 Okay. The time is now 7.02 and seen as a quorum of committee members as in attendance. This public meeting is being called to order. Welcome everybody to the September 21st, 2022 public meeting of the Amherst Community Development Block Grant advisory committee. For student chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by the state legislature on July 16th of 2022. This meeting is being conducted virtually using the zoom platform. The meeting is being recorded and minutes are being taken as usual. And if we could just go around and everybody could introduce themselves as a roll call we can then get started. And so I'm Becky Michaels and I'm here. Hi, I'm Lucas Anscombe. Matt Larson here. And I saw your lips move but nothing came out but we registered that you're here. Rika Clement. So the first item on the agenda and then obviously you're here. I don't. Are you. Not a member. Not a member. Okay. All right, so the agenda tonight really primarily is to look over the and to finalize the RFP so we can get started doing that. I know everybody had an opportunity to read it and then send their comments into Ben. And then he sent out a version that I think incorporated comments but if you didn't see yours in there then now's the time to raise it and then I'll also take the opportunity just to highlight some changes or suggestion that I made that Ben put in but then obviously everything is open for discussion. So, Ben, do you want to put it up? Is that the easiest way? Would that be helpful to people if we sort of just went through a little bit and kind of talked about. Yeah, yeah, I'm happy to share. Would it be easier? I could share the version that has like the track changes in it and then I basically just accepted all those changes. So, the only thing that I actually realized because just so all of you know, one of the things that I did, I had a bunch of changes that were just sort of more grammar things. So I actually sent a track changes version to Ben in which I incorporated Rika and Suzanne's comments that had come to the group. And so my guess is that he then incorporated whatever Nat Lucas and Greg recommended into that. Yeah, that's what we would be looking at. And I realized the one thing I think somebody might have recommended bulleting the initial community priorities, which I think I didn't. I forgot to make that a good idea. Yeah, that's a good idea as well. All right, let's see. Social service. All right, so assuming this is visible for everyone. Yeah, I mean, I, some of you just pointed out like just some redundancies and, you know, things were, you know, said twice and so. I think a couple people had comments about the hood of who to contact staff. And so, is there, is it you? Yeah, wait, I feel like. Is there other stuff I thought there's other stuff I accepted that wasn't. So this is the social service just bear with me for a second. Yeah, all right, sorry there. I must have accepted the changes then made made other changes. Sorry. All right. Hopefully this doesn't get too messy. So I did. Yeah, I put my contact information in the final version. It's just not not showing up here. So I encourage folks to reach out to me. And then I deleted it here and then put put just stated it clearly here that they're encouraged to contact town staff with my and then added my email address. Yeah, I think these could better be bulleted out bullet points because they're also shown where are they shown. They're at the end I think on the cover sheet here yeah. Yeah, right. You know on the contacting the town staff I guess my question was, do you want, I mean you're encouraging all applicants right not just new applicants. Yeah, I think, I think there's always issues that come up or questions about you know is this eligible or just not eligible or things like that so. If someone doesn't have a reason to contact me then they won't but typically, you know, it's, you know, it's helpful yeah just to talk things over so. Yep. I believe that in there. What I tried to do in in some of the comments that I made was to make it clear that the rules that were here weren't our rules but we're required by. So, for example, at the bottom where it says DHCD, we had will fund no more, they require that we not right so yeah, that was just one so if people see other areas that I may have missed in making that. So it's, it's important to understand who's setting which kinds of rules. Yeah, that's great. What we have an ability to change and what we don't. You know, under if you go up a little bit on the second to bottom paragraph on that the second sentence CBD, CDBG funds and also must. It feels like there's a bit of a typo there. Second to last paragraph so. Yeah, and the second sentence in it, starting with CDBG funds. Or must also be awesome. It looks like something that. Yeah, it's like the end. Yeah, there you go. But actually even that sentence doesn't make sense now because they can only be used for a program that demonstrates a community need or. Yes, maybe. CBD fund applicants also must maybe. Yeah, so take out the and I think you got the applicant. Yeah. Yeah, that's good. That's neat. That works. Sorry, I'm just