70 7:09 I'm calling this meeting to order um on the community preservation act um our second meeting I guess of FY 27. Um, so, um, I'm Tom Callahan. I am the chair
of the CPC and representing the affordable housing trust. Why don't we go around the room? >> Jenny Russell, vice chair and citizen at large. >> Pete Jackson, fiscal leison at large. >> Rob, representing park commission.
>> Chameleia Jackson committee clerk representing board. >> Steve O'Donnell, historical commission. I'm Wendy Garpo representing the conservation commission >> and Robbie
>> Robert Powers representing the housing authority. >> Great. >> Kathleen O'Donnell at large member. >> All right, we are here and um and connected though. Um so the first order
of business um is to welcome Cam Jackson. Um, we are so excited to have you. You don't know how I'm excited to be here. >> Jenny, we've we've we've been without
staff for for um for so long, but um um why don't you just introduce yourself fully? We uh a few of us uh met with Cam um on Friday just to give her a little orientation background into the
committee and some of the things um from a staff point of view that we're looking forward to maybe being able to accomplish now that we have some staff support. But um Kim has a very she's very overqualified for this role. Uh she has a very impressive resume. So tell us
a little bit about yourself and your background. >> So my name is Chamilleia Jackson. Everybody calls me. Um, I've lived in Milton for about 10 to 12, probably 11 years now, but I worked for Brockton public schools. I worked in the finance department there as the grant director.
I'm in finance. Um, I did intensive work in Brockton. I worked in operations and facilities for a while. I worked in equity, diversity inclusion for a while. Then I landed my role as grants um administrator in Brockton. Um, this year our portfolio, well, my portfolio for
the district was at $60 million. So I manage um that budget in terms of administrating the budget, procuring the budget um and making sure um all the money is spent down. So at the end of the year, my accomplishments, making sure all the funds were spent down, so they were all spent down this year. So
that was great. Um but I'm happy to contribute my knowledge and expertise from public education from mun municipal education. I got my masters in public administration at UMass Boston. Um, so, um, I'm here and I'm ready to help and
learn and contribute as best as I can. So, yeah. >> Very excited. Thank you for applying and and going through the the process. Um, so we're still working out final details of, you know, getting her paid and
getting her access to town hall and laptops and all that. Carla did tell me that it should be on Friday. She my email and access to the email. >> Oh, perfect. >> She confirmed that CPC at Milton get it to get
>> perfect, perfect, great. Um, so we're making serious progress as you say. So, so um um yeah, so thank you and um working on board. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um so the approval of the
July 6 um 2026 minutes um to where >> there's a copy there recently distributed um and >> I move that they approve the minutes. >> We have a motion to approve and a
second. >> Um any further discussion? All right, seeing none, uh I I'll call the role. Um Cam, we just have to in a hybrid meeting, we have to do a roll call of every vote. Um just uh
>> thank you. Thank you. >> But Jen, >> yes. >> Pete, >> yes. >> Abstain. >> Hal. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Wendy. >> Um and I abstain. >> And Robbie, >> yes. >> And Kathleen,
>> yes. >> All right. And Tom votes yes as well. So we have seven yes two extensions. Um and um thank you. All right. Um discussion of 2026 eligibility applications. Um I
there's not an S on the agenda, so it should be not one application but 20 but 22 of them. Um so um I >> um I just want to remind people this is a
discussion about eligibility not about funding levels. Obviously, we'll, you know, we're we're going to have to deal with funding levels, but um I wonder if I can share my screen here actually because I brought up a list of all the
applications and I for my purposes um wrote in what I thought was eligible and what I didn't think was eligible, but we can go through them and discuss them. I don't think seeing my recommendation is going to bias anybody because you usually vote against me
anyways. Um so um that's >> would it make sense to discuss items fix >> the application? >> That's what I was wondering >> in advance of this >> might might make sense for us to consider
>> in this round. >> Yeah, >> I agree. Well, just voting up or down on whether they're eligible or not doesn't mean >> Okay, then we can then after that we can vote which category they go in of the
three categories in this new application for our responses. >> Um I guess so. >> Well, I think that's a discussion. It is a discuss. It's a discussion I think that we need to have
>> and we could either do it now or later. Yeah. Um, >> yeah, >> I don't think there's any harm in doing it in order, right, of or I mean there's probably no harm in taking it out of order either. So, I mean, but
>> Okay. >> Um, I just want to move it along. >> Sure. >> And I think this could be quick. Um, >> is it most things eligible? >> Yeah. Yeah, that that's why. So, >> yeah. >> All right. Let's do that for let's stick with the order of the agenda and um and
go forward. I want to just share this >> share my screen. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Can we can we move can I suggest that we move >> six to five? Sure >> and five last. >> Can we do that? >> Y that makes sense. That makes sense.
>> Okay. >> When did people get the agenda by the way? When are posted? >> You'll get emails. >> We haven't had a No, thank you. >> I always go down.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I make our committee members the >> agenda. Make the agenda. >> Well, we must have. >> Um, all right. So, tonight's just for because Hal's new, never been through
this process before. So tonight's vote is really um is the eligibility application eligible for CPA funds. We're not making a judgment on whether they're going to receive funds. Um what we think about the project. It's just an
up or down vote. Basically they're eligible or not eligible. Um and so I just want to sort of you know lay that out for how's purposes but also just um reminding all of us as well. So, this is the list of the 22 original
applications. I've got some notes in there, but um so if without objection, we can just take them in order. Um I do think as Rob just suggested there most of these are pretty easy and pretty straightforward that they're eligible,
but but um you'll that eligible that column is just as I said before my thoughts on this. So, um but uh you can ignore that or or not. Um and so, um anyways, so you make full screen.
>> Yeah, it's a little hard. >> I'm sorry. >> Yep. At least the zoom. I can't see. Well, >> can't see the overall zoom. >> You just make the zoom itself. >> You got to do it up there. You got to go
click up there. The maximus right here. >> Square not the X there. Beautiful. >> Getting too old. Exactly. you. >> Okay. So, without objection, um we'll
just go through this in order. >> Yay. No. Nay. Um and then what I would propose is this. We would vote as a package >> at the end. So, we don't have to do >> 22 roll calls. >> I think I think I got
>> we can just everyone. >> Yeah. So Tucker School program, I don't think there's any um it's an eligible project. We've already funded it, frankly. Um now, frankly, we have already funded it. So um so everybody in agreement that that's >> right.
>> Randolph South playground, we funded other playgrounds. Um, obviously that's a very tentative idea, but it's clearly eligible. >> Okay, I'm just going to say this and and people object if I say something >> that you disagree with um or want to
discuss. Milton Landing boat house tent. Um, so um um Kathleen did raise some issues about the permanency of the tent or maybe it was Pete, I can't remember. Um I think it's generally eligible. um
structures are eligible but um but I think um do we want to discuss this one >> or do do we think it's >> I think it's questionable whether it's eligible so maybe we need a discussion >> let's discuss it >> because it's impermanent it's just a
temporary structure that's up there >> but it's not a temporary structure they're building it as a year round permanent structure >> but it's a tent so it's not you know it's not hard building construction it's temporary
>> does then the eligibility depend upon whether or not it's permanent >> that's the question is permanent >> is it eligible and then >> yeah right >> Kathleen do you have any opinion you raised that last meeting
>> before with that band stand for East Milton Square where it was sort of a temporary thing it rolls out when you have a band there and it put gets put away and I don't think and that we determined wasn't eligible. I I don't think it is. And this
this one is a little bit more um permanent in that, you know, it's not something you're rolling away and putting it away, you know, every week or something. I mean, >> so it it the fact that the sides of it are sort of, you know, similar to the
one that's already there. Um, I think we it I said it's kind of on the fence. I'm I'm kind of on the fence with this because of the temporariness of it, but it's going to be up for the whole year. I think it would probably pass. >> All right. Challenge eligible.
>> Yeah, I I agree with Kathleen. think that I think both their plans for it, the year- round nature, and their long-term lease um were the things that convinced me, you know, they don't just have one year lease, they have >> could always be taken down. >> Yeah. But so if
>> they don't win theoretically. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, >> so um Brooksfield attorney, >> so Brooksfield LED lighting, again,
we've funded um the G Road LED lighting. So, that's clearly eligible. Um >> Mary C. Lane safety and field improvements. And we've done plenty of fields. It's Yes. re renovating Andrew's Field. Yes. >> Open Space Preservation Trust Fund. Um I
know that there was different opinions about this one, but I think it's eligible. Um yeah. Um so Geofield um phase two. Yes. Pagota circle restoration project phase two. Yes.
>> The Houston Avenue Green Streets bio um is withdrawn. Um Miller A Capital Improvements is withdrawn. Um, >> hey Tom, I I don't think we withdrew that as of our last meeting. I was told
it wasn't withdrawn. >> Well, you're you you've been fully funded by the Affordable Housing Trust, so we're considering it withdrawn. Is that wrong? >> Yeah, that I'd consider that wrong. The application should stand or the uh the eligibility question should stand.
>> It'sable, >> but you were fully funded. >> Not necessarily. The project is over the 2.1 million as of today. >> Okay. Okay. I mean, it's clearly eligible. Um,
>> so I just was assuming um because the affordable housing trust fully funded the request um that that it would not be a a full application to us. >> We could decide that real quick on the next on the next one.
>> Yeah. >> But it's eligible. I mean it is it is eligible, right? So you would prefer Robbie to um to have this considered eligible and then >> Yes. >> at least at least it >> just yeah just leave a door open.
