 We're recording. Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Community Preservation Act Committee on December 15th, 2022. I'm calling the meeting to order at 6.02 p.m. Pursuant to the decision of the town of Amherst, as permitted by the state, we are meeting remotely. I'm gonna call on members now to make sure that we can hear you and you can be just to dot the I's. I'm Sam, hopefully you can hear me, Tim. Yes, I'm here. Katie. Here. Matt. I'm here. David. Here. Michelle. Is it? Robin. Mute, perhaps. Couldn't hear you, Robin. Can you hear me now? We can hear you now. And Andy. Present. Okay, so looks like we're all here. So I took the minutes last week. We do need someone. I believe someone volunteered last week, Robin. So that's still a good to go. I'll assume that's a yes. Yep, no, I'm all set. Okay. And it is a recorded meeting. We're going to, the first item on our agenda is to approve any outstanding minutes. To my understanding, there are two sets of minutes. Matt provided his email, his minutes to the committee. Either early this week or last week, I sat in on Monday, on Monday. I found one very minor edit. Did everyone get a chance or who had a chance to look at the minutes? I've seen some folks. Does anyone have any further edits they'd like to communicate to Matt? All right, Matt. You're in, you should be in the publishing business. So it seems that everything's good to go with those minutes. Do we have... What's the date on those minutes? Those were December 1st. The minutes were from the meeting of December 1st, 2022. Does anyone have, what wished, Andy? Motion to approve. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay, let's proceed to a roll call vote to approve the minutes of December 1st as submitted. I'll vote yes. Tim. Yes, aye. Katie. Aye. Matt. Aye. David. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Robin. Aye. Andy. Aye. So it is unanimous by an eight to zero vote. Minutes are approved. I sent some minutes yesterday to committee members for the meeting of December 8th. I've seen them, of course. I don't know who else has had an opportunity to look at them or not. Did any, who had a chance to look at them? I'm sorry. I'm seeing at least five hands. I'm seeing six hands with two down. Of those who saw them, were there any further or requested edits? I'm not seeing any. We do have a majority of the committee who saw the minutes. So I think it makes sense for us to go ahead and approve them as submitted. Is there a motion? I move to approve the minutes from December 8th. Is there a second? Second. Tim. Okay. Any further discussion? No. Okay. So proceed with a roll call vote to approve the minutes of December 8th as submitted. I'll vote yes. Tim. Yes, aye. Katie. I have to abstain since I didn't read them, sorry. Matt. Aye. David. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Robin. Aye. Andy. Abstain. So the vote is six to zero with two abstentions. Motion passes. Next item on our agenda is public comment. Before you, Sam, sorry. Yes. My minutes of November 17th were discussed at the last meeting and my recollection in that was that, and I can't remember who maybe was that Robin perhaps would had a couple of changes and I have not heard from her. So I haven't, once I do, I can change them, but. I apologize. I realized that as I was setting up today that I hadn't gotten those two. I will do it after the meeting today. That's fine. Did we, I can't remember. I believe we approved them. Oh, we do. So my second. With the assumption of minor edits. So I'll just get the final copy to sign you once I hear from Robin. Okay, perfect. All right, thanks. Okay. So next agenda item on our meeting is public comment. As is the case with any meeting meeting that I've learned. I see a few community members in the audience and our attendees here. I'd like to open up the floor in case any community members or attendees have a public comment. If you do, please raise your hand. I'm not seeing any hands. I'll ask again if there's any public comments. It appears that there are no public comments. So I will then consider that agenda item closed and we'll move on. So now we are back to where we left off at the last meeting at 920 to 930. We were going through the proposals. We've already provided straw poll ratings and we were providing brief commentaries for each proposal as to our thought process of why we gave the straw poll rating that we did. Sonia, are you able to pull up that spreadsheet again that we had displaying last week? That would be the spreadsheet with both the dollar amounts and the projects. Okay. Robin, I see your hand is up, but we can't hear you. Sorry, I keep muting and unmuting. I just want, we had a historic commission meeting yesterday. We revisited the North Amherst Church application and I just have some comments that I'd like to deliver before we start our deliberative discussion. So whenever that's appropriate, let me know. Well, we are sort of in process of deliberation even though it's just individuals making their own brief commentaries. We can finish all of the projects and then have you do it or you could do it now if you wish. It's either way would be fine. How long of a duration do you think your comments are? I have just a few sentences. Sure, go ahead. Just basically, the discussion revolves around the nature of the structure of the ask and the number of estimates. And so we as a commission just wanted to state that we are in support of using the funds for the church's rehabilitation and we recognize the urgent nature of some of the repairs but we are concerned about the speed of how the proposal has been put together through no one's fault, the short timeframe for estimates and without a better sense of how costs might be minimized since this looks like a property that may need a number of things addressed that might fall under CPA. When the church presented and I asked Cunriddle a specific question about the possibility for a repair that just tightened up the roof for this season so that a better scope of work for the whole project could come forward. There seemed to be an affirmative answer to that question. So we would like to request that of if it's possible to request that of the applicant what's an idea of supporting a smaller ask and want to understand the nature of how reserve funds whether that can be awarded immediately to address the urgent nature of it. And I think that's basically it. So if people have questions, if I wasn't clear you can ask me at any point but I just wanted to get that out of there at the head. Okay. Thank you, Robin. Interestingly enough the first item or comments related to our discussion is the North Amherst Church. Matt, I see that your hand is up. Yeah. So Robin is the historical commission saying they would prefer a smaller grant instead of the 159,000 or in addition, you're muted. I'm just gonna unmute for a while if that. I'm also taking notes here. So I'm doing triple duty. We are saying that we would ask for a smaller amount to address the immediate issue with the expectation that the church could then take time within the next CPA cycle to come back to address larger issues like replacement of the entire roof. I think there's some questions around what that roofing material would be, what would be appropriate within the secretary standards in terms of cost and also potentially factoring in whether or not you would have a later solar installation on the roof to be able to address kind of the whole, the project timed up to address the project as a whole