You're on. >> Yeah, I know. We're going to There we go. Everybody ready for six inches more of snow tomorrow? >> No. All right, it is 7 o'clock. We have a quorum. So, I'm going to call this
meeting of the Shootsbury CPC to order. The meeting is being recorded and all members are participating remotely. Uh before we get into the agenda, um Elaine is not here, so I'm wondering if there's a member of the uh committee who would Thanks, Cliff. >> Thank you, Cliff. I've I've already
already been strong armed, so I agreed. So um All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> So uh first order of business is to review and vote on the minutes of January 15, 2026.
>> Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve the minutes of February 26. >> January, >> what was it? >> January 15th, 2026.
>> Sorry. January 15, 2026. >> I was guessing. >> I'll second that. >> Any discussion? I I have two minor things. Uh the date is wrong on them. It says January 13th, so we're going to want to correct that to January 15th.
>> And in three places, uh Beth Wilson's last name is spelled wrong. >> That's a continual thing. It's okay. I'm all right with it. Uh seeing no further discussion, >> we'll take a vote. Hansen
>> I >> Frell >> I >> Wilson >> I >> Reed >> Hi. >> Gettys >> I >> Pangalo I. All right. Second item on the agenda. discuss and vote on allowing submission
of a CPA grant application from the conservation commission for the Southport Conservation Area Expansion Project after the grant application deadline. Um, this has happened to us in the past where an application comes in a little bit later than the posted deadline.
There's no requirement under state law that we reject it for that reason. Um, CPCs have a great deal of latitude in how we run our grant process. So, we just need to agree to accept it after the posted deadline.
>> Is there a motion? >> Sure. We I I move that we accept that. >> Second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, we'll put it to a vote. Hansen. >> Hi. >> Frell.
>> Hi. Wilson, >> I abstain. I think >> um you don't have to. Um as a representative of the commission on the on the committee, you can vote on things from the commission, but it's up to you. >> All right. I
>> uh Reed >> I >> Gettys >> I >> Angelo I. All right. Now to the meat of the matter. The next item uh questions from the committee for our grant applicants this year. Uh we received four grant
applications and I guess we can take them in the order in which we receive them which is the order in which they're posted on the website. Um starting with the regional affordable housing coordinator application from the Franklin Regional Council of
Governments. Um, Mariah Curts is sick, so she was unable to attend this evening. Um, but she was curious to know if there were questions from any members in the committee that should be forwarded to her. I did have a a question last time.
um about the um person or entity that would be the liaison with the um with Mariah and back and forth and and uh so somebody within the town
here that would be uh the direct conduit and communication line with her. Just wondering whether uh that was resolved um clarified. >> Um
yeah, we did give her that question. I don't see it addressed specifically in the application. >> Mhm. >> Um unless I'm missing something here. I know that she had verbally indicated it would be uh the person would be
reporting to the town administrator. Um but let me see here. >> Sorry, I'm looking at the application. Yeah, I didn't see it addressed um in the application.
No, I didn't either. >> I think that's a good question, Cliff. um just because it's well I'm nominally the housing representative on the community preservation committee um and
it's simply it it's not because I've been affiliated with the uh Franklin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority but because of my um professional background of doing affordable housing work for many decades. Um, so
I I I I agree. I think there should be somebody other than the town administrator and um and maybe it's getting information back to the CPC. I don't I'm not sure I'm not
sure how to address it, but I think it's a it would be good to have somebody other than the town administrator um kind of monitoring what's going on and and being able to give some feedback.