>> It gives you it gives you the right the opportunity to submit a Yep. Understood. Okay. >> Thank you. >> No problem. Um Winter Valley solar lighting. I wrote no here. I do not think this is eligible. >> Are you are you going to change it on
there? on the side. He's got >> no. >> Thank you. >> Winter Valley solar lighting. Um, again, this might be a little I mean, this for debate. I I >> Why was that not eligible?
I mean there applying for it under the housing um category and it's not really um the housing category is about adding new units or in the case of Miller A um uh doing capital
improvements that would save units from um not being eventually >> occupied. Yeah. Occupiable. Um, and the solar out is an enhancement, but it's not really an enhancement to it.
>> Could go either way. There could be >> field lighting. >> Well, but I think the I think the the rules for the open space lighting >> is very different
>> um than you're you're improving. It's a capital improvement to a >> a playing field which is eligible. Um, so I don't know. We can't find solar lighting all across town to just average, right?
>> So it's got to come in under the housing, right? It's not open space. It's got to come in under housing and I don't think it meets the housing. >> Yeah. The definition. What is Catholic? I'm just curious. >> Yeah, Kathleen. >> I don't think it works.
>> I don't think it's eligible. I don't think it's I mean, you know, the property wasn't acquired with CPA funding and so that seems to me more like a maintenance thing than a than a capital improvement so much. And then
it's not doing anything for the housing. >> Okay. >> I don't I don't Yeah, I don't think that solar I don't think there isn't that more of like a landscaping kind of thing, not a >> I think it's street lighting. >> Street lighting. >> Yeah, it's street lighting. Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> I I don't see how that works under housing. >> Okay. >> Um affordable housing uh trust applications clearly. Yes. Athetherton street fire station. Clearly you have um Blue Hill Parkway historic markers. So, I did uh as I said I was going to do go
went back to Stuart Sagenor of the um community preservation coalition and asked him this question specifically um and he pretty clearly I have an email from him said no this that is not eligible that just what I thought that a new historic marker or an existing site
you know um just is for a new >> yeah I mean renovating or restoring a historic marker. I mean, some >> the last >> Yeah, some Well, it's a study to to evaluate, but but but yes, a funding an
eligible project could come out of what Nick is proposing. Um but this one um is not um >> So, did they have it was it was stateowned land for that matter? >> No, we can find >> state. So,
>> of course, we funded those. Well, because they were affecting that we funded. Yeah, it wasn't historic >> historic preservation. Again, it mattered the category. >> Um, yeah. Yeah. Yep. >> Um, Milton lockup. Yes. We funded it
before. Um, Forbes house. >> Plank House and shed. Yes. Um, stabilization of the receiving tomb. Yes. >> Um, I really want to schedule that walk through. >> Yes. >> Can we do it on Halloween?
>> No. I prefer not to grade on. >> Um, so the Homestead landscape assessments, uh, yes. Uh, Suffach resolves house window restoration. Yes. Restoration of Pinerove at Winter Valley. Yes. And monuments and historic
markers restoration. It should be a study of the summer. >> Um, so that is Yes, I believe too. So in total we have one withdrawn. Um, one,
two, and that was 19 yeses. >> Any discussion? Further discussion? >> If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the slate as proposed as discussed. >> So, Jenny has made a motion. Do we hear
a second? >> Um, we have all sorts of seconds. Um, um, Dan, pick your pick your second person. You got Wendy, Rob, and Steve. See? >> Okay. Oh, there you go. Um
>> So, let's um let's call um the roll on this and let's reverse order. Robbie, >> yes. >> Uh Kathleen, >> yes. >> Wendy, >> yes. >> Stephen, >> yes. >> How? >> Yes. Rob,
>> yes. >> Pete, >> yes. >> Denny, >> yes. >> And Tom, yes. So, a unanimous vote. Um, >> we are sound >> as proposed. All right. Okay. Um, so we're going to flip the
order of five and six. Um, right. We've done three and four. Correct. Yes. Um, so let's do uh let's take uh move six up to the next agenda item and review and consideration of edits to the CPC
project and I know Rob has done some >> uh a fair amount of work on this. Thank you Rob. Um so >> do you want to um >> I got to share my screen on >> I are you logged into the meeting? >> I am. Hold on.
>> Did I let you >> do I raise my hand? I need to make you the moderator. I'm not a panelist. Okay. Am I there? >> We'll move the panelist which you should accept.
And I think then you can do you see the share button? >> Yeah, you do. Okay, perfect. >> I got a request. Now you got to Okay. Oh, that work. Yep. screen.
So, I need to find it version three. Okay. I guess the the first thing here, so we've been back and forth a little bit about the uh the eligibility
application. >> Um and we added a number of different I don't know why is that not >> all right to the participant. >> Yeah. All right. So, we've been back uh
and forth a little bit, Jenny and Pet and myself, and um we've done a review for the eligibility application. So, the changes that we've added were at the top. And so, I'll just read it that this
application enables the CPC to review the request to ensure eligibility, offer guidance, and prioritize annual funding requests. And then it says, "You'll likely be asked to come before the committee to describe your project. The committee will then respond in writing to you with one of the following uh
three categories. A is eligible. Please submit a full funding application, which would, you know, we just kind of went through that first piece. B would be not eligible with explanation, which clearly the three that we just went over would be the B. And then C is a new category
which we say we could decide this evening. It's eligible but deferred due to budget constraints. Please consider reapplying next year. >> So I think and the the reason for this is kind of twofold. One is it
prioritizes some of the applications because we know we have $6 million and a million dollar budget. So it kind of a helps applicants understand that they don't have to go through a full funding application.
Uh so kind of at least then next year I think as well is that I think what we've allowed for ourselves in this is to say listen if they come before us next year we have questions that we'll go through in a minute but it would say hey you were eligible previously but maybe it
wasn't a priority this year maybe next year is easier and they could skip this step that they can go on to a funding so they wouldn't have to present to the committee. So I think it does I think it does one of two things. One thing it does that it helps us prioritize applications for this year. We don't
have to go through 20 applica whatever it is now 19 applications this year. We could decide on a few potentially that could get put off to the next year. So as we go down I'll sh like so the the the application is pretty much the the same
thing. >> Just on that topic you said may be able to skip that step next year. Is that May or would be able to skip that today? >> Would you say please consider reapplying next year? So that to me means they have
to start over. >> I would say why? >> Well, I I think I think everybody would still have to resubmit for eligibility, but I don't think that like let's say if that came before us and it was the same project. I don't I don't know why would
they need to come and present to us. >> Well, maybe not. I would say change that word to resubmit as opposed to reapply. Yeah, we may not want to work Smith at this point, but >> okay. Just I was just clarifying what you intended.
>> Oh, if you don't resubmit at the eligibility phase, we don't know what's coming in later on. >> That's right. That's right. >> Well, you can without representing. >> I think that's what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I I think I I I think everyone everyone should still submit
these applications, right? So you're you're still reapplying. So I think reapplying is correct. Reapply next year for both phases. However, I I think maybe Jenny you wrote this. It was like you may be asked to come before to present to the committee. If it's the
same project, the exact same thing, then I don't know why we would have them come and re, you know, represent to us to save some time >> unless they Yeah. Unless they kind of change modified modified something requests down or they've done additional
fundraising so that they're you know they're >> or we might have changed our right right I mean I think it allows the door open whether we need to do it or not right >> but I think yeah >> um >> okay that's good
>> so then there was a number of questions that that we put here the following questions will give the committee background information to help to help assess your eligibility in past history with CPC funding. So a few questions was has the organization applying for this
round been previously funded yes or no. It's simple that you could either check well you know you can go on this thing and click yes or no. Um and then if yes for what? How much is it completed? So I think another important piece as we kind
of go through these years is we've funded things in the past and if they've been funded completed if you've if you've been funded and then you've also haven't completed your whole project we should know about that. Um the number two question has the project
you are applying for been previously funded? Yes or no? This it's this specific project. If yes how much? And is it it completed? because as your the first one was more about your organization you might be your organization might have been funded but it might have been a different project
so I think that's also important information for us to know because if the same organization is now taking all the CPC funding right like going through then we also it's also just good information for us to understand and then the third one was was this project
previously deemed eligible but not funded which I think is important it kind of leaves us in here it's if it's Yes. And we and it's gone through a few rounds, right? Um then it's good to know that. So, hey, we've we've applied a few times that you know and and if yes, why?
You know, let's just say theoretically we one of these projects we say, hey, no, not this year. Um but maybe next year when funding's better, then we could put it on there, right? Maybe it's not a priority this year. And then lastly, um is the project timesensitive?
I know we have a few projects that are before us uh as well that the they deem the applicants deem that it's it's timesensitive, right? So if you say yes or no, I think it's just important to understand what their schedule is and why they need it to be, you know, whether we would need to go fund it or
yeah fund it in the fall or the spring or whatever. I think it just kind of leaves the door open. And then lastly, it's just the same project description. We do that. So we basically added those four questions and then added the the uh beginning piece. So
>> So let's open that up for conversation discussion questions. >> Wendy, >> um the concept of deferment, is that something that other communities have done or is that a new idea?
>> I I don't know for sure. I don't think it's um inconsistent. There's nothing there's nothing um that I'm aware of statewide in the statute or in our local bylaws that would prevent us from making those types of decisions. Um people
don't get funded >> because it's not a priority all the time all across the state. So I think it's just a version of that, but >> it's not an official term that's defined in the legislation, >> but but there's a lot of things not defined in the legislation.
