through all that. I >> if if you really wanted to, we could also I mean my understanding is there's another we have a March meeting. >> Um >> we really wanted to to push this into
March until March. Um we anticipate that we would have those the remaining quotes by by that date. We would hope so. >> Would hope so. Yeah. a few week I think it's been about a month since we initially asked about
>> maybe we could do that. I mean we could vote the eligibility through so that's done and then all we would have to do is if there was a different figure we could vote that in if it was just thinking if it was less money would be more palatable at town meeting. I mean, $138,000 seems like a lot of money to
the uninitiated. And um I think we need to point out those things that you said that, you know, it's building. It's a much more formal process. It's not, you know, a couple of Eagle Scouts out, you know, hammering in nails or whatever you do. So, I think we need to make that
apparent. >> Yeah. Yeah. Know, I I just about had a stroke the uh with the first, you know, set of quotes that we got, seeing those dollar amounts. So, I'm happy that that these uh >> that the most recent quote came in what
it did. >> Yeah. No, I was glad to say so, too. I didn't win $30,000. My god, you put sticks all over the place. Okay. So, why don't um I think I would feel better like waiting. I mean, this is all done, so all you'd have to do is, you know, put in those dollar figures. So, it's
not like it's going to be a lot of work on on you or on on the committee, but why don't we um do the eligibility anyway? Okay, so we have that out of the way if everyone's amanable to that. I mean, I don't >> Sounds good.
>> So, this is Webster Woods. All right. >> All right. Shall I make a motion? >> Go ahead. >> All right. I'll make a motion that the uh committee approve the eligibility request for the Webster Woods Boardwalk
under the recreational category. I second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Andrew, a second by Jeff, and this is the Webster Woods um eligibility request. Um Linda, >> yes. >> Carolinda, yes. Bartlett,
>> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. >> And Andrew, >> yes. >> Okay. All right. So, sorry, Tim. You're going to have to come back one more time. >> Not a problem at all. >> Like it shouldn't it should be easy. And
if if we don't have quotes, then we'll vote this one through and and see what happens. >> Sounds good. >> Uh Castle in the Trees. Similar. See, I'm going to bring this one up, too. Make sure my screen.
Okay. So, this one came in at 555 right at the end. >> Uh, yes. Yep. >> Go back up to see if this >> Yep. And so I had spoke with um with
Mark Mark Ronacher um about creating a trail um that goes from Castle in the Trees and and ties in uh behind the library into the the trail system behind the library um so that the kids can can
walk um and not have to be walking on on the sidewalk next to the street. Um a little safer for them to to walk on a trail. um behind to behind the library to get there. Um and they can also access, you know, walk to the school if
they wanted to. And so part of that trail um we would need to to build a a boardwalk on that castle on the trees property. Um so we do have an easement um an access easement that goes across
that that middle parcel there. That is the Hagar Homestead Homestead uh conservation restriction. So we already have an access easement to to um get through there to get a trail through there. Um and so yes, this would
be a believe it is a a $55,500 request. Um, and I think that was it. >> No. Is this one ADA also?
>> This one would also be ADA compliant. Yep. >> Do you know how wide it is? Did was that in the >> It may actually >> Does it say I should have I >> think we included that. I could be wrong. It doesn't look like we included that in
the >> So I I'm not an >> Yeah, in terms of ADA, um it would generally be the width and the slope that would be under uh so I I presume these are wider than they otherwise
would be. >> Yeah. >> Yes. And and you know, I bet I'm sure that that Jim O'Neal probably knows the answer to this question even though he's his mic isn't working. I I believe they both have to or the boardwalks have to be wide enough so that two wheelchairs
um can pass each other at the same time or it has to be a short enough distance. I think it could be a little less wide if it's a short enough distance. Um I think it's like after x amount of feet. Um if it's a boardwalk longer than that,
it needs that to be that certain width. Um whereas if it's shorter then then somebody can can wait for the other person that's that's coming in their direction um to use it for them to for them to use it. >> Yeah. I was thinking like kids on bikes. I can imagine that there'll be a lot of
kids with their bicycles. >> Yeah. >> Trying to go over the trail. So I would I suppose that would be wide enough to if it was ADA. >> Yeah. >> So it's really just this little blue spot, right? That's >> that's correct. Yep. That's the only
place you need a boardwalk. Isn't all this wetlands here behind the church and everything? >> That's the uh that is the only spot that we need a a boardwalk. Yeah, there I believe there are um there should be an existing boardwalk um >> towards the
north side of the uh the trail where it's on Hager Homestead CR. >> Okay. So this this is really gratifying because the Hager humps when the you know when that property was developed it
was with the intention of having this trail connection uh to already extensive trails that are to the north. Um so this is great that we're going to accomplish this. Anyone else have questions or comments?