so that costs are both minimized and appropriate actions can be taken. So this would be a suggestion that we would ask the CPA to approve a smaller estimate if we can get one for just a leak repair that would be funded hopefully before July 1st. And then we would ask that, we would try to work with the church to develop a better scope of work for the entire project that they could come back, that they could phase, come back to CPA for further funds instead of rushing into $158,000 that we only have one estimate for. So that's, does that answer your question? I think what you're saying is instead. Yes. Okay. Instead. Sam, could I chime in on that one? Yes, Sonia. I think that if there's a lot of uncertainty about this project, I think the best way to move forward on this would be to table it and defer it down the road. I mean, you can put the money, the money's in the reserve. So if they wanted to come back for this year and there was another proposal that's ready, we could see it before the end of the fiscal year. So we would table it now. The historical commission could work with the applicant to come back with a different proposal that we felt was more appropriate. If they're ready, if they get it in time for fiscal year 23 to bring it up then, then that would work. If not, if there's a reserve voted for fiscal year 24, that would also work. So fiscal year 23 would be up until June 30th, 2023. Well, within reason, I would say, I'd say around March is a good timing because it takes time to go through all the processes. Okay. Thank you, Sonia. What we're going to do is we're gonna continue talking about the seven remaining proposals of which the North Church is one. So we're gonna retain the standardized process for all of the proposals that are before us. We're not gonna discuss at this point in time whether to table it or not. And whether or not we will determine if we use cash reserves or not. But thank you, Robin, for bringing up your comments related to that. So I'd like for us to stand track. Although, Tim, I see your hand is raised. Yeah, I was gonna just, you just answered my question. So my opinion is we need, when we get to the discussion of tabling it needs to table and what the applicant needs to come back with is the emergency need for this fiscal year. So anyway, that's, but you said we're gonna be discussing that future. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Tim. So again, for, your hand is still up, Robin. Thought about that. Okay. So for those who may not have been in the meeting last time in the audience, what we're doing is we're going through each proposal. We're at the point where we're talking about proposal number nine, which is preserving Zion Church and committee members will have a very brief comment as to the thoughts of why they might have voted, excuse me, why they might have provided the rating, no votes, provided the rating that they did, just a very simple, quick summation of it. If they wish, there's no requirement to. Based on the order, I'm gonna continue with the alternating who speaks first. It just so happens that the person we left off with, speaking first last time was you, Robin. And so the first person to speak on this, the Zion Church, as to why they might have provided the rating they did would be Andy. Can you hear us? I'm not seeing you. I got a different view there here. Oh yeah. Yeah, I'm here. So yeah, so I gave this one a four. I was very sort of, I was really moved by the amount of deterioration and issues with the facility as well as the parish size. So I think that as we consider this versus South, the South congregational, which, whether this is a fairer thing to say or not has a larger community that they can sort of draw upon for funds. The Zion Church, I believe they said had like 30 members or something of that effect. So this is one, I think, an urgent need and not a really, I don't know if they necessarily have a great vehicle to raise funds sort of organically through traditional fundraising. I think that this is an organization that could benefit from a little bit of a boost. So it's why I gave this a four. Okay, thank you. Meaning next. I gave this, where is it? One moment. I gave this a four as well. Interestingly, did we all give this one a four? We did. I had questions on the initial project given the size of it and the lack of clarity regarding the scope of work and the estimates affiliated with it. I did recognize in the project having visited it and also seeing the presentation and the photos and everything that it is certainly in very bad shape on the south-west corner. And I was glad to see that the applicants owned in or revised their request to reflect the more urgent aspects of the proposal. I think my understanding was that they looked at this as the most immediate urgent need of the proposal. And we can talk further if there's an emergency option distinct from this proposal. But they, my understanding was this was for addressing the worst part of the damage. But anyway, that was my thinking in terms of a four given that it's a roof, it's certainly a historic building. It is in very bad shape for the portion affiliated with this revised request. And that was my thought process. Matt, you're muted. Yeah, I just realized. So with respect to the immediate need, my understanding from the architect from Coon Riddle who I thought was very informative in the initial presentation was that he felt that at least medium term, like five to 10 years, the entire roof replacement, which was the initial thing was not necessary. And that the focused work around parts of the roof and eaves was what would fit the roof part of the structure sound for at least the medium term. And my takeaway, and I don't know if this is accurate, of his comment about doing something before this coming winter was something like putting tarps on or something like that. Just like really quick fixes to just do something to prevent incoming water for this winter. Now, in general, my thought about this proposal, I think I made the comment when we initially discussed this when we initially had the presentations. And it's a little bit different than Andy's point of view. Like my concern is this is a very large building with a pretty significant backlog of maintenance. And I'm not sure that the CPA is capable of doing all of the backlog of maintenance here. And I'm not seeing that the congregation is going to be able to do it either. So I'm sort of concerned about what, and I don't know if this is part of Robin's concern, is this going to work? Like if we do this, is the building on a sustainable footing right now? So could you communicate the thought process behind your giving in a rating of four? Well, as I said in the initial, when we were discussing this first, this is a very obviously significant structure in town. That's an important structure that a lot of people are familiar with. And roof work is urgent and I think should be supported. So I think it's the kind of project that the CPA should fund. But I gave it a rating lower than I did for the South Church because I thought, A, the proposal wasn't as clear. And B, I'm also just concerned long term about the overall maintenance long term of the building. Okay, thank you, Matt. Tim. Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were going to be discussing this in order. So I already made some of my comments. I gave it a four because I think, and the four is only for the roof and eve discussion that Coon Riddle talked about. I would give it, for this year, I would give it like a two for the rest of it. I just don't think we should allocate additional funds until we have a much better proposal. I felt not at all comfortable with the proposal. It was sort of, we had one bid, we need more bids, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But I do feel we need to do that emergency. And I think we need to work with Coon Riddle, perhaps, or the applicant needs to get that number. And I don't think it's going to be 158-700. So whoever proposed that earlier about tabling it until they came back with a new number only for the Coon Riddle, what I would call emergency repair for right now. And I would also suggest, as I think I did earlier, that it come out of our reserves. I think that's what our reserves are for. So those are my comments. Just so that I understand what you said, I believe you're indicating that, although you gave it a four for the revised ask amount of 158-7, your thought process is that there's an emergency repair that has been discussed that would be a lower amount and it would be worthwhile to get more information on that and consider that as it relates to cash reserves as opposed to where we're at. Does that make sense? Absolutely. I would not vote for the 158-7 now. Because I think it's an incomplete number. I understand. Thank you. Next on the list, David. What did you call it, David? Yes. Couple of observations. Number one, it is a very large church. It's an old building, but as was just mentioned by Tim, when he talked about the roof and others have talked about the roof, the work on the roof need to be done if this is a project we are going to support. As building contractors will tell you, stop the water and then you can address the other problems that you have. I would say the churches and the materials I've looked at and also observation and passing by there does have a small membership, but the small membership does not necessarily mean they do not have or cannot get the resources from members, additional resources to support the project. So I would, and I would also say as a North Amherst residence, observing what is happening right across in front of the church, the renovation of the library. And there is an interest, I would say it appears to be an interest from the town and also the citizens of North Amherst. And I would hope the entire community to improve that whole section of the buildings that are in that section of town, especially with renovation and expanding of the library, the church. We have new condominiums, apartments in the area. So we need to, I would like for us to do what we can in terms of being sure that adequate funds have been provided to address the roof. Thank you, David. What I'm hearing is that you're saying that your rating of four was based upon the urgency of need with a roof repair when there is water leaking and the location location in historic nature. Thank you, David. Katie. Thanks, Sam. I just reviewed my notes about this, which I had written down that the south side needs to be repaired immediately north side, not as urgent, but steps to stabilize are urgent. So that was my rating. It's a prominent historic, as everyone has said, you know, building in North Amherst at that intersection, it needs that needs are urgent. So that's why I rated it four as a priority. Thank you, Katie. Michelle. I don't have a lot of new new things to add at this point. Yes, urgency, emergency roof, that that revised estimate and the location of it. But I do hear all of the concerns about uncertainty. And I do recall them saying that they would be unlikely to have much external funding outside of CPA, I think, at this point. Thank you, Robin. Do you need my comment? Yeah, the thought is that you spoke previously on behalf of the Historic Commission. Now we're asking members to have a brief comment related to the straw pool rating that they provided. We all have to do with providing. OK, yep, I'm going to say pretty much all the same things. An urgent need to stop any damage that is occurring right now and a revisited revisit of the proposal to structure a better sense of what needs to happen next and whether CPA funds would be appropriate for it. OK, thank you. The next project that we have on the list is the South Congregational Church steeple restoration and preservation. Andy was first last time, so I'll go first. This time I gave it a five. I was impressed with the thoroughness of the proposal with the nature with the reviews and the research in terms of how to approach the project. I was impressed with the volume, the extended volume of community support exhibited for the project. It's an equivocally historic reservation, historic building and an important historic building in town. All of that together, along with their contribution for the engineering seem to me to be an ideal proposal and one that is in need. There is an urgency if you look at the photos of the damage with the steeple with the bell and certainly would want that to come down. So all that package together is why I gave it a five. Matt. Yes, I agree with everything Sam said. I just have one thing to add, which is I appreciate that the church has tried to maintain the steeple over time. And it's gotten to a point where spot maintenance is no longer appropriate. And that's that they've come with this proposal to restore it completely properly. So I think that's very I think they've done the the congregation has done a great job, otherwise in maintaining the building and it's an important structure. And this is a very appropriate and well put out a proposal. Thank you, Tim. Sorry, I also gave it a five and I would like to publicly state I was very impressed with their application, a very thorough one of the best proposals I've seen in this process. Secondly, they indicated I I do feel it's an immediate need. And I would when we get to the point of distributing money, depending on how much money we have left to distribute, I would either fund all or some of this with fiscal twenty three funds to save some fiscal twenty four funds for other needs. But I think we have a significant reserve that we could use for this project. Again, whether we want to fund it all or some of it, that's for a later discussion. But that's my opinion when we get to that point. Thank you, Tim. David. My comments, basically, about the same stop the water the work on the steeple, whatever is happening, most likely water is getting in there. I was impressed by the committee members or offices of the church and it seemed they fell from their from their proposal, plus their conversation or response to questions that they're in a position to add or secure additional funds to continue the work on the church. And I think I had a four there for them. OK, thank you, David. Sam, can I talk? I can't raise my hand. I'm sorry, because I'm sharing the screen. Everybody keeps alluding to paying some paying for some of these in fiscal year 23 is reserved. If it's going to be a fiscal year 23 award, it gets table that's off of this because we have to come back with a whole process for fiscal year 23 to do that. This is separate. This is fiscal year 24 budget. So we can do it, but it's going to be a process to do it. If I hear you correctly, Son, you're saying that if we wish to award funds for a project in the near term prior to the commencement of fiscal year 24, if we need for them to be able to use them, we cannot do so with the current proposals. We have to have them resubmit. They can we can they can resubmit the same proposal. We