trying to do this on the fly or continuation of project. But actually, is that going to screw you up then because we're not looking at the final. Well, it's in red here so I can see the final changes. Yeah. All right. Yeah, and then similar here it's you know DHCD requirement. Yeah, email address. So yeah the 18 month budget is important. We have the tax collusion. New cover sheet. So yeah, I appreciate. Whoever kind of like bull. Yeah. So just going back there under proposal items. The numbers there. Before that. It's on page three. Okay. Just to be consistent with the changes that were made. It looks like the. The lettering. Had gone from a to H now it goes from a to I. So just for consistency. Okay. Two answers to. Questions a through. I believe. Oh, that's really helpful. Thank you. So yeah, I'm just going to scroll down to see what it is. So a. Yeah. No, go stage maybe. Or. Is there an eye. So in what you sent out the final you sent out has. Oh, you're right. Yeah. Yeah. The project impact was I. Weird. Yeah. Because national objective description should be a. Should we just look at the final version? Would that be easier for everybody? Or do you want to see track changes? Fine with the final version. I don't feel like I need to see the changes. Yeah. Okay. I didn't make much substantive. It was more like reorganizing things and then. The one substantive. I know what it is. So yeah, let me just double check up here. It's a through. Yeah. All right. So thanks for pointing that should be a through. I wouldn't want there to be any confusion. Like, oh, I don't have to answer. Right. All right. So we're doing the 18 month budget. Friday, November 4th. So again, these are the, you know, specific activities and priorities we're listing out, you know, there can always be another category. You know, I think this does a pretty good job of, you know, capturing most of the types of projects that would come through, but also, you know, having enough difference between them. That's not that. It shouldn't be that confusing. So I feel comfortable with, with leaving this. Again, having that other category captures any, anything else that could come through. So I think a lot of this was just formatting. And, you know, clearing up any redundancies between the different categories. You know, having an organizational chart in this one, the budget information. Yeah, I'm just thinking about this. I don't know why that font is weird. Project need. Yeah. So going just above there too, the answers for parts D through H, I guess now should be parts E through I. Right. Exactly. Great. And then I think at least two of you, you know, talked about adding something about racial equity and climate change to the, actually need of the substance of the application that's being submitted. So incorporating that into project impact here. So this is, you know, what they, they would be required or encouraged to write about in their application. So I. Adding in this language here, how does the project impact the priority of addressing the systematic racial, racial injustice? I think it will be important component to add, you know, it's something we've heard from the community and from you all as committee members. But I think that's one of the more substantive changes that, you know, it's actually new language as opposed to kind of just reordering things. And is everybody good with that language? I know. I think that's a version or might even be what I have. Yeah. And I think it came from something that I read as a town. But if that doesn't sound right to anybody or. You have other ways of. Crazy. Oops. Sorry, Greg's in the attendees. I think that, I think that language is good. Hi, how are you doing tonight? So we're just going through the social service. Application right now or RFP. Yeah, I've seen it. I've been on a little while, but in the wrong place. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. So we were just noting the one. I think substantive addition we made was this bullet six. How does this project impact the town's priority of addressing systemic racial injustice? Yeah, I think what we did was we did this in most of the other changes we did more, more of re-ranging things. And so we're just talking about that language. Whether everybody agrees that that line or something addressing that should be in there. And if anybody has any other thoughts about it, we should just. If it's good and we'll go on. Hearing nothing. Okay. Mine with me. The description of how the proposal will be reviewed. Explaining that there's kind of this back and forth with questions, and a public meeting to make the recommendations the town manager. And so another thing. Another thing here under quality requirement, there, there had been that line that said that an agency had to have been. Yes, I was like, five years or something. Yeah. Yeah, I talked to Nate about that. He said it was somewhat arbitrary. It wasn't like a DHCD requirement. I think a previous iteration of the block grant committee decided to add that. Not as like, you know, it's interesting because it's, it says the requirement here but the way Nate described it, it was not a requirement it was like a, you know, something that would receive positive points and, you know, there could, you know, it wasn't necessarily like they had to be in existence for five years. But when I talked to him about it, he said it was fine to remove it and it, you know, kind of paves the way for newer organizations to feel comfortable applying. And it's interesting because last year we absolutely considered the mobile market. I know. And never even thought about whether I mean the fact that it was new so, yeah, I mean from my perspective I don't think that we should have a requirement about age I don't know if other people are longevity but however long the organization can only do other people feel differently. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Oh, I was going to say, if there is an organization that's new and so we have concerns about them, then we can mark them down on the evaluation, but to just say that, you know, you're required to have a certain number of years does seem a little bit unfair arbitrary. You know, even the unique nature of where we're at right now and I don't know if you can all hear me okay of what's been, you know, going on with the pandemic there could be things that are new or even temporary that may be around for only the next three to five years. Yeah, I think we should measure them on the other qualities rather than exactly how old or young they are. So a minor conforming change there the project proposal comparative evaluation criteria refers to questions a through H so I guess that's a through I Yeah, I'll just do like a control like F, like search for for any a through H thing. Yeah. Right. And so yeah basically you know these correspond to each of the above, you know, categories. And so it's kind of how each one will be evaluated. So, I mean, yeah, I guess many of you went through this process last year so you can make me recall. If there were, you remember there may have been any issues or kind of inconsistencies or things that weren't clear. I don't remember very too much about the process itself. It seems to work well. Yeah, I don't I think it worked really well and I thought the, the length of the applications was great. And it was helpful to have. And sort of know what you were looking for in each one because they each really just stay true to what we were that information. There's two C's under contractual requirements. Yeah. Okay that's that's one of those microsoft word things are great yeah and it was just the legal requirements the updated income guidelines. And yeah, that's that. So, everybody, do we need to vote on this or we can just all feel good that it's fine. Yeah, as long as everyone's feeling good I think if there's any like major, you know changes that were being made. Great. Thanks for all that work on that. Yeah, and I think to you all for everybody's comments into one document. I had to do that before and it can be tricky but you did great. Yeah. Um, great yeah I mean the same comments were basically made for the non social service rfp. So, you know I think those basically made the same changes. And then there's some question about the target areas and including those still in the, in the list of priorities for the non social service priorities it's, it is, I guess required that they are. It's kind of like a real infrastructure type project or like a housing rehabilitation project they do need to be located in the target areas. But I will say you know it's not a perfect process it's kind of like this chicken or egg thing because, you know, it's only a handful of agencies that apply for the infrastructure funds it's really the town and the housing authority. You know maybe like a, you know, valley CDC or wayfinders doing a housing project. And we typically know, you know if who and you know what the projects are going to be coming in as and if, if there's, you know we we can always change the target areas, if there's to match the projects that are coming in if we feel like it's So it's, yeah, I thought that we had said that at the last one to them when I saw that we had their target areas on here. One concern I had is that if there was somebody who had applied within these target areas that we identified. But then we preferred a project that wasn't in those target areas and selected that instead that seems unfair. So, can we say, I mean, is it does it have to we have to really specify which target areas we're having a little looser with the language. Yeah, I mean, let's see by focusing efforts on target areas. We say including. I guess one question I would have is if they are in one of the target areas is that is there a point in their favor, I mean, or not. Well, the state the DHTD would wouldn't let us consider or wouldn't one fund a project that's not in a target area. I see so in other words if one comes in we're going to say oh it is a target area if it's not already been identified. Yeah, exactly. I see. Okay, okay. So, but if, but if anything can be a target area then why do we mention it at all. No, I mean that that's kind of the, the, the, everything can be a target area right I mean there are some areas. Yeah, yeah like gamers