I don't think I don't think it's out of bounds instead of if that's what you're >> Oh, I think it's it's really clever. I I like the concept and if I was on the other end as an applicant, I would much prefer to receive that than go through the whole process.
>> It's a lot of work to put funation together and if you're not going to get funded, why go through all that? >> Right. So I would point out though it does require us to make an early judgment on a project um one two three you know four
months in advance of the final application being due and um sometimes those intervening months could be critical in us evaluating the project. >> So >> so I have two questions. We have 19
right now and let's say we are able to find who's going to throw out number nine of them. If if we had this form uh now would we automatically mark those remaining 10 as eligible deferred through the budget constraints please
consider applying next year like is that automatically >> I guess what that's a version what I was trying to say >> project by project >> it would make this stage much more a budget stage where we would be getting out the spreadsheets
>> getting out the spreadsheets saying this is what we, you know, presumably we wouldn't just invite the projects we're going to fund. Um because I think that would >> run the risk of um not being able to
expend our funds. um you know what if one project dropped out or what if a project >> and the final presentation wasn't that impressive and you know their fundraising was lagging and you know all that type of thing that could prevent us from funding it but but it would
>> in that scenario there may 10 would not automatically be told we can't do you this year because of funds come back next year >> well this is a new concept so we are kind of making up the rules >> my my thing is I I agree with Tom I would say I I think there's a number of
a few projects I would say a few projects that I could say hey I wouldn't go to fund this year right I I think and it would say hey let's defer >> I would say hey maybe we could maybe we could fund that in another year but this year this specific year it's not a priority because for whatever reason I
I'll give you one is like the the lighting at the high school >> they'll still have lighting in a year it's it's it's an energy efficient one right and it's a big ticket item so At the end of the day, it's like, okay, then that could get deferred a year and they wouldn't have to go through a
funding application. That's an easy one. >> Okay. There's some of these other ones I would absolutely say, listen, >> they apply and things change and and money will change and what I priorities will change. >> But maybe for some then we can say, okay, maybe we can defer that. So, this
is only saying a full application number 19, maybe say 17 of them are eligible and a couple of them are whatever. We would have to go we would have to go yes or no. It's just the next step. Okay. >> We we would basically go through these three categories which we already we
already did. That's why I think Pete was saying does this go first or the next thing. It's clear that like whatever it is now 17 or is it 19 now that are eligible? They are eligible. Now we go through those 19 and say
>> you know well we know the two are not eligible and then the last one is like are eligible is they are we defer this are we going to defer this to another year >> um that's potential that's >> well there there's there's another thing I would say is I I don't know how I feel
about all of this first of all um two um I would not be in favor of applying new rules to an existing um ground. Um people applied expecting we were going to do the same thing we've done for five years. And I think
changing up um adding a deferral category, whether that's a good idea or not, but adding it in the middle of the process, I don't think that good precedent. The problem I have with that is again it's this thing of making people go through all the work of
putting a funding proposal together. And given how much money and the projects that are out there, every other year we've either funded all the projects or funded all but one or two. I think this year we might only be able to fund four
or five projects. Why make 19 go through this thing if we only have money to do four or five projects? So again, >> I I would absolutely agree and I also think it's it's also the value of our time. So like at some point too,
you know, it's a lot of our own time going through all these applications. If we can make a decision earlier then I would say it's absolutely worth it for some of these these could you could we qualify the I'm just could qualify the
eligibility saying you are eligible however based upon number of application stage So we're saying here the fability stages to verb. So another option is to move with to let people fully apply.
>> I don't think that I think that like to answer that I think I think it should absolutely be here. I would never I wouldn't put it to a fun because they're still going to have to do all this work and then the committee is going to have to have a
review period before we even see the funding. So this really is the this really is the stage to do it. >> But then it means that those who do fully apply then are 95% can be funded, right? We don't know.
>> I think in the past with in the past I would say we would have to open it up to say listen we we listen to everybody and I think I mean really that we've had >> this many applicants with only so much money and uh
>> I just I see people do work and then it's a lot of work to go through that >> you have to go estimate you have to go do this stuff I don't It's either Robs or >> No, it's probably me. >> I thought it was all
>> I mean, you know, whichever we go, I don't think saying, well, please submit a funding application, it doesn't mean 100% that they're guaranteed funding. It's still >> for nobody. Nobody's guaranteed funding >> for the view. And the same thing with
the ele the one that we're deferring that doesn't indicate to them that next year they will be successful. It's just said I think that you were elevated. >> All right, let's get some other comments. People that haven't have a chance to talk um just
on this thoughts suggestions. The only other thought that I would have is that these the four questions are really a is because we don't know we don't have a database of the history.
Well, we sort of do, but we don't. This is it's sort of having them tell us rather than don't you guys know whether you have been it's like you're what you >> do. We do. We do have a database. So, it just needs to be
>> built or ream is going to build it or rebuild it. I mean, this is basically yet we've ever come with it. >> All right. But it's also, you know, it it puts it back on the applicant. It's pretty simple. And and I think my
response to you guys today, too, was >> this one is easy to come through and just do it online and you can fill it all through a PDF. And I was going back and forth whether or not to do the funding one as like a quick fill in on the PDF, but I think it's much better.
The funding one is more of a a robust application where they they would submit like separate documents for it. And I still like that piece whereas this is still a short form that's meant to be fill in a couple of of uh text. And I
don't it's not I don't think it's that tough to go through somebody's questions and answer. >> No. No. Those are easy easy questions. >> Yeah. And I think it just reminds the committee again. Okay. Yes. agree has the committee changes see >> so so
I have a like I said I have a couple concerns about this but the primary concern is changing the rules in the middle of the the round or middle of the process uh even though it's maybe a modest change um two if we're going to do this I think the eligibility
application needs to be more than eligibility application how are we going to really evaluate whether we like a project and want to defer it or not defer it unless we had known more about it. So I I I think I think this needs more thought um
than than and I would not be in favor of moving forward with adopting this for this round. Certainly going to Pete's concern which I you know recognize is a legitimate concern about making people who might not get funding go through the
full you know it's a lot of work. we acknowledge that um the way we've dealt with that in the past because this is not the first year we've had this is the first year we've had $6 million in application or in requests but we've had um years where we thought we wouldn't
have to say no we ended up not you know we ended up making the budget fit to a lot of projects and we've said no to a a relatively small handful of projects but um but that wasn't necessarily at this stage our expectation in some years we
thought we would have to say no to norm. Um what we did in the communication back to the applicants is let them know that the budget was extremely tight and um you know my read of that is hint hint
you may not get funded. Um and um and then that's their decision to go forward with a full application if they feel like boy the chances are not good. Um and um you know it's really on the
applicant. Um but I I I I think Yeah. So that's my that's my view on this. >> Well, can I respond to that because it occurs to me that one thing to say in the letter is that we welcome you to consider reapplying next round given the
>> Yeah, I'm also uncomfortable with that. Um, and here's the reason I'm uncomfortable with that is, um, we can't bind a future committee. Next year's committee might look different, right? Um, I may resign. I know. Um, but, you
know, it just and so, um, we may get 16 brand new, knock them out of the pirate applications, and it's still not a priority. So I think I think the deferral the one of the problems I have with the deferral is is it implies
>> doesn't say but it implies >> you might be more favor more favorably um evaluated next year and I don't think that's the case. Some of the projects that are on the bottom of my list every year >> would going to be on the bottom of the
list every year. Period. >> But we could add that to the wording, but still >> the word that's the thing. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm not indicate that. >> Despite my negativity, I'm not opposed to the overall concept of trying to
>> make progress, >> improve the process for for residents and el and applicants. Um, Well, let let me let me just remind you that you were also against both of these both of these steps, right? I am against and so so I'm
just I'm I'm wondering what you're like what do you think is a better process for this thing? Like >> if we got rid of both of these process like here's where I want here's where I think this is a huge benefit is that I listen my time is very short these days
as you guys know. I'm I'm crazy busy. I love this committee but I'm crazy busy. And if we can reduce the amount of meetings and the and like the just the amount of applications, we really need to figure out a way so that we can pair down some of these because this year we
have way too many applications in my opinion and we figure that out. To answer your question, I would go with a desk approval of eligibility and and a one round application,
a desk approval, meaning it would be the list. >> It would be the chair of the committee working with our staff and saying, "Yep, yep, yep, yep, nope." And just >> doing and eliminating every the last
three meetings we had. Yeah. But I've raised that before and the committee in its wisdom has decided that they don't want to do that. So, >> but I I think this is a so from my answer to that is there's a this is a happy medium, right? Where I think we
would have to words this because what I like about this is it and listen, I'm not trying to weed out like 10 people. What what I'm trying to say is listen, there's definitely some applications that are more priority this year that are more that I think are are a bigger
priority than others. So in that because I I would say in the last four years that we had this committee is we've reviewed them really early and there's been a big change between eligibility applications and and I think that >> that's the I think one of the very
strong arguments that I've heard from from several people to that this answer is that we've now we've now seen a bunch of these applications be at this stage that come before us we could say listen I don't this is where I deem this and
and to answer you like I I could get on board with saying okay this happens next year and then we waste a lot of time with putting 19 applications forward and they they submit it to us I could get there um and say okay we do that but I
absolutely think we we like we need something in here to filter out some of these folks because the more the years go on we're going to get more and more applications and >> this is the third year in a row I'm making this suggestion that we weed out some at this stage and it always gets
shut down. But I just think from my point of one who's done a lot of proposals for funding, you know, it's a lot of work and if if there's no chance some of these are going to get funded, why make them go through the work to say nothing about us having to review them?