can keep the same proposal, but it's a whole different process. This is for the fiscal year 24 budget that we're working on now. So if we're going to come back and appropriate money for this for people to have prior to June 30th, then we're going to have to come back and do that separate. This is. All right, let me let me ask it this way. It would be quick. I mean, you've already discussed it. You know what you want to do would probably be a one meeting. Let me ask it this way. If we as a committee had somehow magically completed our entire fiscal year 24 process of awards, let's just say we had completed that. And we have an hour and a half left in the meeting. Are you indicating we can't commence at that time to discuss the cash reserves for fiscal year 23? As long as you're not using reserves to fund some of some of the other projects. So as long as you don't use up the reserves for fiscal year 24 projects. So basically what I'm saying, you have one point, which I say one point nine million. But if you if you add the reserves to that, right, then you're going to have a two point four million available to spend for these projects. I'm a bit confused. I know, perhaps, perhaps we can talk about that at a later point after we get through all of these, the discussions. I think it makes sense for us to continue. Well, it's fine for members to reference their recognition or their own belief of a sense of urgency in a project. And after we go through all of these, we can talk about how we may or may not fund them. Right. And I would also caution setting a precedence for for for doing this kind of thing, because we have a process in time. And if we say if we're in the middle of this process and we decide we're going to give them the money earlier because we feel they're going to need it earlier. Although most of these people have said they can manage with it as of July 1st, we don't want to. Set a precedence for doing this all the time. OK, thank you. So we'll we'll continue with the proposals that we're talking about and we can still have discussions about how we wish to fund and when we wish to fund them based on urgency when we get to that point. We can discuss further, Sonia, when we get through these in a bit more detail. Thank you, though, for speaking up and communicating the distinction between fiscal year twenty three reserves and excuse me, cash reserves and fiscal year budgeting for twenty four. The last person I spoke with on this project was David, it was David. OK, Katie. I don't have too much to add. Very I felt very similarly to the Zion request that there's it's urgent. It's a prominent historic building. That's an anchor like Zion is to North Amherst. This is to South Amherst. And, you know, again, this idea, I mean, I think Dave said it right. You stop the water. It's sort of this idea of less is more like less now than waiting longer when the costs would be much greater. So that's right before. Thank you, King, Michelle. Yeah, exactly what Katie said. I was impressed with the wide range of community involvement, not just from the parishioners for this church and the events that they support. And I also just wanted to be sensitive to the maybe the greater resources they might have as a big bigger church in comparison with emergencies of other historic buildings like the other church. OK, Robin. After what everyone has said pretty much, it's urgent. It's an incredibly well put together proposal and a very clearly organized team of people. My only two comments about it are that. One, I continue to one of my objectives is as has been and will continue to be to get to get our applicants, if possible, to access other funds. And I'm not sure what the status on emergency stabilization funds is with the Mass Historic Commission. I've been meaning to try to follow up with them and see what their process is. Just because I'd love to see we're appropriate. We take advantage of other other funding. And my second comment is it's keeping me so I'll leave it at that. OK, thank you, Andy. Nothing new to add. You brief. OK, there we go. The next project, Sam, Sam, sorry, I'm sorry. That's not you didn't see the hand. I just I just raised it. I'm not I'm not able to see all the hands on my screen for some reason. That's not a not a problem. The only thing I wanted to just I think we need to talk about, at least I have a need to talk about it. There was an earlier comment. I forget who made it that the congregation in the North Church is very small, as opposed to the South Church, which has a lot of resources to explore other options, et cetera, et cetera. And I got the impression that maybe the CPA Committee would give more more CPA funding to the group that didn't have as much of their own internal power, if you will, to seek other funds. I'm not sure I agree with that philosophy. And at some point, we need to talk about that. So anyway, just to throw that out. Thank you, Tim. Yeah, we will talk further on these types of matters after we go through all of the individuals, communications or representations as to why they provided the rating that they did. I think it's helpful because these types of issues are being brought up for all of us before we're actually voting and making final decisions. That's the purpose behind our straw rating and brief discussions is so that we can all hear these different things. So we're a bit more thorough and informed of our process. But thank you, Tim. And again, as with any of the other projects, when we get to that, we'll have another point after we go through these where we'll begin to speak more thoroughly, or at least with more higher level of definition in each project. So the last person to speak on this was, if I'm... Oh, it was Andy. It was Andy. And this was the South Church. And that was the last person. So we're on to the Conservation Area Improvements. And it appears that if I... The person who started last time was me. So, Matt, you will be first. Yeah. And I think I gave this a lower rating. And I probably am not that different than the other members of the committee in believing that the trails are an important part of the town. I'm a big trail user. Most of those projects that they mentioned, I'm very familiar with. I also appreciate that Dave Zymek has been able to find some other sources of funding. So my only reason for giving this a slightly lower rating in this cycle was that they already have some money to work on projects at Hickory Ridge. And they possibly have some other money to access other grants, like immediately. But that's not to say that next year when we don't have so many, so much, you know, more requests than our budget that we wouldn't fund it then. Thank you, Matt. Tim. I gave this a very high rating. I think it's a definitely a needed project when we get to the point of seeing how much money we have and debating on which projects get the full or some of the funding. I think this is one of those projects. I think we should fund some if not not entirely the total amount, but we'll have that discussion when we get to funding amounts. Thank you, Tim. David. My thinking would be that the funding issue and to work for our project need to be funded. But as we look at our priorities as a committee and also the resources that we have, take a very good look at whether we can or what we can do, whether we can partially fund or look at funding in another year. Thank you, David. Katie. Yeah, I I rated this a four because I think the trails and are a jewel of our town. And are extremely well used