>> Um okay, I can communicate that to her um and let her know that. to see what you know in other communities there might be a housing committee and we don't have one um so you know some cases there's a housing partnership or an affordable housing
committee but in the absence of that um it would be good to have you know have some reporting back to I don't know maybe it's back to this committee I'm not sure But
>> okay, >> um I I have a question. This is a procedural question for the for the other members of the committee. If we have a question like this about something that we think is is um insufficient in an application, are we requiring the applicant to resubmit the
application to us with that information >> or are we satisfied with >> I would say no, but but we could just ask for some additional information. >> Why wouldn't you question was raised but not make them submit a new application?
just clarifying clarifying information. >> I think it would be good to have it in writing and just a um recorded in some manner. So I it doesn't require a whole new application I don't think but just a addendum
supporting clarifying document to um be added to this. But, um, it would be good to know, I think, before we actually >> take a vote on it. >> I I agree that I think I think having a
whole new application is probably overkill, but I think having it in writing is important because we want to be able to direct people before town meeting to something that will inform them about what it is we're asking them to vote on. >> Yeah. Um, so if we can put this up with, you know, an addendum or a letter or
something clarifying that, um, that I think might be helpful for voters. >> Yeah. >> Uh, were there any other questions about the Furcog application? >> No.
>> Okay. Uh seeing none, we'll move to the next which is the spear building port rehabilitation submitted by the spear library reuse committee. Are there questions for members of the committee? >> Henry and I are both on that committee.
So just >> FYI. >> Yeah. Um I was wondering if the um a vote was taken on the I think it was the 17th or 14th um and if if so the result
of that um from the historical commission. Oh um we did not meet on the 17th. Um it it had to be postponed for a week and
so we'll be meeting next week. But um I we discussed this before um uh with Stephen and Rita I believe was there maybe not. uh
the the historic commission I I think it's pretty safe to say that that they will support this. >> Um so maybe Henry if um there could be an official vote that would just at at your
next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, so I had another um question specifically about the the porch. um with um the town considering the the
next life of this building. Um I from what I understand nothing has been determined at this point moving forward and this is more of a stabilization kind of like securing it so it doesn't fall down. um a structural necessity and and
high priority. But um is um there has there been any discussion about this work and possible uses in the future and is it something which the work to stabilize it might um be done in a
different manner if it is known that um the building is going to be used for a particular purpose or or not. So just um is this something simply to stabilize it and get it secure? Um is has it been
talked about in the larger context of possible future uses? >> You want me to answer that, Henry? >> Yeah, I can certainly address that. Um >> yeah, I I the the uh at this point, of course, we're still working as a
committee on on the future of the building, >> but uh this kind of repair would be essential to any use of the building. I mean, it's just something that needs to be done. And this is a vehicle a a well
a form of funding that would certainly advance um whatever we get beyond it which is going to be a challenge I believe um depending on the option that that that we go with the costs could be up up
there let's just say the costs are you know to to rehabilitate the building um I won't say any more about that except um you This is a a good way to to fund something that will definitely
be a precursor to any any viable use of the building. >> Mhm. >> Can I ask two questions? Um the the the request is for a price range. It's 55 to 85,000
which um I don't know that I would know how to write a warrant article for a price range. >> Um so I'm I'm curious about um how much the grant is actually going to be for when we might know that
>> and then also the second sort of related to that is the matching contribution portion is currently says unknown. um if there's any indication about any other funding source that's going to be going into the port project. >> Um I think without a without a a
detailed um specifications uh it would and and then you know a bid it's it's hard to come up with a um with a definitive amount. And so, um, I
assume that's why Stephen, you know, put that range in there. Um, I'm trying to recall if in the past we did an up to, uh, you know, so, so we could say, you know, up to the maximum amount that was
listed there and leave it at that because we don't have we don't have a a a fixed bid. um >> if that would be acceptable. >> So in that case the the request would be
for the maximum amount of 85. >> Yeah. And and and detailing it as an up to figure, >> right? >> Yes. What was the second part of your question >> about other matching funding or any
other sources of funding because it's currently blank in the application? >> Yeah. Uh Henry, was there anything that the historical commission was going to be able to >> uh we have not we have not discussed this in the historical commission, but
uh yeah, I mean we certainly have some funds there that might contribute. Not a huge amount though relative to the total cost. >> So m maybe that's a question that's put back to the committee, you know, a
followup as as a clarifying >> um question such as we're doing with the other applications. You know, please submit something back in writing to the CPC. >> Yeah.