>> Right. But I think it's both. I think it's both. one is, you know, listen, my I I'm always like, okay, you know, a you you give them a sum that we just know, okay, reapply, but then they're going to have a bunch
of work, right, with the funding application and then it's going to be another however many nights that we got to sit there and review them. And if you can make that decision now, I think there's a few that you can make the decision now. whether you know I do think in you know the fact that we're
doing this now and that we didn't we didn't put this out for the application early enough I think we'd wait a year and and say hey do this in a year and we'd get the the the wording correct that makes sense to me yeah >> so how
so can you explain the process so we this is the application we're going to we determine eligibility there's going to be a letter sent out to the 18 to say yes, you're eligible. >> The two the one that is not say no.
>> Is there not a way I said this earlier and I'm just catching up. Is there not a way in that letter to say somewhat what you're saying without saying exactly because the saying you are eligible. >> Yes. >> We're free to go through the process of
applying and we will consider you. However, >> but we had $6 million. a million dollars. It is up to you to then >> we say that every year we do >> and ask them to, you know, ways to reduce their ask or whatever and we'll
put specific things in there. You know, the committee discussed and recommending thought you need to consider this or in your proposal, you know, get some more of this or whatever. So, we specifically >> we go as far as >> it is
general consensus is it is unlikely that you'll refund it this year. We have not gone that far. >> But and I don't think I think that sets us up for danger to say I don't think we should I don't think you're going to be I think you either deem it now and say
listen you're eligible but you're going to be deferred to another funding round. May maybe it's like that we don't we can say please consider next year. Maybe it's you're not eligible you're eligible this year but we're deferring you to another you know another funding room.
So, Kathleen, what about the legalities of eligibility and then denying somebody's ability to apply? I'm not saying >> Yeah. Well, I mean, it's an internal
rule that we do, right? Not everybody does it, >> right? Um, most people just say it's an application. Have a nice life. um you know um the fact that we've done this twostep thing I mean that goes to Rob's point of like this is not something we
should be doing now changing the process while people have already applied to our old process but I definitely think it's a way to look at it for the next year I don't know why we make it this complicated >> yeah I >> I mean beginning only had like
>> when it when it was easy >> now if you're going to be getting 10 to 15 the applications 15 applications. We got 20 20 is that if you're gonna get that many every year, you're gonna drive yourself nuts. I mean, every CPC committee that
I've worked with has had kind of a list of things that we want. You know, we want to buy this piece of property and you're looking for that, we're looking for this. There's always a shopping that CPCs have, but I don't think you need to make it as as complicated as the student
as as poss. >> Yeah. >> I just wanted to say to kind of piggy back off of Kathleen, I think as we move forward and you're getting more applicants, maybe the eligibility part is not >> going to ideal or not approve. You know
what I mean? Like I don't know if that could be >> more straightforward for the committee like you are approved for the next step. You are not approved for the next like that like a grant RFP, right? Like when you send out an RFP, this is what we're looking for. This is the mission. This is what we want.
>> This is the three categories that we're looking for. Then they send in the application. You want >> that's what it is. >> That's what it is. >> And it's up to them to read the directions and make sure that they're eligible. So, but what I what I will say
and why um we did it this way and we made it a little bit complicated and what I will say is it's worked really well for us in the last four years because it we've had plenty of eligibility applications come in and completely do like a 180 with different
stuff. And the only way they did that was because we didn't short circuit this process. It's because they did become before our our committee and we gave them back feedback which I think if you asked I mean you could ask a survey to past applicants and say listen and my
guess would be is they said hey listen you guys helped us out along the way and and I think it's been very beneficial to those applicants because we get then it came to funding and the funding round was easier on us but this year it's getting worse. It's just getting harder
and harder. I don't see a way out of like by the way we're going to I I don't think like 19 applicants are going to all get approved but we we can't be like so leg like legislative across and say listen we're going to fund everybody 25% because I think our committee is going
to fail miserably right >> well there's some projects that can't get 25% funding and still survive >> the thing is this is that we in the beginning sort of did them as a desk decision I you Julie would call me up and say, "I've got this after.
Somebody's talking to me about this and what do you think?" And I would say, "Yeah, whatever." And yes or no. And so now we have staff. >> And so so before so this kind of eligibility process being done by this committee because there was no one else looking at it. When you think about the
planning board and the planning committee, somebody comes in and meets with our town planner and says throws a roll of plans on a table and says, "Well, what do you think about all of this?" And the planning director can say, "You are out of your mind if you're not happy."
>> And so, you know, so there is that level of staff involvement before it gets to the planning board, the CPA. And so with that kind of model is something we could look >> and I think there's a blend of what you and Rob are talking about because Rob is
absolutely right right those but the only thing I would say Rob to that is it is a percentage and I think a a minority of applications that need that help if you will right we we we have improved I
agree with you we have improved a lot of projects from eligibility to >> and and either making them more consistent with CPA or um better projects overall. I you know name it. But it's I think it's a relatively small minority. I I don't I don't want to put
a percentage. >> I don't know. I I would I think it's been a lot more than >> just about every project letter, the eligibility letter we put out gives them some hands. >> Oh yeah. But that's also how that could be done in a desk
review in terms of really getting in and diving and getting our hands dirty with I think it's >> I think it's a a couple projects every year that we've done that level of intensive work >> or or what I what I liked about it too
is that >> um just the pool of applicants it could just be a resident that comes before us and they may need a lot of help. >> Yes. And and so and I think what our committee has done really really well and and we've pushed for is say listen
you might have a $300,000 project but this project isn't ready to be cooked yet. Go do planning and and we've done that and they said hey listen we'll give you a little bit of seed money and go out and we have a number of success stories playground which is now getting built was one of them that's been funded through your programs. So that's why I
go back to like this application and and the and the questions that we've answered that listen if you've gone through we've we've funded you a little bit at a time and we believe in your project I think it's like hey the committee is going to continue to fund you and that's where I think it's
helpful going back now that we have CAM we could absolutely um you know it would be putting the trust into you and maybe there's a few members or something as a subcommittee on this on this board to say, "Hey, maybe they come to you." I, you know,
the question is also, how many hours does Cam have to commit to this committee, right? And so that's a question, too. Like, do they just come to you with a few like a a subcommittee to at this stage, right? And you're giving the applicant that back that
feedback. They get that feedback to say, "Hey, listen. You're one of $6 million applications and we only have a million dollars worth of our budget. uh we need to we need to get to our $1 million. How do you propose we get there? You know, kind of thing. Um so I don't know. I
think there's a lot of questions that are left open. >> Um other comments question the pre pre-application meeting that is kind of being thrown out there, right? Like Kathleen said, that's where you do the planning and zoning.
>> Yeah. come in with Liz with Liz and you know we had we had an application that should never have gone to us that should never have waste it out right then and nobody has to spend that time the applicant doesn't have they hired an architect they spend all this money doing building
plans for somebody that they would never out of the way was going to get >> I would be in favor of that I don't know who that necessarily is whether it's a chair and and can or it's a chair and someone else appointed but I think that would
everyone's time to but you know what I think might be helpful I think it should be more than on one person and can what I could see is having two or three people in a subcommittee with you to review the
applications as they come in now it's a lot of work right now think about it for every single one you're I would think you'd be giving them a half hour hour time slot and you got to figure that now, right? So, it's just putting our work of the committee back onto you and some members of the committee to do it,
right? And and do it. So, um I would be in favor of that. Then then what we could do is like you basically get rid of the eligibility application. It goes that that way. >> It weeds down then to whatever you need and then the funding I I would think we
would develop a funding application with the same questions. Right. >> Right. I think you do the funding application with the same questions and then you have it there so you can and maybe you weed out some >> but out of these 22 >> we only found two >> two that were ineligible
>> ineligible so that doesn't get us very far >> so eligibility is not a big hurd you know how do you evaluate the next >> and that's really one of I mean there's there's many projects that we can work out for this year you know thinking you
know yeah it's eligible but be known. So why go through this this whole twist >> if you know >> go through which twist >> the eligibility you know when when you say yeah most of I mean when we first started and we
didn't have this process you know some Julie would call me up I was the chair and she'd say you know we got this is that eligible and I'd be like no >> yeah the eligibility is not an issue but if we make if we don't have eligibility and it's just a full application again
they're spending a lot of time to put the full application together and they have no feedback from the committee, no idea at all, you know, how it fits in. So, we're going all this far. >> What if it was a Well, what if it was a hybrid? What if >> we still had an application for
eligibility form >> or maybe it's not eligibility, maybe it's called preliminary application. >> Sure. Yeah. Whatever. It has some information. I mean, Tom, you made that nice spreadsheet. I person you pretty easily went through and said yes or no.