and because they're so well used and so loved, they need a lot of support. And I just feel exactly what David just said, which is we have some hard decisions to make. We had, you know, much more in funding. I would want to fully fund this, but I have a feeling that won't be possible. Thank you, Katie. Michelle. I gave us a very high rating and support as much funding as possible for it. The public trails and Amherst bring together a community of, you know, all socioeconomic age, everything, all the classes, everybody uses it. You know, they support public health and coming together. They were really well used in 2020 and they continue to be. And I have an intimate knowledge, I guess, about what it takes to make a bridge crossing safe, but also comply with federal regulations and it can be a $20,000, a $20,000 cost to it. So that protects our water resources. So to me, there's a lot of nexuses about the benefits of this project. Thank you, Robin. Hold on a second. Can you remind me what my score was? I think it was a four. I can't read your score on this proposal was a four. OK, so. Finally, in support of it. Yeah, I think I gave it a four because of balancing it on against all the other projects. OK. Andy. Yeah, thanks, Jim. Yeah, I love this project as well. A lot of what people have already said. I also think this is alluded to by several folks as well. I would anticipate this is not a full ask, but, you know, any any dollar that they get, I think we'll have the direct tangible benefit to the community. So whether we have to go significantly smaller or not, still very supportive of it. And then also just point of order here. This is an open space. Recommendation, correct? It's it's on here under recreation. Um, I think I think that the that the presenter said the reason that was recreation was that so they could use the money, not only on land that was acquired, the CPA funds. Correct. I'm like technical CPA thing. Correct. OK, thanks for reminding. OK. So I gave this proposal a three. And, you know, I agree that the trails in our town are a phenomenal resource. And I agree with Katie's comments that they really are a jewel. I use them. I simply gave a lower rating based upon the budgetary issues and the fact that we had awarded some money in the past to portrayals, maintenance, twenty five thousand dollars. And as of this time, only eight hundred dollars of that has been used. So my lower score was based on a questioning of the urgency for the full amount because we've had prior awards that have not been immediately used. I recognize the potential for things to come up quickly and be needed. But given the task at hand, I wasn't comfortable giving as much as I like our trails and like the projects and like the work. I felt it warranted to provide a lower score based on the ask amount and the prior balance. Let's see. I believe that is all of us on this proposal. The next proposal is the Crocker Farm School and Playgrounds. And I have Tim as the first person to comment on their rating, their thought process behind their ratings. OK, well, as you see, I gave this a one, which is a pretty low rating on here are my reasons. And I'm going to I've made some notes and I just want to make sure I cover all the points. One, the design and the monies that we gave for this project is not going to happen until at least May of 2023. So I'm not at all sure what the cost is. Secondly, that cost, I don't think is a good number. It's based on an industry standard of a cost per pupil. And this is for the kindergarten and lower grade students. And as I understand it, there are far fewer students and the math does not come out to be four hundred and fifty thousand. So I think we just shouldn't fund this project. I just don't think that was developed well enough. And I think what we need to do is wait until fiscal twenty five after we have the more complete design of the applicant come back with a proposal which includes a variety of different bids, accurate numbers based on this project, not an industry standard. And secondly, I think some of the issues were for ADA and we saw nothing about ADA funding. I think in a sub application, they need to come back with a discussion for us as to what type of process they use to seek ADA funding for this. They did not do that. So I just don't think I'm not at all comfortable with approving any amount for this year for this project. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, David. Yes, a couple of observations here. My rating is based on what I felt was a need. But there are and looking at some of the communication, some concerns that need to be addressed. So to say that there is a need is not necessarily mean it has to be funded this year. OK. Thank you, David. Katie. Yeah, I. I think this is an important project for a number of reasons. One for the school itself, but for the greater community. And it is in need of repair and renovation. But I feel very similar to what Tim described of not having enough information and wanting more information based on what the design ends up being and feeling more comfortable if this was either tabled and revisited during this fiscal year for funding or asked to come back. But I rated it three because I think it's an important valuable resource for our community that is definitely needs to be attended to and especially and including the access for those who are disabled. So it just feels like it needs to be done. And that's why I rated it three. But I didn't feel I had enough information. Thank you, Katie. Michelle, can you hear us, Michelle? I was trying to find my spreadsheet. I used Andy's. Sorry, I have the flu, so I'm a little off. We can come back to you if you want. No, no, it's OK. So three based on Andy's criteria is kind of the the baseline. I agree there is some vagueness that I saw in the proposal. And I think it is super important. I think it would be incredibly well used by that area of town. And obviously kindergarteners need to be outside more. So that's why I got it. I gave it a three. OK, Robin. Did I give it a three? You gave it a. Four, no, three, excuse me, three. Yeah, I think I would say based on maybe a lack of urgency and again, clarity as other people have already spoken to. OK, thank you, Andy. Yeah, they give the high score. I mean, I had envisioned this as not being the full amount. I I think Timmy do a nice job, particularly the concerns. I'm comfortable with, you know, reducing my score for this when it comes down to final vote for that purpose. But it will be used more than just the the kindergartners and the first graders. It's going to be used by the whole school. It's going to be used by other people of the town. I think within South Amherst specifically, it's it's got an appeal. And a draw beyond just the school. I think it does get used on the weekends would get used on weekends. But I think all the points people make relative to the lack of detail are fair points. So I got it as a four. I'm comfortable moving it down. Thank you, Andy. So I gave this a three. I'd like to see the design that we awarded funds for. The Doug Indicate Slaughter indicated that that would be forthcoming later or during during 2023. So I'd like to see the design first. I think that's the right step in the process. It's certainly widely utilized, given that it's not just school is used by members. But the applicant also indicated that they were fine and recognized that the twenty twenty five cycle might be appropriate for them to be considered. So the combination of waiting for