would for something can be a target area but it would have to be. So this would be a target area, a II focus on areas. So minus, you know, the census tracks and you know finding, you know areas where there's multiple sent into census tracks together with majority, no moderate income. Could we say something like by focusing efforts on areas that have been identified as target areas, including, and then that gives us a little bit of room to expand to different target, right. Yeah, we're like we're meet the qualifications of the target area or something. Yeah, yeah. I wonder if we should also maybe indicate what, what makes a target, what makes an area eligible to be a target area. It's not us just deciding that there's yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay. So, loosen up language define what makes a target area. Yeah, you said that meets the specifications of the target area which are that and yeah, and maybe list the. Yeah, okay. Something like that. Yeah, I agree because I mean we heard that comment from last week or last meeting with Amherst and, you know, I think, if anything were to be added, you know, I feel like North Amherst could be considered. I want to double check the census areas and stuff but you know for example like I don't think there's an Amherst housing authority property in North Amherst I could be wrong but like I think in previous block grant committees like chose those target areas to try to capture housing properties and, you know, places that are in need of, you know, new infrastructure and that kind of stuff but, you know, if I, I think we'll, we should have a better sense of, you know, what projects are being proposed as we get closer to the deadline. I think it's, you know, makes sense to just loosen it up a little bit and, you know, I guess the worst case scenario is like out of left field like, you know, affordable housing developer that we've never heard of is like oh I wanted a project in North Amherst because I guess I can try so, you know, and then just, you know, forget it doesn't contact me or something like that so I think it's yeah it's good to keep it a little loose just so we're not, you know, completely, you know, turning anyone away or giving that sense so to see a hand raised we were going to do public comment at the end, but it's live. Would you like to. Yeah, why don't we comment now. Okay, to open it officially to public comment to do that or can we just. Yeah, we can invite her in. And then if there's further comments we can do and additional public comment at the end so. I guess we should be able to talk now. I apologize I'm not trying to talk out of turn. I just wanted to know I'm making a official public comment I just wanted to mention that Olympia Oaks which is run, I believe by way finders. I think that would qualify as North Amherst it's like Stone's throw from you mass you were. Yeah. Anyway, sorry wasn't trying to interrupt your proceedings I just wanted to introduce yeah, that is an affordable housing development that is in North Amherst. That's all sorry to interrupt. No no we appreciate it it's good thank you. And I think there was a block grant project at Olympia Oaks, or maybe it was a housing choice grant I forget but there was a sidewalk that was built from outside of Olympia Oaks and to provide access to the bus stop that's right there kind of up on the street. I think that might have been block grant but yeah maybe it had been a target area previously or something like that or, but no thanks for that comment lead I think. Yeah that probably what should be something we consider is kind of those different housing developments. So, yeah I think one other. Um, where you have encouraged to contact town staff dash Ben Breger. Maybe you want to say what your like title is or position. Okay. Yeah I guess. Yeah that makes sense just to clarify who they're. Yeah so they know. Hello in reality everyone knows who Ben is really. Well true is reputation does receive. When I was in high school in Amherst I play I was on the football team and it used to be like the highlight of anything when I could like get my name in the paper just to be like, then Breger had like two tackles or something like that and now working for the town I'm like oh god, I do not want to see my name in the paper like. That's great. All right. Yeah so I think yeah again otherwise was just kind of the same changes. I don't know I'm going to look and see why there's these phantom lines that show up. Actually let me go back here so for the type of activity yeah just so you all know these are these are like the DHCD, you know standard, you know type of non social service project so those don't really change can't really change. So I added the, I'll go through and make sure all the, you know lettering makes sense for this one added the link language about the project impact on priority addressing systematic systemic racial injustice. And yeah, otherwise it's the same. So, yeah, thank you, thank you all for timely and really good feedback on the RFD I think you know, the 1015 years this program has been running I'm sure the RFD improves a little little bit incrementally every