fairly easily took time. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's right. >> If if we have a minimal I mean um you know some some some projects went above and beyond which is fantastic but some of them were just one page and a little bit of information. If every if if
everyone on the committee reviewed this provided a couple of comments if they had comments to the chair if they can that pre-application meeting then kind of sit down with the applicant to say these are the comments from the committee blah blah blah you're eligible
and this save three meetings of this or no is that >> I I think yes I I think um I think uh you know um Rob was using the phrase subcommittee. I would not want to set up a subcommittee because that triggers all sorts of open meeting law and stuff like
that. Um so but I think what we could do is um solicit those comments um from members and then on a rotating basis assign you know again I'm going to make you know
>> well the more >> this is this is not based on an analysis of this year but my experience on this committee um tells me that of the 22 to half of them are eligible and don't need
any help, don't need really anything from us. They just need to move on to the next step. Now, yeah, >> other people may disagree with that. I think, >> you know, my opinion is we've been too controlling um and don't let things
organically come to us. Um, but that's my personal opinion. But, but I think a bunch of these don't really need anything other than yes, come see you in the fall, right? >> Um, >> then the other half need Rob Lash
because he has subject matter expertise and Cam sitting with them and giving them advice or Pete Jackson or, you know, any, you know, >> right? And we could split it up. I would say that the the 22 were down to 11 and of those 11
>> or whatever the number divided up. >> Yeah. Maybe maybe I'm wrong and all 22 need need help and we just divide it up >> or to be honest like >> listen I think on this committee though as well is there's expertise in
different ones right like open space for recreation put me on >> but the historic commission you know you would have Stephen and and so that's that I would use the the committee to do it and then ultimately took the chair to say yes you know you you assign
these free and you're going to meet you have to meet by this date. >> Okay. >> I mean this all changes now because we have came. I I think I think that it helps us. >> Don't say that. >> No, but I think it's it's like use that you use her so that we can value our
time so we won't have so many on our books. >> Yeah. I I mean I'm for that. Um >> I I guess we would still have to people would still have to do the two-step application because the eligibility will go to
>> it's just a different process. >> It's not the whole committee getting out of 39 at the same point we would have >> to be honest. Would we even have to meet >> at all for eligibility? We might not have just a vote on
>> we don't have to vote on >> you don't have to vote. It's just a yes or no. >> It's like no, no, yes. >> All right. Um, so I would um be be uh at some risk here. Uh I would be in
favor of deferring this discussion. Um I again my strong opinion is we should not change the rules for this round. Um, and I I hear the arguments against that because we're going to ask 19 applicants to potentially submit applications and a
bunch of them not get funded. But I don't I don't feel comfortable with um changing the rules basically um in the middle of the process. >> I don't think that's changing rules.
changing. It's it's it's diverging from >> five year four years of history that we've never done this. >> I I do think >> and it might I mean it might not get a lot of blowback but um but I just don't
think we should do that. So >> I'm only one vote so >> I do think there's I I agree with you in the fact of like we're changing an application that someone already applied to. So I absolutely don't think that's the right way to go on this committee.
You can't you can't change in the middle of this. However, I think there is something to be said that when you respond to all these applicants, all those responses can be framed with like listen there's $6 million worth of applications.
>> The letter can be more precise this year. I exactly but the irony of all this is is if applicants listened to all these meeting minutes and zone them,
>> they would me some of them at least would get a sense of what um where the committee is at this >> um so she's >> good. We >> she she just she just dropped her location.
>> There we go. All right. Um so um >> but but I do think we need then we do need a decision for the following year or whatever how we how we go about this process. Right. >> Yeah. Maybe that's for >> and I would suggest discussion now is
not the time to vote on that. >> When does this committee meet again after this? >> We have we might have another one if we don't get through them all tonight. >> We We got we just got to
>> right we have the discussion of the two for this fall. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> But I guess we're through when >> we So we do not have a meeting in August. We have a um um our initial schedule that I think every member gods
um maybe with the exception of you although I thought I no anyways but is a series meeting starting in October after the eligibility. We originally when we were planning that had a September 14th meeting on the calendar which we uh
Jenny reminded me we didn't meet in September last year so we cancelled that. We may bring that back depending on the >> well I would I would like us to meet September 14th and and and secure this up. I I I think we need to get this
done. I I think we need to have the the application process figured out and and I would rather do that in September than continue this on. >> Well, I think we've got it all done except for those two projects. Is that what you're referring to? >> No, what I'm saying is we had a lot of discussion. What I'm saying is we had a
lot of discussion tonight and we're still it's a lot of open questions for me. Listen, this is a lot of work too that we've done on this and I'd like to see progress on it. Right? So I I don't think we basically say, "Hey, we we kind of put two things on the table and now that we have Cam here and I think you'll
be in in our meeting." I I think if we do that in September, we just put that on the agenda and let's figure it out, right? Um and so that we can put in place for future meetings that people know and they understand the process that we can do it. If we defer that,
it's I I just I'm worried that it's going to take a lot of time and at least our our heads are in this now that I don't want to wait. I don't want to wait it for a long time to >> That's fair. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I I don't know how you guys feel, but I I feel like the longer you wait for
things, then it then it doesn't get >> If we're not going to put it into effect now, we can defer it now till September >> but but you know, I know what's coming down the line is now 19 applications that we got to review. So that's going to be at least four meetings and
whatever else till the end of the year. I don't think this discussion happens until next whatever and then we're and then we're in trouble because we then we're at a process, right? >> Yeah. >> And and it would be good, I think, to
for any future applicants and even the applicants that are applying now that they know a clear path forward >> like, hey, we're going to we have this we have a administration now. And I I mean I do think um I think there's some value in still having the like the two
steps. You would do a process and divide it up >> and get it done so that we don't have so many meetings and whatever. But >> but we'll need the right language and the systems and all that. >> May I make another suggestion to
>> to the um eligibility application? I think it would be useful to button this up by putting a character limit on the narrative and not allowing attachments because I think the way it is now is
really open-ended and >> true >> and somebody could come in and basically submit a fully fleshed out application, but that's not what we want. If what we want is just a succinct summary, then let's tell them that's what we want by
putting a either word or character limit on it. No, no attachments. >> Yeah. Cuz even on this, please include mater materials attachments or whatever. I I mean if if we really want to boil it down,
it's like I think that these questions and everything go to the funding piece cuz what where where it's getting clouded is is we're trying to make decisions early which there's some value in that but we basically just then eligibility is just that we just really
quick quick form you can just fill it out. We could limit characters, could limit attachments, all that. And then for the funding, we would have to redo the funding form basically. >> Well, I think we're getting rid of the idea of an eligibility application, right? >> No, I don't think so.
>> Right. Preliminary >> knowing that most are going to have we have to get something. Also, it needs to be public, right? I need >> so one of the concerns is not making this so not transparent so that the public doesn't
>> so that now there's eligibility and then there's like a preliminary that >> No, I think our process is the same. No, >> if you just do the preliminary one or two people a chance to review it, >> just you're eligible.
>> I'm going to try something. Um, so I think Rob is making a good point about September >> 14th, but I and I I hesitate to say this because I don't want to delay it further, but
I think we should take advantage of having a staff person and do a random and not random, but a selected survey of what other communities do. We've never done that. Maybe we did that in very
first year, but I think there's some learnings from what Plymouth is doing, what Somerville is doing, what um Canton is doing, and um it may not change a single thing about this discussion, but
we are clearly have some different opinions. Um this committee has been really um in sync on the funding. Um but we have some different ideas about how the application process should flow and
our level of involvement and some of them it just I think I think would benefit from um and we we could work with the Stuart Sagenor um is the executive director of the statewide community preservation coalition which
we're a member of and we could get some suggestions from him about uh and his staff about what other CPCs are well organized, are efficient or you know have generally considered wellrun
and um and I again it may change nothing about this discussion but it we may get some ideas that could um could help us think through >> um I think process. I think one thing that would be valuable too for for you
Cam now that we have you is I don't think it's just surveys uh of other communities which I think that's valuable but also I think you already have a pool of applicants that have been funded they've done successful project here I think a survey should go out to all the the past applicants
>> for feedback to say listen what was was the process >> you know what what did you find you know we could you can help us write a survey that says was it efficient you know what what's helped you know feedback so then the community can review that feedback
because >> you know I I think many many communities are different too and and I think >> you know some of us who've been on the committee for many years too I think that's why we're trying it's going to it it's evolved right and so we're trying to make it more efficient and try to get
there but >> yeah I agree I agree I think that's an excellent addition um to that is is we do have um some 40 projects that we've funded in place. So um
>> I'm just trying to wrap this up. It would be useful for September 12th to actually have a presentation of what the process will be. So instead of it being open-ended, everybody needs but to actually suggest and maybe Tom you and
Cam or me and could come up with this is a starting point for the next discussion on this including I would and uh suggest um the language on the website. So for instance, >> but I think what Tom's saying is we we may not whatever it is. I think we need
to put the meeting on the I'm worried that I just know how this committee is going to go and and the funding is going to take up all of our time. >> So, >> right in October it is right and and so the the issue is going to be is I do think it's valuable to go out do a
little bit of research do the surveys and everything get feedback but we should schedule whatever that is before the eligibility application and get this thing nailed in. >> Yeah. But the next eligibility application isn't until the end of May.
>> So it gives us some time >> some time to do this process. >> Yeah. And for example, I'm looking at Plymouth's website. So they have one application and the applications are due the last Friday in May the fall town meeting and the last Friday in September the spring town. So they take
applications out of way, right? You could do I mean that's one big limitation is that they all supposedly meet twice a month. There we go. >> That wouldn't be the less meetings. But so that's that's just an example of
what >> but then that that poses an issue though too because you have a million dollars a year. Now you've got two town meetings and so are you just saying hey listen we're going to do 500 that whatever it is.