>> Just like the last one, looks like this is also kind of you're waiting for some more quotes and same timelines. >> Same thing. Yeah, we the same people that we requested quotes for the Webster Woods boardwalks, we requested quotes for the Castle and Trees boardwalks as
well. So, um if yeah, if we need to wait till the if it's ideal to to wait till the next meeting, that's perfectly fine. Okay. Yeah, that's what I was thinking since we're doing the wait for >> I'm already going to be back so might as well, right?
>> No, I agree, Sanjay. All right, there no other questions. We want to vote on this one on the eligibility. >> Andrew, >> sure. I'll make a motion that the committee approve the eligibility of the
castle in the trees boardwalk proposal under the recreational category. >> I second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Andrew and a second by Jeff to approve eligibility. Linda, >> yes. >> Carol, yes. Bartlett,
>> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. Andrew. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. And then we'll wait um on those two
for the next time. Oh, Rob, you have a question? >> Yeah. Can you hear me? >> We can. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just a a brief big thanks to Tim, to Lauren, to the conservation commission, to all of you, to Jim O'Neal, all the volunteers who
have done all this work in the past. I want to thank you for your approval of the terrestrial invasives as well as consideration of these boardwalks and your upcoming next meeting, you know, for continuation of that approval process. But thank you to all.
>> Thank you for those words. >> Thank you, Rob. Tim, I think you're off the hook tonight. >> There you go. >> That's it. Thank you so much for your help on this and uh >> honestly, thank thank you all. Um we we
really appreciate it and have a good night. >> All right. Good night. >> Thank you, Tim. >> All right. So, um, Bartlett, do you want to be up next or you want to talk about the track?
>> Um, well, I don't want to talk about the track, but >> either, but All right. Well, why don't we do um your >> I'm happy to talk about >> Yeah. about um the LRAP program. >> The LRAP program. Okay. It's um they
included a statement that I think got distributed. Um it's it's a I think quite a successful program that the Littleton Affordable Housing Trust has been running for a
number of years um to supple to pay part of people's rents to the landlords. Um there's seems to be a fairly steady need
for it in town. We've had a lot of turnover and expect more turnover this this next year, but we also expect new new applicants. So, um we have not spent all of the money that was allocated last year.
There's about $71,000 left of that. So, what I'm asking for is the $46,000 um and change to bring us up to the $120,000 maximum
of if we have, you know, 15 um persons using or families using this program for the whole year, that's what it multiplies out to. Um we haven't gotten to that stage yet, but we want to be prepared. So,
um, that's I'm just asking. Oh, it's $48,613. >> Um, and this is just the uh rental assistance program. >> Anyone have any questions on this one? I
was trying to Sounds like it's, you know, been a successful program and uh yeah, I'd love to see it keep going and whatever Bartlett needs, he can have. >> Quick, shut down the meeting. Shut down. >> It sounds like a setup.
>> Yeah, you're right, Sam. >> Well, you you heard Andrew, so let's get on with the vote. >> Why don't we just talk about LRAP? Okay. And this is just um just the funding application, right? Because we've done >> I think I was the eligibility I think
was approved last time. So this is actually asking for the real funding. >> Yeah. So this is for the funding app. Someone want to do a motion? I'll make a motion that the committee approve the funding application for the affordable housing trust rental
assistance program in the amount of $48,613 to be taken out of the community housing reserve. >> I second it. >> Okay, we have a motion by Andrew, a second by Linda. Linda,
>> yes. >> Uh Bartlett, >> yes. >> Caroline is a yes. Jeff, >> yes. Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. >> And Andrew, >> yes. >> Okay, that was community housing reserve.
>> Thank you very much. >> All right, >> but wait, is there anything else we can get you, Bartlett? >> Well, I I expect a check at town meeting. >> Got a big check. Um, all right.