the design and the communication from the applicant themselves related to potentially putting it in the next fiscal cycle weighed on my numbers. So I gave it a three. And is that the next we have that. Yeah, I rated it as two. The reasons is what other people have said. I think this proposal is preliminary, given that the design hasn't happened and any other potential sources of funding haven't been thought out. OK, thank you, Matt. The next proposal for communication regarding our ratings is the Fort River Community Recreational Fields Project. First person to comment on that would be David. The Fort River Project, you're on mute currently, David. I'm back to me. OK. We're asking your comments regarding your rating for the Fort River Community Recreational Fields Projects. David, all right, I'm ready now. OK. I'm sorry about that. No problem. The Fort River Project. I believe that. I will be showing the rating I have before there for that or three. You have a I have you down as having provided a five. A five. I guess for me. It seemed as though. We have. Some recreation issues we need to address. And it's my five has more to do with the importance of the project and not necessarily saying that the funding has to happen now. It need to be. I would say placed in the queue and we find a way. To. Provide the funded and I don't know as we were talking earlier, whether that's a year from now, two years from now. But. Project is very worthwhile and it's needed. OK, thank you, David, Katie. Yeah, I'm totally in favor of this project and of providing some funding. I rated it lower, though, because I felt there are too many questions. And so for this sort of significant amount of money. And it feels to me like the urgency is not around needing the money to actually do the project, because that wouldn't happen until 2025. But it's around an endorsement. And I'm not sure that's the way we should be making our decisions, and I'm really eager to hear more from the town about this kind of significant investment, not that they're making the decision on the CPA. We are, but I'm just I'd like to hear more from them about it more detailed. And so my thought. As I've been ruminating over this was about tabling it and having continued discussion so I could better understand, you know, we could get more information and understand exactly. You know, there's my questions were around timing. It was around the cost. It was around the exact nature of what we would be funding and where the town is on this. So I just I feel like I needed more information. And that's why that's why my ratings lower in terms of the sense of urgency. I didn't I didn't see that in terms of having the money to actually spend on doing the project next year. Thank you, Katie, Michelle. So these are definitely well utilized fields and sort of the go to fields for community sports in the town. And so that's why it got a fairly high rating for me. To be quite honest, I don't know how to think about the fact that it is like Katie said, somewhat of an endorsement for a larger project, the fact that it's. We haven't heard a lot from the town. I'm not saying that those lowered my rating. I'm just interested to hear more about how maybe CPA has a position in that. It doesn't. OK, thank you, Robin. Yeah, I gave this a low rating. Connecting back to what Katie said and what one of the what the one of the presenters seemed to indicate that. That the CPI support of this particular ask, this is three million, right? Yeah, they actually adjusted it to reflect the amount without the lights and without the comfort stage into two point four. I believe is the approximate amount. OK. I was trying to think about this in relationship to when the Jones library requested funds somewhat similarly in support of their expansion project for special collections. And that was a very large ask. And this is a very large ask. And that was somewhat related to having CPI support for this specific piece. And this seems somewhat similar, but it doesn't seem quite as targeted to me. And I was concerned when they expressed that that this level of funding would create, I guess, a small we didn't have a defined number, but a small break in terms of taxes, which would help promote a vote for the override. And that didn't seem like an appropriate CPI reasoning to me. That was, I think, my biggest objection. Thank you, I'm going to Andy. Thanks, Sam. I would echo what Robin just said. I would also I don't want to make like a political comment, but it's just like I wish we just did this in 2016 was when money was cheap, right? And now we're at a point where we're facing a hundred million dollar project. This I gave it to I was leaning towards a one, actually. I think that you had the the the the prospect of using CPA dollars for this when we're going for a budget override, knowing that this would also have to, you know, this is something that we would, we would, you know, whatever capitalized. We can offer this all in a single year. Anyway. Yeah, I've got I've got some issues with how the how this process was managed. I've got concerns around us using CPA money towards this, which could be going towards other other urgent items because we as a town weren't able to like strike when we should have a few years ago. So anyhow, that said, I this is definitely one of my lower ranked ones. Thanks. OK, thank you, Andy. So I gave this project a three. I it's a very large ask. It started off the three million and it's two point four, which is close to two years worth of CPA funding. We get maybe one point three, one point four million. It depends each year. So along with some of the other large projects, the scope of it is such that it is basically as asked is a couple of years worth of total CPA funding for one project. I did I do share Robin's thoughts that it's similar in relation to the Jones Library request and that it's a smaller component of a much larger project that is going to be determined based upon another entity with the Jones Library. It was the town council vote along with the petition, but essentially town council with this one, it's going to be a debt override. In this one, the funding can be and perhaps should be a component of that override. I did briefly enter in the dollar amount in the calculator that Sean provided us to determine the tax rates based on property values, differences. The numbers that I came up with for I think it might have been a four hundred and fifty thousand dollar house was like twenty dollars or so a year. I don't know if it's perfect, but I didn't seem to be a large amount. Having said that, those fields are very widely utilized. I have coached soccer with the soccer there. They are constantly done and they are problematic. They are they have water drainage issues. Matt, I'm sure you're familiar with that. I'm sure your teams played there occasionally. All kinds of issues with the fields in the town does definitely have a field issue, and there certainly was a lot of support for this. I wrestled with the concept of whether or not it makes sense for the committee to endorse a project overall. In other words, endorse what might be coming in the. Override, you know, twenty sixteen is gone and we are in twenty twenty two. So there is a decision coming to the town next May. I might support a significantly lower amount as a component. I just indicate that the CPA thinks that this is a worthwhile project from a. Not from how it's been presented, although it was reasonably thorough, but rather from the outcome, that is