The reason it has been that way in funds is because there were a lot of acquisition buys a lot of good >> they buy tons of >> and so you have a purchase and sale agreement you have to do that in a certain period of time nobody's sitting
there for years so the purchase of general funding and all that sort of stuff whatever is going to go buck okay that always happened in the spring but the all of them would be actual purchases as that that of this
current listing. So you're so that but that's a process because of what Plymouth did. Not all every city in town goes out and buys a bunch of stuff. Plymouth did >> and and that's and >> yeah I I think that's what we're going
to pry on. Um u you know when in our first in my first year I did a ton of research to to get to this application process. Yeah. >> So, so that's, you know, I think every town and community is different. I think it's
>> and so I think it's just for me it's more important to like figure out who the people here, what their experience is, then kind of figure it out. >> And I mean, you just don't know. I think it's also like I think what's going to be important is to find a town that's
like Milton with similar budget, similar Yeah. So that's what I would look at. >> Liz did this job >> and she's right. >> Yeah. So she's a resource that we should
talk to him. >> Um Rob, did did you have any edits for the application >> itself? >> Oh, for the funding. >> Yeah. So I did add I think it was like one number and it was similar to the it was similar question to asking about
past funding. >> I was only uh question number five pass CBC support and funding. If this project has previously received CBC funding please provide the amounts received and how they have been used today. >> Yeah. >> So do you want to vote on that for that
>> that I mean that to me >> that one's easy. It's an easy and it's administrative. It's changing the application, but it's not really, you know, >> I have something to add. >> Yeah. But no, no one's applied yet for this. So, we could adopt that and then post it on,
>> right? Um I know for a while now we've been talking about adding a um reporting process to to our applicants. >> Um I I think that now's the time to do that. I don't know where we should be
putting it, but I would like to formalize that for this round. >> So that's in all the grant groups. >> It's separate. >> But we don't, you know, >> we're not getting we have not had staff for over a year to ask for.
>> Okay. >> So I don't think that's a issue >> in my opinion. We have a legal contract with them that they have to provide information to us. We just have an ass >> or about half of >> Oh, >> like could we formalize
>> the other half are you know like in a lot of grants that I apply to um it's spelled right out you will be expected to provide a report on such and such date or you will not get money >> right at that part
>> right and and I think it's a really important part of the expectation process people put it on their calendar. They know that it's something they have to do. Project management is driven by deadlines. And so that's how you get her done. >> And
>> is it it's hard though on >> I wouldn't be in favor of that. Um we we have lots of citizen volunteers that are applicants and recipients of this project. putting sort of language that's
more suitable for I mean I've been a professional nonprofit fundraiser for my entire career. But um but I also ran a staff of 13 people. I had people that could keep track of those deadlines and do I I don't think um having that type
of language for I'm all for the reporting but I I don't think we need that type that um >> it would be in the grant agreement. >> Yeah. that they provide. But I think it's it's inevitably even with that language with volunteer
projects, we're not going to get reported about it. >> And we can unless we ask for we can periodically just call and say, you know, we can ask them or email ask for an update and if it doesn't come in, we can just call, right, >> and talk to. >> I'm just thinking about all the the time
that we spend just calling and chasing down a lot of people. You know, I feel like it would be a lot easier if the burden was on them where if if they can't make the deadline, they can call us and ask for an extension. Of course,
no big deal. But but at least it's and it doesn't have to be anything burdensome. I mean, it be, you know, thousand characters. Just let us know. >> I I hate to to like kind of lead us into another direction here. There was two applications that were before us that
were supposed to come before Balltown meeting or or they were trying to be about fall town meeting >> that is that on the list or so I guess the question is is >> or at least what Wendy posed was I do think it would be valuable to have that
question in. Now you could you could take these four questions from this eligibility and put them there but maybe we don't need that. I think it probably is enough what we've written. >> I think number five is fine. Yeah, number five is fine and just say, you know, because then they'll they'll they'll elaborate on it. >> Well, just to say in the grant
agreements that I have, we have a requirement during the term of the agreement, which is usually a similar thing, they have to provide annual to the committee, providing the status of the project, the work undertaken, and the anticipated completion date. But
what we haven't been doing is asking for that. But that's what is in every branch agreement with a non government. So we're not we haven't we haven't had conservation commission build out since we didn't do a branch agreement although
we the first round we sort of did but after that we stop the town boards but certainly a private party like the Forbes or the or the se even the cemetery trustees um and certainly there were you know winter valley or whatever. I mean, we've had, you know, we've had
gr we had grant VCR where the, you know, for the uh >> what what happens what happens though? Like I'm just curious for a town like the Com that hasn't done this bridge and it's been over three years >> and you have to take it out. Yeah.
>> We can't if we decide to watch it, >> right? >> And we we've gotten, you know, verbal updates from her. >> Yeah. which now did like this year and was like, "Okay, I think we're going to do >> you could if you wanted to. We could do a bridge agreement with the town, you know, I mean that's but
>> we had we decided to do that." >> Yeah. I don't think it would be an issue getting reports from town departments. I think >> just getting >> I think we have to right we have to be staff. we have to ask um and we have to
and we have to follow up and I don't my >> again my personal opinion um based on some of my nonprofit experience is putting deadlines or dates um it's not going to change the fact that we'll have to ask and we'll have to
>> chase a little bit I I just have no confidence >> that putting dates will result in anything >> well even So, I mean, >> to Wendy's point, I think it's I don't know. I mean, people people submit an application by the deadline.
>> Yeah. I mean, to Wendy's point, I think >> grant reports are um >> that's my jam >> are um >> I think a different animal in in this environment, but again, I mean, we could add it to the list of things we survey other communities about. And
>> so, can can we can to move this along? We have to because they've been basically using the one that I put on the website. >> Can can we move this along? And uh can we vote on the funding application with the number five the update to the number
five? Did everyone see everyone see that here? I can um me share my screen. But I would suggest I mean to Wendy's point I think >> oh yes >> yeah important to have people think about that >> and that it can be not necessarily part
of the application but it can be in the website you know sort of some sort of mention of the expectation as an application plus a reporting process annual annual report reporting process. >> So at least they're
>> I I'm be all in favor of that. Yeah. Yeah, >> reporting is good. Um, but I just don't want to um I don't want to give the impression that it's not always
going to fall on us. That's again that's my opinion. >> So should we try to tip it back one change on the application? >> So so number five this is the only this is the same application for funding. We
would then but what we're voting on I think is number five is the the update past CPC support and funding. This project has been previously uh receive CPC funding. Please provide the amount received and how they've been used to date. That's it. >> Okay.
>> Um so it's just one addition to this and then we would just attach it to there. So it's a motion >> um to adopt that number five. Um second >> second. >> All right. A motion in a second. Any further discussion?
All right. All in favor? Um Jenny, >> hi. >> Pete, >> hi. >> Rob, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Al, >> yes. Steve, >> yes. >> Wendy, >> yes. >> Bobby, >> yes. >> All right. Tom,
>> yes. All right. So, that's unanimous. >> So, okay. Um Jenny really attempted to um sort of I think try to clarify what the process looks like from here. Um a number of
ideas including things I've thrown out of doing a survey over the communities. Rob's idea of surveying past grant applicants. Um the date September 14th has been floated. Um that date has become hard for me to to do a
meeting now. Um, it's possible that I could still do it, but um, I'm traveling that day and hopefully we'll be back by 7 o'clock. But, um, >> I have a meeting of the Milton Library Foundation. Um, >> I mean, no one has >> no one has the 14. No one on the
committee. >> No one on the committee has the 14th from National Geographic. Um, that's pretty cool. >> So, no one on the committee has the 14th on their schedule as of this point because it's not a meeting we have
posted um um or distributed to you. It was just a meeting under discussion when back in January when we discussed it. I think if we if we have till May to do to do this I think >> well we have we have until about January February really is to finalize the
eligibility application >> application form >> the application form >> because that's when we start publicizing it >> so could we >> what if in September we we spend you spend time we spend time between now and September and do the survey
>> I think that's right on ser and September we come back with those results Yeah, >> because I'm afraid over the summer >> if we met on September 14th, we wouldn't have robust robust robust. >> We still may have to meet at September because
>> I think full time. Okay, >> happy to play now. >> So Pam and I will talk about um sort of some sort of vehicle to communicate back to applicants and to other like communities about their process. Um and
we'll get that going in August and September and have a lot for September 14th. But >> we're not meeting September 14th. >> We're not there. >> Right. I think we I thought we just agreed to >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Please ask me. >> I think then then what I would say is that's the meeting after we decide on this run this year's in October. We've got a series of meetings October and
November a series of probably four meetings on the calendar. Let's say 12th 19. >> When do we have these? November 2nd and November 16th. >> Yes. >> You want me to repeat those? >> Yes.
>> Okay. October 5th, >> October 19th, November 2nd, and November 16th. >> Sorry. Those are the four meetings that were set to discuss whether we'll need all
four as Yeah. is Oh, >> we're going to need at least four with 19 applications. >> Well, some may not apply. >> We might not get 19. >> I mean, we probably will. >> You're going to need you're going to need one. >> So, what I would propose is that we then
revisit. So, we do those meetings, deal with who we're going to fund, who we're not going to fund, and um and then in a scheduled December meeting to discuss the results of Pam's research and and
bring together um a full discussion on the >> Yankees swap. >> Perfect. The trading deadline for the Yankees is >> Oh, not that Yankee. >> We better >> for December.
>> But but it's so is the December is for the decision. So these four are just for presentations. So that's probably >> those four getision. The the idea is for three of those four meetings to be presentations. >> Three and then one will be
>> fourth for decision. the surveys and then revisit the application >> and then we get >> Did you buy those days? >> These three of these are applications. The fourth one is the
>> right and then we'll have a Yankee swap and we'll talk about it and Yankee swap. Yeah. So I won't be here the last those meetings in November >> on the >> I'll have a rehearsal on the 16th but
I'll be phoning in from one FM from LA but I'll be in the other all the other ones I'll be >> Do you want to suggest December 14th? >> Yeah let's Can we not >> Yeah let's try to get that um December 14th. >> That's a Monday. I can't remember. Oh
Kathleen you can't do Monday. >> You can't do Mondays now. >> Not that one. Not that one. >> About the >> 15th. >> What about the second? >> I could probably do that. >> I could do the 15th and 16th and 17th.