So, this is the school track. This one um admittedly surprised me a little bit, but I think and Sanjay, you can chime in if you remember. Um they talked about this briefly at the Super Saturday. It came up um if you some of you who were
around before. Um this had come up was it last year or two years ago and we talked about talked about it and then the school was going to pay for it. So obviously that didn't happen and they are um back to us.
Uh let me not that this is really exciting but I will share my screen. >> There was also a private donation. >> Yes, there still is. There's about $40,000 that the Littleton Track Association um has put aside for for
this project that they are going to um they are going to use. I don't know. I I not sure if there's more in the track association that we might be able to ask them for. Um we don't have school school committee
representatives here, but this is um and I'm a little confused because this is an eligibility request. I think he also means for this to be the
funding request although it's not it's it's just the one form. Um yeah the whole project is 160 CPA funding requested will be 120
and this is to resurface resurface the track. I think they're also going to be using some of their funds to um do something with the infield. I think there's um a pole vaulting um I don't know the terminology, but the
little thing, you know, you stick the pole in and go over. I think that needs to be fixed, but I think they're going to be doing that themselves. So, what we would be responsible for is the um the track uh as I say here, cracks and spider webbing of cracks in areas.
um they've contributed 40,000 that will go to project costs. This wasn't really that done up. Um so he mentions that it's he said the track is approximately 12 years old. Um in need of rubber surface being replaced
and recoded. Yeah, here it is. The oh the long jump, sorry. Um there are two areas um that they use rubber matting for the jump approach areas and they would like to add the existing asphalt surface in those areas similar to what's
used on the track. Um ensuring the uh integrity of the track service and keep the track available for community use because I know it's it's open to the public. You can go walk on it um when it's not being used by the school. Um so they want to make sure the track is in safe
condition. Um, it's used throughout the day and the weekends by community members. It's recommended a track be resurfaced every 10 to 15 years. The current condition of the rubber coating is starting to show signs of cracking and aging and should be resurfaced before major damage is done from water
penetration through the track surface to the subsurface asphalt base. Annual maintenance is done following the manufacturer's recommendations. Um, resurface 10 to 15 years. So, we're right about in the middle of that. if it's 12 years old. Uh they're hoping to
recode it during the summer of 2026. So that would be right after town meeting. Um depending on the bid process and availability, uh about a 3 to four week process. Uh let's see. >> So Caroline, I just happened to notice
if I'm if this is just one that was submitted, one application on page um two, I guess they they checked off historic. >> I know. Oh, I saw they have um >> there's an issue with the
>> Yeah, there's an issue with the fillable application because I was trying this the other day. If you click the um recreational box, it automatically lights up those other ones because initially I thought the same thing like wait a minute, this isn't a historical project or >> you know housing. So, we'll have to
somehow get that fixed. >> Good to know. >> Yes. Really, it's just recreation. >> Yeah. I'll see if I can talk to Nancy to maybe fix the fillable one because I think she made this one. >> I think so. And I don't know if you noticed I have them on the on our
section of the website now. >> I have them um somehow I figured out how to put them on there. >> Good for you. >> Yeah. So they um if if she can fix that copy, Andrew um so that they're still out there.
>> Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. All right. So, we're going to assume that this is just a a a mechanical glitch and it's just recreation. Okay. I wondered that too.
And then um so this is talking about project cost based on phone calls with the Capeen Island track who the premier contractor in the New England area um who actually did the installation gave a verbal estimate of resurfacing the track of
approximately 160 to 170,000 which would involve preparing the current surface cleaning removing any surface that cannot be recotated and applying the surface materials using spray. barrier technology. Then the track lines would be repainted onto the surface.