year so always helpful. And actually no Ben I'm sorry I don't have the agenda. Let me look. I think the only other thing on the agenda is public comment right. I'm sorry I have it right here what else I say so just wanted to again go over the timeline quickly. And I have that up on a Word document. So, I'm going to zoom in a little bit. So we already did this one. We're hearing up to release the RFP on the 30th, which is not this Friday but the following Friday. applicants would then have you know over a month to respond. Do November 4. I would then I'm happy to hand deliver hard copies to folks that they'd like them. I would then have the opportunity to ask questions, and then give applicants the opportunity to respond to those questions. This is good timing because then DHCD requires us to have a list of activities. Sometimes in December I'm not sure so by this point we will have a sense of all the potential proposals. We might might not have narrow we wouldn't have narrowed them down quite yet or made our recommendation, but DHCD can then give us feedback of something you know clearly not eligible or you know what they might think of it. And then, you know you will have basically from December 9, you know through the Christmas holiday and New Year's to then submit your evaluations for each activity. So one question on the timing there if, if is that November 18 is that when you will provide those questions to the applicants or is that when we provide the questions to you and so you will then take a few days to compile those and get them out or what is that November 18. Yeah, no so that's I'm looking now that's a Friday. So yeah, I think, you know maybe on the 21st or something of November I would, on that Monday, maybe I would have, I would then send out the, the questions I mean depending. Maybe I think maybe to you by November 18. I mean maybe it might not be that hard to compile it maybe I'll say, you all send it to me by noon, and then, and then I have the afternoon to compile it all. And send it out to the committee members I mean hopefully I assume it'll just either be an email or a word doc and I can just, you know, basically for each activity send them, you know everyone's questions. I think I should be able to do that in an afternoon. Do you think that we could have it be. If it's going to if we did it by noon, have it the Monday. I don't know about everybody else but I tend to do my CDBG work over the weekend. And maybe we'll get to it the weekend before but if we could get it to you by the, like the 21st at noon, or does that feel like it's too close to what's during the Thanksgiving week I guess so that's not just leave it it's fine. And that we're getting the applications what like the seventh. Right, they're gonna, they're due. I do the committee would. What does that mean it's coming isn't going to you first. It's comes to me first yeah so. Okay. Yeah realistically, I would probably email them out on the, on the seven. Okay, so we have the seventh until the 18th, essentially. Okay. When we so we submit our evaluations on the fifth and then do you I can't remember do you send those to us before the meeting on the 12th so we have a sense of the rankings. I can't remember if we saw it for the first time at the meeting or if we got it before. I think my recollection again is, you know I think Nate ran it last time I think he sent it out beforehand just to review it all and it basically just be the if the Excel sheet that has the, you know, ranking for each for each one and then the aggregate. And so let's see January 6 is a Thursday Thursday. Okay that's good. And then we meet the file and we so we meet a week later. Exactly. Right so we have almost a month to review and come up with our major once we get the questions back. Yeah, I mean if, if there does need to be any wiggle room I mean I wanted to give myself February to kind of meet it takes a while to kind of package everything up because actually have to like, you know basically take sections of people that applicants proposals and you know match it up to the PhD have a very specific format so it takes a little while. But if we did need to push anything up you know we could lead into early February a bit but I think how I have it now is well timed. But you know for example if we did need another meeting or something after the 19th we can always, I think we could do that so. And just for new people those meetings the 12th and the 19th, especially the 12th tended to be a long meeting. Just for your schedule. Just for your schedule so you have it in mind. This looks great does anybody have any questions about it. Okay, looks great. Our next order of business is public comment. And I know that is still in with us as a panelist but I think we also I think Sarah sergeants here I don't know. No hand is raised then that covers all of our agenda items. Does anyone want to move to close the meeting or does anyone have any final words before I move to close the meeting. Appreciate it I'll be in touch. Good job. We set a new land speed record for this meeting. Unbelievable. We're figuring out what we're doing. Thank you everyone. Take care. Bye bye.