>> So 15. >> 15th. Everybody okay? >> Right now it's five. Right. >> Right now. Fine. Probably the week before I'll be in other 15. >> It's a Tuesday.
>> You said >> December 15th. >> All right. December 15th is um would be the last meeting of the calendar year and the meeting to discuss the uh the the final >> the process the application process.
>> All right. Um thank you. That's uh was um important and not easy but um it's good that we're working the way through that. We're not there yet but we're making >> Could you just repeat those dates again for October?
Yeah. January 5th and 19th. The 5th >> 5th and 19th of October and the second and the 16th of November and now the 15th of December. >> All right. So the last item on the
agenda is to the war. It's listed as Warren articles for fall town meeting. But um so um so we have two um applicants, the Atherton Street Fire Station
and the um >> um school playground that have indicated um a need to go before fall town meetings.
uh for different reasons um for uh a decision their application. Um Athetherton, let's take Athetherton for a second of it if would be because they
were would go would want to go to the ballot um on uh November, the the election in November. Uh they would need a meeting votes um in order to have their funding
sort of lined up. Um, in order to have the ballot question look like it needs to look more voters to voter basically. So, um, the latest information I have on that is I think
they are Nick actually sent me an email late today. Um, I think they're meeting they meeting tonight with him. Um they're e their meeting um no their their meeting is uh expected to
be July 28th. So um the last conversation I had with Nick is the um I think there's some uncertainty even within the fire station building committee of whether they're going to meet that time. Um so it puts us in this
sort of position right now. I don't think we can make many decisions about this because one, we don't have um information enough information about the 3 million. They they the eligibility application said um they wanted $3
million, but that was a guess estimate, I think, is probably fair to say, of a $16 million project without really breaking out, you know, obviously this is a historic preservation project for us. So, we would need to know what
um aspects of that project. Um and they're just not there yet. They don't have that broken budget detail. Um, and so I don't really think we can consider their application until unless we have
that type of budget detail. Um, so I I see a lot of nodding heads, but it, um, you know, obviously we want to, um, so I just think we're going to have to stay nimble as a committee and see what process they go through this summer and
see if information that we need to make a decision is available on a timeline that >> what's the latest that they have would have to go to an article for October. >> Um Nick has said a lot of
>> No, I think I think I think the timeline is is is slipping >> but but there's a couple different options too of like missing the November election, calling for a special election. Those are all possibilities
here. Um so so the timeline might slip but not slip um dramatically, you know. Um and um so how >> perhaps we don't know the answer, but is there anything precluded from going to the spring club meeting? Like
>> yes, >> they want to put it to >> obviously. Yes. >> So So the issue for us, right, and for them is supplanting. So, so we the reason we would have to vote before the
voters vote um on this is they would need to know >> whether >> the 3 million I understand that I'm saying >> we're being asked again for my newness
and ignorance. We're being asked to do this ahead of time from what has historically been where we bring this for springtime meeting. Is there anything other than them wanting to >> other than six months of getting it soon of loss with the fire building fire
department not having a new building? >> Nick Nick, that's a great question. I don't know the answer to that. But Nick Nick seemed to indicate because I I did mention that to him actually. And he says, "No, no, I don't think it would slip to the He was actually more emphatic than I'm portraying that that
it wouldn't slip to the springtime meeting. It would be a somewhere between somewhere in between >> but but like we know that Tucker speaking I'm not trying to we know that Tucker we don't do this now gets delayed a whole year >> that's that is very impactful but we think that >> there's a middle ground
I don't believe that's true either I'll discuss for so >> middle ground perhaps >> so I >> I think there is a middle ground for a potentially I as chair what I would be saying is I don't think we have enough
information to take any action on how they're right now. I think we have to just see the process unfold, see what the committee can produce in a timely manner and they'll produce it and we'll be the recipients of it as soon as possible. But
>> and whether and we may have to do a special meeting. We you know just to consider that um or we may have add it to our October meetings. We'll have to see but >> right now we don't have information >> and I don't think even town meeting hasn't been scheduled. Do we have a date
for town meeting in October? No >> saying the 29th >> 29th of October. >> That was at one point that was going to be it but I think there >> so anyways there's a lot of too much influx to really debate anything unless
people disagree on >> Apple. I don't disagree about it, but I am reminded that Nick said that there could be a special election proposal either. >> Yes. >> Anytime. >> So, it doesn't have to be. >> No, I just that he wanted they were they
were trying to figure if they do it, it's it's cheaper to do it at the same time as your life and also the tournament. >> Of course. Limit. I mean, that's an option that could >> Yes. Yeah. Exactly. >> Exactly. Yeah. No, I I think that that's
it could be I mean he ran scenarios or just was speculating the scenarios the election could be as soon as a couple weeks after the November election >> to into January, February, you know. So, so it it's very much in flux.
>> Um all right, let's So I think we're in agreement on no action to be taken at Athetherton. Um Tucker. Um so so yes, Tucker has made the case to us. Um they've asked for 300,000. Um they and
Nick, you know, obviously when he was here last time, Nick supported the um the PTO's application in the sense that um I mean the town's generally supportive of this application, but also the timing um of that. the fall time
meeting would have to um approve this. Um yeah, so that they um had funding secured for the entire project and therefore could go out to public bid
process early in early in calendar year 2020. >> I have a huge problem what you just said. uh you just said they would have to have the entire funding. $300,000 is not the entire funding of this project. So my big the big issue with this is they have
a private campaign going and there's a bunch of money that's still not raised for that. So my issue with this is >> yeah you could go do 300,000 now we can do 300,000 later. But if if that is in fact what Nick's saying is, hey, you need all this money, you know, secured
to go out to funding, you know, are they going to have that ready, you know, at what time? >> It's not. But but what I'm saying is is we're we're saying before, you know, if this if we're trying to be fair with an application process, we're saying, "Hey,
Tucker, you're special. we're going to fund you before everyone else and say, "Here, we're going to go do this. We're we've never done this before. We're going to go do this." And in the meantime, if they had all the rest of the funding secured, I would say, "Hey, that's a good easy decision." But
there's a big question mark about whether that funding is. And listen, I'm a big supporter of soccer playground. I donated a good big chunk of money to this playground. But I'm just saying the fairness of this application process. I'd like to see them continue on with their their application uh with their
with their funding um as they go through uh to get that. And I just think we're making a special case for one project which is a big big chunk of money. It's a big chunk of money. >> Well, we could do a special in the spring. We have a special in the end.
>> That doesn't get we could work. >> That doesn't get them. >> Oh, that's great because it's too late for the articles. I mean, I think they tie this to whatever special meeting for that firehouse happens and so have them go at the same time. >> They don't need to go to town.
>> They just need a town meeting both. >> Why here here's here's the other thing. Why can't you go out to an RFP without because right now we could say, "Hey, we're going to get $300,000." And in that definition, what you just said is there's no they don't have the funding secured. No, no, nowhere close, right?
because there's still a bunch of private funding that needs to happen in that. So why does it need to be now that wouldn't wouldn't happen in the spring? >> Because Nick can I think the PTO's assessment and they've made substantial progress obviously and the PTO's
assessment and Nick agrees with this assessment is that there is a um high likelihood of by October 29th or whenever Tom meeting is this fall that they will have the funds secured. Um, >> and I think for this committee to be the
the missing link with that come through with the >> I don't think we want to be the ones holding >> I don't I don't agree. >> The bottom line is they want to go to bid so they can start construction as soon as school gets out and not have to work July first.
>> And our money doesn't is not at risk, right? We can pull it back um if the project falls apart basically if they don't meet their deadline. Um, and right, correct me if I'm wrong, but but we could we could so we're not putting
money out there that then is >> giving them. So, are you saying that from October >> town meeting? >> If it happens, >> if if town meeting happens, if for whatever reason they're not successful at that time, we could pull that back.
>> Yes. I'm I'm looking at so many count for funding, but we're going to secure a third of our money right now. >> Well, that's >> Hold on. We haven't >> in the same conversation. We haven't even talked about a penny yet, >> right? First of all, we're talking about
the concept of funding Tucker. We haven't talked about 300 the requests. Um, so don't assume that I'm, you know, anybody's supporting the full 300,000. I mean I I think that's a separate issue um of how much
um they um given our competing demands that how much they might >> um garner from our recommendation. Okay. >> Um so um so that I want to separate those a little bit. Um so so what
>> Oh, okay. Yep. Robbie, go ahead. >> You can finish a thought. Oh, sorry. >> That's d that's a dangerous um >> Okay, my I just spoke >> Go ahead. I'm good. I'm good. I just wanted to delink those. >> No, no. And that that that to me it's
$300,000 is a huge chunk of money to commit right now when we have 19 other applic. >> Yeah, what I what I mean what I find um you know out of the ordinary is they haven't even submitted the application. We just changed the application but a minute ago. Um, and so they haven't
completed a full application. So I don't even know how we can consider them if we're following, you know, the the process that's been said. >> So their eligibility application was more robust than most eligibility, but we could I mean, we're making up a rule
obviously because we've never brought any article to town meeting for the fall. So we could give them um an advanced deadline, right? We could Yeah. I'm just hypothetically saying >> we could also put in for this eligibility application. So in your same language, you're changing the rules for
this one applicant. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Absolutely. So I'm just I'm just >> we're changing we're changing changing the rules. >> We're responding to a specific situation that is pressing >> respectfully. Your application change is
not pressing. >> Right. I need that. We they're it's a public school that can only do this type of substantial renovation um in the summer and they have a particular I mean to me it's a
particularly compelling timing uh request um regardless of what how where we stand on the overall request the timing request feels unique and compelling to me because of um the
nature of a public school being in session. You can't do that type of ripping up everything and you know you know during the school year basically. So um so that you know that part does
feel like but we could say to them full application due um August 15th or something like that. Um and and yeah um but I do think their application was >> pretty full.