Um the track association donated about $40,000 to the department for purpose of resurfacing. Um and these funds are raised through the annual um road race held every year which would make you which would lead
you to believe that there's more money in there but that's okay. Um estimate estimates are based on phone calls. Um the school committee is in support of the project. The community uses the track, wants to
see the town asset kept in safe and usable condition for community members. I know at the super Saturday, I kind of watched that portion of it. The um finance committee didn't seem to have any um
objections to this the way they did the first time around. Um Sanjay, I don't know if you have any insight to that. No, I I was uh I was aware I was obsessed um the last meeting. So I
>> not aware of all the discussion but it did come up uh sometime back to maybe last year too. >> Mhm. >> Um don't recall the conversations at this time. >> Yeah. I mean I think last time I it was the same dollar amount if I remember
correctly. >> Yes, it was the same dollar amount. >> Yeah. Um, and I can't remember if we voted on eligibility back then or not, but we also have to decide whether we want to if we want a formal, you know, how how
bureaucratic do we want to be? Do we want to have him submit an applica a funding application or do we just take this eligibility request as both? >> We do have precedent. >> Oh, sorry, Sam. >> No. Well, no, it's Jeff. I
think that they should >> I think we should be bureaucratic. It's a lot of money. I'm, you know, it's a I think it's a worthy project, but I would also like to say that I know the community does use it apart from, you know, the schools and uh my 90-year-old
father from California comes and uses it and he thinks it's great. So anyway, >> I I mean I kind of agree too. I think that they should be required to fill out the forms. Everybody else has to. Um you know, we haven't really had a chance to
ask them any questions either. We could vote on the eligibility, but we'll have to ask him to come back to the next meeting and present um present the funding application and then if there are additional questions, we could ask him then. But um but
>> that sounds good. >> Yeah, >> I agree. >> Okay, so we do have the eligibility before us. >> Uh ju just some quick question. The similar projects have been approved
or kind of part of the CPC before. >> Uh that's a good question. I do have the database up here. Let me Yeah. Let me share my screen again. I should just >> Would the tennis courts be similar? >> Yeah.
>> No, that's true. So, if we if we select Let's just select like this. So, this is the community preservation coalition. This is the database. I'm going to assume it's recreation and let's just put track search.
So Amherst did a track replacement, track rehab in Bedford, track rehab in Carlile, rehabilitate the field track. It looks like quite a few have reconstruction of associated track and
field areas. So yes, I would say that this is um been done by a lot of other towns. All right. Thank you. >> No, it's always good to make sure that
we're not creating something. Any other questions or do we want to move ahead with the eligibility vote? I make a motion that we approve the eligibility request for the uh track rehabilitation.
from the recreational reserve. >> from the recreational reserve. >> I guess it doesn't really matter at this point, but yeah. Okay, we have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> I think I saw Jeff's light go first. So,
we have a motion by Sam, a second by Jeff for this is for the eligibility for the track um resurfacing. Linda, >> yes. >> Carolyn, yes. Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay,
you can nod. >> Yes. >> Yes. Sam, >> yes. >> And Andrew, >> yes. >> Okay. All right. I will let Steve Mark know that and ask him to submit a funding app and present that at our next
meeting. All right. So, that wasn't so bad. Um, all right. bear with me for a little bit longer. Um, the allocations, we need to vote in our allocations. Um, I don't know if anyone has any thoughts
on doing things differently if we want to do it the same. So, I'll just chime in that I did bring this up to the historical commission fairly recently and they requested that we keep the same percentage for this
year. Let me I should just So this is what we did last year. Um so this was the 1% search charge for the different buckets. We had 40% open space and then we kind of
um are a little unequal but 18% for historic, 20 for housing, 21 for recreation, and then the 1% for admin, which all we again have used for is the coalition dues. So that
money if it doesn't if it's not expended at the end of the year, it goes into the undesated fund. Um and that was for that was for basically for the 1% search charge and the blended funds. So we do the same percentage for the two of
those. And then for the state match we had 30% for open space, 15% for historic community and recreation and then 25 for undesated. So, that's that's how we did it last
year. And we can we can just do the same. We can if we think something's going to need some extra money, we can um I don't know. I >> Is this allocation based on the needs or something else?