You're saying that the historical commission should do that? >> No, I'm I'm saying that that if if we the CPC says back to the the building committee, >> um we would like a >> um
you know, is there more a clear answer to the question about the match? >> Yeah, exactly. And I guess you know I would say Henry if if the historical commission does have access to some funds maybe you discuss at your next
meeting too what if any could be dedicated for um you know for the the spear building. We'll do. >> Do you know how Stephen came up with these fig these this price range? Was
this based off of something specific that we could like or is this a an estimate? >> I don't have the answer to that, but he does have a background in construction >> building. So I assume that he came up
with those numbers based on his his expertise >> and also there was an inspection of of the uh at the scene. I don't know if he he actually did he actually consult
beyond that. I I I don't recall. >> Yeah. I I don't I don't know. You know, part of it is um once you pull that porch off, you know, there are unknowns and until you sort of get into it, as with any any
kind of um construction on a on a historic building, on an old building, um you're not quite sure what you're going to what you're going to encounter. Are there any other questions from
members of the committee? >> Um, who's going to contact the buildings committee at this point? >> Um, I can do that. >> Okay. >> I can reach out in terms of what what the CPC is looking for in terms of additional information. All right. The next application is the
Elliot Park Structures Project from the Elliot Park Committee. >> Hey, Cat. >> Hi. >> Are there questions from members of the committee? >> Um, Kat, I just had a a question about
the breakdown um in the budget. There was I don't know was $7,000. I don't have it. I didn't print it out. Um, I think there was labor and then materials. Can you just kind of detail what the how
it's broken out? >> Oh, well, that's a really good question, Rita. Um, I don't have it in front of me either right now, so let me let me find it. >> Okay. Yeah. So, there screen. >> Yep. So, supplies were 7,200 and the
contractual be 1,800. Well, the let me answer the contract. Let me come back to you. Oh, great. That's here. Um, the contractual part. I wasn't exactly sure what these terms meant, but the contractual part is
basically the part for the gazebo, right? So, that we have somebody who is going to reseal the gazebo and also do some light sanding to remove the graffiti and stuff. So, that's what that is. And then um the supplies, all the
supplies and equipment and stuff are for the shed. And you probably noticed that this is a lot more than I imagined it would be when I talked to you back in in the winter in the early winter. Um because the buildings committee got into
it and you know how they are. they um they are being really thorough and just as you were saying a minute ago, Rita, you open something up and you don't know what is going to be behind it. >> Um and so they kind of they kind of came
to a number that um that addressed all the all the possibilities that they could see because as they said, we can't be opening up buildings when we don't have the means to close them up again. So, so they're talking about potentially
putting on a whole new roof. Um, they're talking about possibly doing more residing than I thought they were talking about. They uh they their ideas about this were pretty comprehensive. Um, so so they,
you know, I didn't I didn't have a chance to go to their meeting because it was scheduled at the same time as a a board of health meeting. So, I I listened to it to the the Zoom and I took some notes. Um, but I wasn't very seems to me that I wasn't very um
detailed about them here. However, I can if you want further information on this, I can go back and watch the Zoom meeting again and um give you more detail about it if >> No, that's okay. It was really what was
what was for the gazebo and what was for the um what was for the shed. So that that was and it it looks like so there uh >> so so see I've got I've you can see on here that I've just divided it by A and
B and um B is the B is the gazebo and A is the shed. >> Okay. And and so the labor is going to be donated or >> Yes. the buildings, the wonderful buildings committee, lovely people. I just asked them for their advice and
they said, "Well, you need to do this, this, and this, and this, and we'll do it." >> Yeah. >> I didn't even ask. >> Is there any way >> is there any way to get from them a um even like a ballpark figure of what the value of that is because it would be useful information to know in terms of
the matching amount. >> I'm sure they could they could provide that. >> Yeah, >> I will ask for that. I'll make a note. >> There are other questions from members of the committee. >> Is that it?