>> Um pretty full. I it got letters of support from every important town, you know, committee. how aggressively the other three elementary school PTO's all supported the P the Tucker PTO project
which you know um you know so they've done you know they've done really good work I think and um um I do think the timing request is is a reasonable request for them to ask us >> how how different is the per is the
funding application from what They supply >> I think they >> not very >> not very like no there's six different specific things you guys ask us >> we have the detailed budget we have yeah we have
>> lots lots of >> you know I haven't >> gone through it side by side but I I think that >> I think they they have pretty much compliant with what we would have asked for by September >> with that understanding that they were asking us to speed up the timing thing
um they they knew they knew what they were asking for. >> If I can just throw something in there that might align what you're thinking about Raj is, and that's why I kind of put this estimated budget together. No, we're not talking about budget, but if
we do what we typically do, like lines up, you know, how much we've got, how much is the 10% reserve, all that kind of stuff. And so what each if we divided the um funding applications roughly to try to do a third a third a third this
is how much we we've got and then open space eva creation we'd have 385,000 if we funded them from 300,000 that would mean there's very little for anything else at the field and I think that's kind of what Ronald's model about
he doesn't want to see you know all that One thing that hasn't been discussed in any way so as not to have such a big impact. We could consider bonding the 300,000. That way they would have the promise of the money but it wouldn't, you know,
wouldn't take our whole open space budget and they haven't asked for it and we haven't discussed it. That might be one way that we can help them but still not to have such a big impact on our budget.
>> And they did say that it's just the promise of the money. It's not the actual money. >> No, you're not borrowing. All you've got is >> so money. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> I think that makes a lot of sense. >> Does it help the timing? Does it make a difference from timing perspective?
>> No. But but then it still needs the company. >> Just trying to >> Nick won't let him go to bed until they've got this money in place. >> Yeah. And they wouldn't be they wouldn't be doing the bonding until they got the response >> and even then
start that process. So the bonding the actual bonding part is is not >> could be two years. But the I mean I'm just you know listen I think it's a good conversation about bonding $300,000 I don't think is a good use of bonding
money. I I think you want to bond something that's significant money. >> I'm also a little worried about the time I I don't I'm no timing of the bond. So say we did bring a bonding article one two/3 vote at at time meeting as we know
>> but also um say um um Joanna sorry Joanna um um can't float that bond until
um typically she's told me they do fall bonds you know say September of 2027 right construction in completion this project is going to be by August 2027. So we're we're floating a bond.
>> That's okay. Is after the project's >> done and paid for. >> Well, I mean >> I I don't get >> No, it doesn't I mean it doesn't it doesn't work if that's the idea. I mean if they have enough money that they don't need our 300,000 then why would we
buy >> Right. Exactly. >> So So yeah. >> Yeah. So I a little >> it's just the timing of this, right? Like I think it's also let's review those 19 applications, right? We're basically just putting one application. I'm not saying I I absolutely think it's
a great application. We're basically saying this one application rises to the top over everyone else and no one else gets considered, which I don't think is very fair in this process because in the eligibility process, we're saying, "Hey, let's review these other applications." Those those applicants haven't even been
before us to go discuss it. to Robbiey's point, you know, and this is the way the process always happened and then we're saying, "Hey, we're going to commit automatically $300,000 to this project." So, I think it's just a little bit about process. And to your point, we could you could we could just say, "Hey, listen.
You're going to fund you $300,000 and then we look at the other applicants and see if we bond them or we just say no or whatever." But we have a huge issue in front of us because we're making we're making major decisions here really early on that we've never had done before, right? And so in one breath we're saying
don't change our process but then we're changing our process. So I have I have I have issues with it. >> But there's a compelling reason for this. I think >> I think there's a real comp to do >> and as I said I don't think politically we want to move the committee
>> and even that you know when I broke out trying to evenly put the different ones but in reality we've got $800,000 of undesated. So we can do that. We can shift. We don't have to we don't have to take it just out of what you know.
>> So >> open space. So we could do that. >> So sorry where did where is that even coming from? >> We have und designated funds >> from previous years. >> No >> at the top of this we've got our income and our total income is 1186.
>> Or like you know listen I I agree with you too. >> Let me explain. And we have to put 10% of that to each of the three categories. >> That's the 118 655. >> Okay. >> And the rest of it is undesated other
than what we put aside for administrative expenses. The other is undesated and that can go to any of those categories. >> By law, we have to do 10% >> 10% >> and it's up to us to >> the rest is up. So that does give us
flexibility you know and >> and historically towns have spent most of money on >> which is yeah >> which is we we've had some history of trying to roughly split it a third to
third and third. It hasn't always worked out that way and and historic preservation has gotten less than 33% of the money. um open space has gotten more housing right around that figure. So it's you know it's but it's we've tried
to be relatively approach each leg of the stool with with a um you know trying to um equalize um the the funding >> called the three-legged stool >> no
that way for years. Yeah, I've been on the statewide committee and we use a phrase um >> um so I would look for a motion um to um bring
an article supporting the Tucker PTO application before an octo before a fall town meeting. Um and um and the amount I would leave to the wisdom of this committee of whether
um we fund the full request at 300,000 um um you know whether we want to their fundraising has been um good. to whether we want to create some extra space and do 250 or something, you know, I I you
know, if that would be more comfortable for the committee, I don't know. >> Can I can I something? >> Yep. >> I would be interested to know what we funded other elementary schools and a lot less. >> A lot their applications were a lot less. >> Their applications were a lot less
>> like how much? I'm just curious. >> 150,000 >> 150,000 >> you know. I I mean I guess I can get it right here. But to Cathine's point, if we said >> if if someone here made a motion tonight for all >> 300,000, I I would as well.
>> There's nothing that says that we can't question mark. There's nothing that says we can't adjust that before Tom meeting >> if they let's say let's say their their fundraising goes crazy right now and they they are
able to secure more money from the grants. So I know they put out for a lot The only I I think you're right. The only um uh question mark, but the only um funkiness to that is this has to go
into a Warren article >> and and then you could you know it might be a green sheet change of that. >> I guess I hear what you're saying. You can't go higher, >> but you can go lower. >> But you could go lower by a motion meeting
>> because they were even though we're not we wouldn't have a quorum at time meeting of this committee. >> Well, you do the same thing that the planning board does every time, which is they schedule a meeting right time before town meeting and the select board does the same thing and vote at that
meeting to make a motion to reduce the amount. I >> I guess what I'm getting at is maybe you guys have already done where I'm going. They they went for I think $150,000 they were trying to get from state and federal to have $250,000 which is fantastic. >> If they applied for all these other
grants and they are successful with them that would be a great situation for us to be in. >> Maybe they would need it. So did they they got a grant for what 250 >> after asking for? >> They're asking for no it doesn't they reported >> let's give an example. They they
reported to us that the state grant came in a little higher than they >> and I know that their list of >> led to believe >> applications was extensive. They're doing great work. Yep. >> If if they're in a great situation come October, we could revisit this before a meeting and say >> yes or or we could say as a committee
tonight and I would be comfortable with this to say put up we'll commit $250,000 like we we'll go out put $250,000 in and say we we commit that to you.
>> Can I make an amendment to your >> I I didn't make a motion. I just said you were going to I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to >> Okay. Make a motion for $300,000 for the meeting to walk down. Sorry. >> All right. There's a motion. There's a second discussion.
>> That was my motion. >> That's a short discussion. Other discussion. Okay. Um let's vote on it. Um there's no more discussion. So um so there's a motion on the floor to recommend um $300,000 for the Tucker School
playground. Um it's been seconded. Um um and this would be part of constructing a warrant article for the fall town meeting. Um Jenny, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Captain, >> yes.
>> Yes. Yes. >> And Robbie, >> yes. and Tom. Yes. All right. Um, so that's the recommendation. We will keep an eye on that and stay in communication with the PTO and the town administrator and
if we need to meet before that town meeting um to adjust the rest to adjust that um we could um >> Yeah. So we'll yeah we'll we'll follow that closely. >> Would we ask for an update? >> Yep. And yeah,
>> my notes say the October town meeting is October 19th, >> 19, >> which is one of our meetings, but we're also meeting on the 5th. So if we can have an update prior to the fifth then yes
>> might give us >> yeah they've been in uh I have to say just as chair they have been in um they've been fantastic about communicating with with me and updating you know so we will I will express that
to them um and um ask for periodic updates even so that we can get a sense of whether or not we've Then you could even when you communicate with them, you could say the committee's money is really tight. It was a hard decision and if if you
your fundraising is no success or you know we'd like the opportunity to reduce Y. >> All right. Um a motion to adjourn. So >> move second.
>> We need to do a roll call. Um Janet. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Steve, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Bobby, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. Thank you everybody. It's a long meeting. I appreciate it. And
>> so October 5th. >> Our next meeting right now, as of stands now, is October 5th. Yeah. Good point. And stay stay tuned.