to say, the town will definitely benefit from fields that are usable. So I wrestled with all these variables and the biggest two for me were the size of the ask, because it's such a large component. And the fact that it does, it is a smaller amount of something that's going to come before the town in the future. But I certainly want to see good fields. And there were some points that were made well. That's why I gave it a three. Because when I it's hard for me to parse all of that out. Anyway, I talk a lot. The next person on this, we've gone through the full list. Haven't we? We started with you, right? We did not have a time on this. OK, very, very good. That's right. I was looking at cracker farm. Matt, go ahead, please. I gave this a three. My thoughts are similar to what many people have said, especially Katie, Michelle, and Sam, I think it would be very sad if the school project didn't go forward. I think it would be very sad if the fields, which are heavily used, are not redeveloped as part of the school project. So from that point of view, I think it's an important project. But I struggle with the CPA taking this on all by itself. Again, if this was to be more like, say, the track project where the CPA put in a component and the town put in a component and so on like that, then then I might be more amenable if the town were to make some kind of suggestion like that. Thank you, Matt. Tim. OK, this is another project that. Frankly, I am strongly opposed to this project. And let me see if I can outline my reasonings for that. Number one, I agree, Sam, with the cost. I'm not at all sure this is a wise use of CPA funds. I think funding should go to the town and to the citizens in the override. I don't at all agree with the prospect of making a political decision to get the school project through by having some sort of rule by having CPA funds fund this. I think it's such a large amount that it would pardon the phrase, mortgage the future for any other CPA needs and that the town and the school committee needs to argue their case to the citizens in the override included in the total, which it is in the total. I think they need to make their case for that and not rely on the CPA to take a little piece out. I'm also very concerned with the process I don't all agree with the process of having private citizens make this application. I don't understand why the school committee, the building committee, the town recreation department, all those components didn't at all be part of the process part of this application. I just don't understand that. I think it's inappropriate. I think it's an inappropriate process and I cannot support it in the application at all for that reason. And I'm also very concerned. I somewhere in my notes, I indicated that there was an email from the executive director of the CPA Commission who said that we cannot award CPA funds to private citizens or private individuals, but the application application needs to come from this, from the school committee, the recreation committee, either as a sole applicant or a co-applicant that was not done in this case. And I think, again, it's just not a project we should support. Now, as for the political question of whether the citizens would be more apt to vote for the override if the CPA handled some of this, well, the total project costs is like one hundred and two million. The fields cost is two point four, which is about a two percent of the total. And I do feel that the school committee and school building committee, they need to make the argument to the citizens that is necessary, not rely on the CPA. And again, I'm starting to repeat myself. I just think for us to tie this money up, even if we bond it, even if we go through it, go into debt, that's going to really tie our hands in terms of other future CPA needs in the community and in the near and immediate future. So those are hopefully I was able to express some of my reasoning for that. And then since I have the floor, I'm going to indicate that I'm also concerned with the decision that the building committee made to choose the Fort River site, the Wildwood site was not approved. It was the Fort River site was initially opposed by the town manager, the town finance committee director, the town facilities director and the building committee decided to go with Fort River knowing full well that the fields were problematic and it would raise the cost. And for them now to come back and ask for the school committee, I mean, for the CPA to help bail them out. I just don't agree with that at all. So there's my there are my comments. All right. Thank you, Tim. We are we are looking forward not in the rearview mirror. We have decisions in front of us that we have. But thank you for your your clarity of communication. I did want to add one thing I had written down for myself to say, which was that my understanding is that the school committee did make a statement in support of the fields project for Fort River. I believe that they they did. Well, that's not the same thing as being an applicant. No, I understand the same thing. I'm simply saying that they made a statement in favor of it. And I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm just trying to communicate my understanding of the status. And the other similar to this being a proposal similar to the Jones Library CPA funds in my mind. Another one moment, please. There's another thought I had on this, which is slipping me at the moment I got distracted here. I'm going to call on Michelle and my thought will come back to me. Michelle, I see your hand is up. Yeah, it was actually about that Jones Library funding. I just wanted to clarify since I wasn't paying attention back then. CPA did approve the funds for the special collections. OK, and that's what we're using is somewhat of an analogy to the. OK, thanks. Yeah, and Katie. Yeah, I just had a question about the process of tabling and talking about this. Can we ask applicants to adjust or revise, evolve their application? If we table it and ask them to come back in January, February. We we probably should look at we can, I believe. I don't think we're prohibited, but I don't want to understand if that. I don't think we're prohibited. I think it's premature at this moment. No, no, I'm not even specific about this because I had a couple of other thoughts about other. I just wanted to understand what's possible and what's problematic about that. And this may not be an appropriate moment to ask that question. But before I. Think through my final recommendations, I wanted to better understand that. I believe we have the capacity to make communications, although we are discussing proposals in front of us. I see your hand, Sean, one moment. What the other comment I was going to make was that there has been another case in which residents have made a proposal for CPA, and that would be the pickleball courts in North Amherst that our committee approved last year. That was one that the applicants were residents, but there was a tacit recognition from town staff in the meeting that they were backing it. Again, though, obviously, there are many different opinions on this one. I think we should discuss at a later point than right now for the deliberation on these on how we may or may not wish to fund or support and but I am going to allow Sean Mangano to speak. I see your hand is up, Sean. So if you have something related to what we're talking about relatively briefly, that would be fine. Yeah, just in regards to kind of going back and forth