>> Yeah, I'm good. I guess my my one we talked a little bit about the need for the wetland permitting but I think in terms of an application I'm thinking of the funding that you would but for that type of application I don't I guess I don't
foresee a lot of cost to it so I'm assuming the Elliot Park committee would just be pulling together the wetland application >> I guess so I guess so tell me I I don't know too much about it. Um, but I'm sure
you guys can can guide me. Um, my recollection is that the gazebo is close enough to the wetlands and the lake shore to to need this, but I'm not sure about the shed. I thought the shed was sort of outside the limit.
>> If it's over 100 ft, um, then it's fine. Yeah, I' I've never measured. I I know it's down in that area, but I don't know how close it is. So >> that would be even make the application even easier for you. >> Right. Right. >> The only thing that usually costs money
is when people actually have to do delineations. But in this case, you've got the lake shore, which is very obvious. And >> I think I think you don't need to put aside any funds necessarily for the wetland. >> That would be great.
>> Yeah. Thank you. So all you need more from me is to get an estimate of the value of the donated labor. >> That it would be useful to have. Yeah. >> Okay. We'll do. >> All right. If there are no further
questions, we can proceed to >> I will go. Thank you. >> Thanks, Cat. >> Good night. >> Good night. Good night. >> Okay. Southbrook Conservation Area Expansion. Um, I'll just say at the
outset as an abuter to this project, I'm going to recuse myself from discussion. So, if the if the committee has questions, go for it. >> Are we gonna Well, I guess a question would be, are we going to have enough people to vote on it? Because Rita, I think you were gonna
>> Well, I I'm not sure I need to. I mean, we're not we're not voting tonight, right? So, I want to get further clarification. I think we're just asking questions. Yeah. >> Um >> so the the issue is that um that I did,
you know, review and comment on the application that was um being put together and um so I don't know if that, you know, if that poses a a conflict. It's kind of a weird sort of gray area
in my mind, but I can I can follow up and make sure. And I think, as I said, if we're not voting this evening, I think we're perfectly fine to go ahead and ask ask questions. >> Yeah. And I just wanted to mean moving forward, would we have? So, we need four
people. That's a majority for this. >> Yeah. Four. >> So, if Elaine if Elaine comes, then there are four. If I abstain, Matteo, >> you had to abain. And if I had to abstain. Yeah. But you don't so you don't just to just to be clear you don't
need to abstain if you are involved with writing the application or if you represent the board or committee that has put the application forward. That's part of your your role on the on the committee. >> This is something that I've checked with with Stuart. Um >> Oh, okay. All right. Great. So
>> I I have to abstain because I have a a property interest >> right. >> You have a financial Yeah. Just because you wrote the application or had a input into it doesn't that doesn't change whether or not you have a a right to vote on it.
>> Okay, good. Okay, great. >> So now I'll shut up. >> Where does that leave us? >> So I don't have any questions. >> I don't have any questions. Somebody got to say something >> actually. Okay, so I did put the application together. I'm just looking
at the budget at the moment and and I see that under um other funds the total is off if we add in the baseline report um which is inind versus the others are cash and I think that should be added in. So
actually my total for other is wrong. The baseline report didn't get added into the total for other funds. >> So that should be >> 15200. Is that is that what it would be if it's a 137
>> 13 700 plus an additional 1500? >> Yeah. Yeah. So those are all things that um Castrol has provided which is wonderful. Yeah. >> So we can just correct that. Um,
>> yeah. I don't know. Matt's not not Matt's not speaking, but >> if it's a question of like just correcting the math, then yes, resubmit the application and I'll make sure it gets put up on the website. Are there are there other questions or discussion points from the committee about this
project? >> No. No, >> the only thing I did mention to um to Beth was um sort of after it it got submitted that um
so this would be a combination where we're um using community housing funds and our open space and and recreation for the um for the acquisition. And um our minimum zoning in Shootsbury is 2
acres. So I think in the um narrative it mentioned one acre of the nine acres being set aside for community housing and um that needs to be at least two acres.