>> Not really. This is historically this is about the same percentages. We we we fill open space with the the bulk of it just because those projects tend to be bigger. Um, lately recreation has been a little bigger, but nobody really wants to give up their percent. Like as Linda just
said, you know, we were thinking, well, maybe historically wouldn't have to take more than the 10% that's required, but you know, everybody wants wants some money in their in their in their buckets. Um, lately what the the
undesated reserve for the state match, we've been padding that a little bit because we were starting to use that for some bigger projects. So, we wanted to consciously put some money into that. Um, by statute, we have to put 10% into
open space, historic, and community housing. Um, but how we want how we allocate it is up to us. >> As I recall, last year, the only change we made was pushing more into undesated.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um once they are allocated, can they be moved around if there is a need? >> No. >> No. Once it's allocated, it's in those buckets. But that's what the undesated is flexible. That's why we put a little
bit more in there. >> Right. Okay. I'm happy to keep things the way they are. >> Yeah, I think these numbers worked really well for us last year and they meet our needs as far as we can tell um based on historical use. So, yeah, I'd
be in favor of keeping it the same as well. >> And Sanjay, we're we're going to get some money for blended funds, right? They're going to be putting some money in um from free cash. I think
I I thought I wrote it down somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Um I think that Fred Faulner had told Oh, that's this might be this book here. No, that's cemetery. I'll have to look for that. Um I think
we will be getting some blended fund money in um from the town again. >> Okay. >> Um Rob, do you have a question? >> Uh yeah. I'm by no means an expert, but I guess if you're able to wait a month
because Kate's not here, I think that the Shaker Lane school project is going to disrupt three baseball fields. I have no idea what's in the the approved town meeting, you know, for construction of
that, but I will say that I'm concerned that the town's going to need baseball fields. Having said and and potentially looking for CPA reserves to assist. Maybe it's in the contracted monies and
what's been approved. I don't know. Again, that's where I think Kate comes in. The other part that cake comes in, I think, is that recently it was disclosed that the PRCE revolving fund has a significant
um balance that may be available to fund and and park and recreation is to prepare a policy pertaining to how to utilize those funds. So, I just want to bring that up. I don't have the specifics, but I know Kate's not here
today and um just wonder if if that might be worthy of your consideration or at least to revisit in a month if you make a motion tonight and approve something potentially to revisit it if she has compelling statements. >> That's a good point, Rob. And I think um
the other thing to keep in mind too is if uh Park and Recre did have a big capital project for fields, they could always borrow against future revenues and bond it out. So they wouldn't necessarily have to have that, you know, principal amount in there to take directly from. They could take a portion
of it or um or just borrow completely against future revenues like other large projects, >> right? Yeah. And the the buckets do have, you know, significant reserves and um
I'd really like to vote on this tonight though because our next meeting is just before the warrant closes and I think we're going to have to work with um um getting the warrants and uh Robin Healey and I have talked about sitting down earlier because we always do this at the end. You know, they have the the
articles written out and they're never correct. So, we want to kind of make sure that we're all on the same page. So, I'd prefer to vote on them tonight, but we could revisit it if um there's some compelling reason. Um >> that's good. >> And I I haven't heard from um Park and
Wreck themselves, so I um I haven't heard of any I don't think they have anything coming up for this year. Anyways, >> I agree with you, Carolyn. Let's um vote. I haven't heard any um uh
reason to change what we did last year. >> Okay. >> Okay. Somebody want to make a motion then for >> I'll make a motion that the uh committee uh vote the following uh percentage
amounts for the projected 1% search charge for fiscal year 27 >> and blended funds >> in blended funds um for open space 40% % historic reserve 18%
community housing reserve 20%. Recreation reserve 21% administration 1% and undesated uh zero and then for the uh estimated state match oh actually let's do that
separately I suppose right or do you want to vote it all at once? Yeah. Yeah. Why don't Why don't we do it in two? Okay. So, we have um Oh, do we have a second? >> I second it. >> So, we have a motion by Andrew, a second by Linda um for the percentages for the
1% search charge which shows on the screen here. Um Linda, >> yes. >> Carolyn's a yes. Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. >> And Andrew, >> yes. Okay.
Okay, step two. So, this would be for the state match recreation and designated. You can do you want to do this one, too? >> Sure. So, I'll make a motion that the committee vote um the following uh percentages for the FY27 estimated state
match among the uh categories. Uh for open space, 30%. For the historic reserve, 15% for the community housing reserve 15%. For the recreation reserve, 15% for administration zero and for undesated
reserve 25%. Second. Okay, >> we have a motion by Andrew, second by Bartlett for the estimated state match. Linda, >> yes. >> Carolinda, yes. Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam,
>> yes. >> And Andrew, >> yes. >> All right. Okay. Um, oh, the minutes. Did anyone get a chance to look over those? minutes. >> Just a quick question, Carolyn. Where did it where did the $255 come in the
administration >> in the administration amount from the 1% search charge over to the figures all the way on the right? >> Oh, th this I don't know what this is. This >> the $255.