So that's the only sort of >> I can make and maybe I can make that edit when I fix the math and just resubmit so that we have like Matteo saying something for the public to look at before town meeting that that is correct. >> Right.
>> Good idea. >> And we're also still waiting for a reason that that the application was late was we were waiting for some letters of support and we are also going to get one from the recreation committee. um they meet next Tuesday and
uh wanted to just vote on submitting a letter, but there there's they'll be that and we have a letter of support from the open space um committee too. There any other questions or comments from the committee?
Lee, Bridget, Scott, thanks for coming. >> Yes, >> good to have support. >> Yes. >> Um, all right. Well, I guess that then concludes this item on the agenda. Um,
thank you all. >> Great. >> Yes. Thank all y'all for coming. >> Thanks for coming. Uh the last thing that I wanted to add on the agenda was discussion about financial stability and transparency uh going forward. The reason that I
wanted to ask this is um or I wanted to bring this up I don't think we need to make any decisions about this tonight but I wanted to like start the discussion about it. Um, you know, last year, last year we between the between the searchcharge revenue, the state match, and the funds that were left over
from previous projects, we ended up with a net amount of money, a little over $11,000. Um, if we were to fund all of the grants this year, we would end up with a a negative net. Now, you know, we we
we're going to be spending more than we bring in this year in CPA money, uh by quite a bit, by about 80,000. Um, and you know, this has happened before um at least three other times in the past. We've had years where we spent
more than we brought in. And it's not a a huge issue. I only wanted to flag it because it seems like the the total amount of grants that we are issuing are getting bigger than in the past. Um, and so going forward that might present
challenges for the for the balances that we have. Um, and I've been thinking about this. At first I thought maybe we should be talking about I don't know a moratorum for a year on grants. But then it occurred to me that that's a bad idea because who knows what projects might
need to be funded. And also legally our committee only exists for a year and I think there would be issues with us making a decision that effectively hamstrings a future CPC from making decisions. So hopefully next year CPC is
all of us again. So I don't think the mortorium is the way to go. But I think that maybe one thing we should be considering is being more transparent with the balances in the CPA accounts. maybe putting those numbers into the community preservation report or community preservation plan, excuse me,
putting them on the um the grant application or determination of eligibility so people know how much we have because I I also think maybe sometimes people think we have more than than we do. So having some transparency about those
um and maybe being a little more explicit about the match requirement um because right now in the community preservation plan it's listed as a criteria but it's pretty vague. It just says leverages other money you know and
I wonder and again we don't need to make a decision about this tonight. This is something I think we can talk about um particularly when we you know go about revising the application next year. Um but maybe setting a specific clear
requirement for matching amounts like 10% or something. Um you know whatever the committee thinks is is reasonable to try to maybe minimize a little bit the amount of CPA money so we can make it last longer but then also get a little more buy in. And I think that maybe
applicants might um be more um cautious about the amount of money that they're asking for if they know they also have to find those alternative sources um from other grants or or or whatever. So, those are just
some things I wanted to to bring up just because it seemed like we had a lot of big big ticket items this year. Do you know if um other towns typically have a percentage match? I actually
don't know what Ammerst has. Um and that I guess that the state CP CPA people uh either recommend that or support it or um it's probably pretty common I would think for other towns,
but I really I don't know. It's not so it's not specified as a requirement in in the actual statute. Um you know this is one of those things where we have some latitude but that is a good question about what do other towns do in you know in this regard and I wonder if the community preservation
coalition has like a best practices advice >> for doing this because the flip side of it is like we don't want to ask for people to match so much that they end up saying we're not going to apply for this funding at all. I mean this money is here to be used. Um, so I want to be
>> when you don't like I mean like let's take let's just take the M and Spear building. So it's a it's a town building. It's you know town money going into it. So asking for a match then you go well where would that match come from
you know other town money? Um, >> no, but I mean, right, like as an historic property, are there are there grant sources available or like the friends of the historical commission or you know, even things that are outside of other taxpay I mean, I'm not thinking
about like >> shifting th those costs into other other um, you know, other taxpayer sources, but into sources outside of the town to try to bring that money. >> I think it's I think it's definitely worth asking. And if if somebody says we
don't have the match, then why not? You know, there's there were there were no sources. We sought out, you know, have you sought out um matching funds from any any place? And um so I I wouldn't
want to I wouldn't want to um refuse to entertain an application because they couldn't come up with the matching funds, but I think you know your point is very well taken um Matteo about, you know, have you made an effort? have you looked around to see what um you know
where there might be other and and I think we can also talk about inind contributions too. So, you know, for example, the matching with the um down at the at Lake Wyola at the you know, the the shed and the the gazebo, you
know, that's a big inind contribution that that they're getting. Um >> yeah, I think >> yeah, I think that's often done uh for town type projects. Um that's what I came to mind was what um Cat said is
that if the building committee is is is going to put in all these hours, there's a value to that and you just >> Oh, definitely >> calculate what it is and and put that as the inind match on your application. Definitely. >> Yeah. >> And that could very well be with the MN spear building too that the building
committee will be playing um that they'll be putting time into that. So >> they'll be doing some building. They could do demolition. >> Yeah. Well, it's good to capture those things, I think, just because it illustrates how the funds can be
leveraged that much more effectively. So, I mean, it's it what the CP um CPC might be uh promoting for a figure for the project. um to have that other uh
funding sources coming in. I I think it it uh makes the bottom line look um much much better, much much more effective. Yeah. >> And and it's a recognition too of like people have put you know time into this who are not getting they're not getting
paid but they're giving their professional lending their professional skills to >> project. though. >> Yeah. I mean to to close the point, one of the things that I do like to talk about is is the amount of >> money that CPA projects leverage beyond
CPA money. >> The the high school track kind of messed up that calculation a little bit because that was a multi-million dollar project. So, it made it sound like we suddenly leveraged millions of dollars. Um but I think I think it is important because it
does indicate the you know that that there is a an added value from you know from the for the town in having the CPA >> and then I think you know also to you know to this to the you know the reason that I want I wanted to get that number you know from cat was specifically about
this because I think it's easy to think about inind contributions and labor as like as something free that just happens but it's a cash value because otherwise paying for it would be coming out of the CPA money. >> Yeah, that's right. >> So, I think capturing that is important.
>> Well, it also illustrates ways that you can work creatively to um get funding for projects that isn't necessarily just through the grant, but labor and donated materials and all sorts of different
ways um that that uh you can get contributions and support for projects. Yeah, >> Matteo, I think your idea of um, you know, of laying out how much money we have is is
is a good one. I'll tell you, you know, there are different approaches with CPA money and depending upon the community you go to. Again, I worked with a lot of communities that were using CPA money for for housing. And you had
municipalities that every year spent their entire CPA allocation. So, and that's just and then they started a new the next year. Um, those tended to be uh the larger municipalities with the higher like the
3% um sir charge. So there were getting hundreds of thousands of dollars and then they allocated the full amount every year and then started again a new the the next year because they knew that they were going to have a lot of money.