>> Oh, yeah. Don't look at that. That's um >> Okay. I think this is what was Oh, you know why? Because these were estimates and I think this is what um the town actually put in. So, it was a difference
of $255. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So the the mathematical gymnastics we have to go through to get our numbers all to match. Um so minutes these were not fun. I had to rewatch
that meeting and that's I mean it's bad enough to sit through one never mind to sit through it watch yourself talk either. Um did anyone have any Obviously, I grabbed these from the AI version, so
they were kind of weird, but >> No, I read them and I didn't have any any problems with the minutes. >> I didn't either. >> And I think we have to get used to the AI versions. >> Yeah. As much as I hate it, it was It's
really nice. >> Yeah. We do love the AI sometimes. >> For this purpose. For this purpose. Yes. >> Yeah. >> All right. Do we want to make a motion to for these?
>> I move we accept the minutes from the whatever date meeting that was. >> January 21st. >> January 21st meeting. >> Second. >> Andrew. Okay. We have a motion by Jeff and a second by Andrew for the minutes. Linda,
>> yes. >> Carolyn, yes. Bartlett, >> yes. >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Sanjay, >> yes. >> Sam, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> All right. Okay.
I think that's everything. Does anyone have any any other projects they think are going to come through? Uh, Linda, did you have maybe something? >> We may have I I won't really know until next week. Um, that's fine. >> But we may have a couple of historic
>> All right, that's fine. I mean, we'll see Tim back and we'll see um the school back. So, um, as long as we have some time to look them over, I think that should be fine. Does anyone else have any updates or anything?
um housing may have um a request at some point for a housing production plan for the town and um I'm not sure we're going to I'm going to bring that to the committee next week.
Um so we'll we'll we'll talk the committee will talk about that then whether we should do that and whether it should be housing or undesated. Is is that different from what Marin gave us? >> I think it's um Yeah, I think it's the
same. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. We voted on the eligibility tonight. So, she's gonna >> we're gonna Yeah, >> we'll talk about that at >> Oh, yeah. Because we want we're going to get the the link. I'll send the if she sends me the link, I'll send the link out to the the current plan so we can
look at it and just make sure we know what we're doing. And Bartlett, if you have any any wisdom to offer us, please do in exchange for your un
your big pot of money. We we approved for you. >> Relatively small for me, >> although Andrew promised you a big pot of money, I think. Right. >> He has. He has. >> Before we go, I want to ask Andrew, what is this? This has got to be a
background, right? >> Oh, this. Yeah. No, this is this is a background. >> At first, I'm thinking, where's Andrew sitting? And then I'm looking at the te the old telephone there going. >> It's funny because a few people when I
initially added this background were like, "Wow, like what? Where?" But then Yeah. After a while though, it's like, "Wait a minute. How is it still sunny out?" And wait, that clock hasn't moved. Like there are subtle clues. >> And does does Andrew wear a hat? And
>> my coat and tie, you know, coat and hat in the back. My typewriter. >> Yeah. >> Various notes that are everywhere as you can see. >> It would fit you if you put that fedora on. You'd you'd mesh right in there, I think. Yeah. >> 1940s meeting.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No AI in 1940, though. I don't know if we could do that then. >> No. No. Well, thank you everyone. I know this was kind of a long I guess it wasn't as long as I thought. It's just just very uh just a lot of thought put
we have to put into it. But um I think we'll be all right for this town meeting once the next the March program. And I will be here for the March program. My my trip is a week earlier this year. So I was happy about that. Um, so if there's anything if anyone comes up with
any more projects, you know, in the next couple of weeks because I'd like to be able to get them out for everybody to be able to look them over so we can ask questions because our meeting is on Wednesday and I think the warrant closes the following Monday. So, we don't have a lot of time um to get anything, you
know, if we have questions or anything. So, we'll we'll want to kind of push that stuff through. All right. Anything else? Want to make the favorite motion of everybody's motions?
>> I move that we >> second. I'll do a I'll do Linda makes the motion and Jeff seconds. >> Fine. >> Uh, Linda >> I. >> Carolyn say yes. Bartlett >> yes. >> Jeff >> Hi. >> Sanjay. >> Hi
>> Sam. >> If we have to. You can stay on and talk if you want. Sam, >> I know that's a yes. >> And Andrew. >> Yes. >> Okay. And thank you Dave and Rob for sticking around and uh we'll see you uh next month.