You know in our case we have um we have quite a bit of CPA money. We haven't you know we've been spending it but not at the rate that um that we might have because we just haven't had those bigger projects. So, I don't I'm not concerned
when we have a year when we spent more than we've taken in because I think that's a good thing. >> Well, yeah. No, I I agree with that. I think it's a good thing to have more projects. Like last year, I was so excited to have so many projects. If if we didn't do the um you know, recovering the money from the closed grants,
closing the old town hall grant, it would have been you know, kind of down to the wire in terms of spending more than we brought in. >> But the year before that, we didn't have any projects, right? So it was it was all searchcharge revenue and state match and and nothing going out. So, you know,
as long as there's a balance of that, I think, you know, then we'll be in a position where something, you know, when something really large does come along, we have that that pot of money in the undesated revenue to say, "Yeah, we can we can tap into it." >> And we also have the option of bonding,
too. So that, you know, for for a very large CPA project where we don't have all of the cash, we can bond and we can then the bond payments are paid back out of the CPA. So, you know, if it's $2
million deal, the bond gets floated and the the bond payments are $100,000 a year for 20 years, you know, whatever. I'm just making making numbers up, but that that is a that is a method to
address um a very large CPA um allocation and that's that's been done you know many times and it you know things like um where there's a big land
acquisition and I'm you know expensive um using bonding so it's something we haven't done but it is available able to us. Well, also just something that flashed into my mind too, ju just going back to
the question of um you know should we try to curtail uh limit the number of grant applications but we've also seen that um in the last couple of years there have been proposals put forth but
withdrawn as well. And so it's something you might start out with six and then it's actually only three that end up getting submitted for formal review consideration. And so um it's um it's
something where uh generating interest is a good thing, but the realization that not all of them ultimately are going to end up being submitted for for um a vote by the committee.
Has there ever been um I know there hasn't been since I've been on the committee, but has there in the past ever been an instance where somebody applied and the committee voted to give a grant but for a lower amount than the applicant asked for?
>> Um, do you remember? I don't >> I don't either. >> I know. >> You know, I'm not sure. Maybe that they got the grant and then they didn't spend all of it and then we
>> that's definitely happened. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But that's the other way around. >> I don't think the other case. >> Yeah. I don't remember any. >> All right. Well, I just wanted to start having this conversation. >> Yeah. I think incorporating it the
numbers into the um into the plan is a good idea. >> Great. >> All right. Well, if there's no further discussion on that, last agenda item is unanticipated business.
Is there any unanticipated business? My gosh, this was our longest committee meeting of the year. When is our next meeting? >> Um, our next meeting is March 26th to discuss and vote on applications. >> Okay.
Uh, I have um tickets to the fine arts center that night. >> Boo. Uh, can we either could we meet earlier or I'd like to be there. Um, or meet on the
25th instead of the Am I looking at this right? >> I I would not be able to do the 25th. >> Okay. >> I could do earlier on the 26th. I don't know if other >> I could do earlier also. Beth, can you can you manage earlier?
>> Yeah, I can manage >> earlier. Do earlier? >> Yeah. So, we could meet at like five o'clock, 4:30 or 5 o'clock. Would that >> fine with me? >> Yeah. >> Yep. No problem. 26 at 5 then. >> Let me see what time I get there.
>> Just just one question. I'm looking at the proposed calendar for um 2026. Um, it says March 19th as a date. Um, did did it get switched to the 26th
or uh um I think that it Yes, I think it did. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think that was my fault because I have a thing I have something on the 19th I can't get out of. >> Okay. Mhm. All right.
Okay. So, we'd meet at 5. What time are 7:30? Yes. I just need to be done a little bit before 7, but I assume that would be fine. >> Five o'clock on the >> five o'clock.
>> That works website. >> Great. Thank you all for accommodating my entertainment needs. >> We have to have our priorities here. >> I need to be, you know, like fully cultured and all of that.
>> Can't all be just all about the town all the time. >> If there is no other unanticipated business, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Second. >> Any discussion?
>> Seeing none, uh, Hansen. >> Hi. >> Frell. >> Hi. >> Wilson. >> Hi. >> Reed. >> Hi. >> Eddies. >> Hi. >> Angelo. I think.
Good night everybody.