with applicants, I think it's a slippery slope to start telling people to come back and tweak their proposals. I think if you're considering what's in front of you, you want to treat all the proposals fairly and give the consideration that now during this time and if you reject a proposal, you can always give reasons why you reject it, which would then inform them for the next time they want to submit a proposal. But I think it does start to get a little fuzzy if we keep the process open all year long and they're going back and forth with applicants. So my recommendation would be to consider the slate in front of you. And if you can't accept the project now, you just don't accept it, but you can give the reasons why so that they know for the next cycle. Thank you, Sean. And we do a comment came in regarding funding. We do have the capacity as a committee to award a lower dollar amount than what was requested, of course. We we can and we actually could award a higher amount if we felt it was necessary, such as may or may not be the case with HP or HPR is on historic reservations. I see a hand up, Robin would like to get back to the list. But go ahead, Robin. Yeah, just a quick question to clarify. I'm sorry, I just want to stay on task here with my screen. Sean's comment. My question is just can we reject an application with feedback? And because we have funds in reserve, that applicant could come back and submit a new proposal within this. But I don't want to call it grand cycle because we'd already be awarding all the grand cycles, but if we decided everything by January and somebody came back to us in January with a new proposal, we could consider that a new proposal. If we have those reserve funds from FY 23, is am I an off cycle proposal would be something to my understanding that the committee would have to request and or entertain. It's not a standard applicants can't just say, here's a proposal at that time. Please consider it. But we could consider it. In other words, it's not required for the committee to consider any off cycle proposals, but we have the capacity to. But I'd like to talk about those things after we go through the remaining. OK, I just wanted to the remaining projects that there's only a few more here. So thank you. Now, I believe I just spoke on the Fort River Fields project. No, Tim, you were the one who just finished speaking on it. And I believe you were the last one on that because we started with David. So the next project where we're talking about our ratings, why we gave it the rating we did in the straw pool is the War Memorial Bath House preliminary designed and the first person to speak on that one I have here as Katie. Yes. I mean, I I guess what I would say is I think our. Our public pools are really important to our community. It's extremely important that bath house could be utilized more than just for the pool in terms of sort of a comfort station for that area. That's a well used part of our recreation facilities at the high school. And I. I guess I rated it for because I thought it was important to have some design work done in advance, but I would not be promoting, providing the full amount in any at all. So that's why I gave it a four. I'm sorry, Katie, I didn't get that last is what you said you wouldn't be the providing the full amount. So you would not recommend the full amount. No, OK. Your hand is still up, by the way, Robin. I'm sorry, I'm typing and my hand is up and my speakers on. OK, next we have Michelle. We're talking about the War Memorial Bath House preliminary design. Yeah, I think it's I mean, fully in support of both of the War Memorial projects and updating them and keeping them functional, I too would be interested in supporting this partially. Thank you, Robin. Hold on. I gave it a five. I live right next to the War Memorial pool. I haven't been in there in a long time, but I definitely remember what it looked like when I was last there and it seemed like a very extremely valid and useful and beneficial project. I would say that I take into consideration people's comments about lack of design and possibility of funding at a lower level. Thank you, Andy. Thanks, Sam. I give this one a three. I like this project a lot, actually. So they may not really reflect that. I would also say given the momentum relative to the project relative with the track realignment and the fields, you know, as that builds momentum, it gives me more excited about this project because I think this is part of a larger recreational ecosystem that's forming around the high school. So I do like this project and I'd be inclined to round this up from three rather than keep it at three if once we get down to the hard deliberations. Thank you, Andy. So I'm next on this one. I gave it a three. I certainly am in favor of what can be done relating to the pools in the community fields area very widely utilized, not just by even though it's adjacent to the school, not by just school folks, but by the entire community pools. Very important, limited availability. When they aren't online, it creates issues for those with kids. When you're trying to get your kids to lessons or pools, you're familiar or certainly I am with the issue of trying to find a slot. Having said that, what I'm uncertain about is the town's capacity to actually consider such a project in their future capital plans. I realize it's premature for us to make decisions based on that. But given the volume of requests in front of the town, not in front of our CPA committee, all the different capital projects and the struggle to prioritize the existing ones, let alone new ones, my concern is if this gets approved and there's a great design that, well, guess what? It's not going to happen. Having said that, you know, an ounce of prevention or measure twice cut once can come into play where if you have a design, there can be further discussions. So I wrestled between those two juxtaposed thoughts and gave it a three. I really like the idea of an improved pool area, well thought out and well designed for the long term as a part of that whole area, will the town be able to stay for it down the road or not? I don't know. Maybe that's not our decision. Maybe our decision is whether or not we want to design in place. And I'm also not certain if it has to get done this year, as opposed to perhaps putting it off next year, uncertain. So I like it, but we got a tight budget. That's why I gave it a three. Next on the list here is Matt. Yeah, I rated this a four, which is a little higher than most of the other people, although I actually agree with pretty much what people have been saying. I think the timing of doing a design here is appropriate given the track project passing town council recently. So getting a design that takes all of that into account is timely. I've been convinced that the pools are important, that they're heavily used. I think I share sort of a concern, probably I think that some of the other committee members have that perhaps CPA should fund part of this and the town should fund a part of it. To Sam's point just now, what I heard from Amy Recyckey about the actual construction was that she would hope to receive a state grant to largely support the construction, but those grants were not available for the design. OK. Thank you, Matt. Tim. Yeah, I pretty much agree with all the comments. And I'm going to speak to the War Memorial Pool. Same time, I do think these are linked and we got a letter today, I believe. I looked in my emails because I had asked and we asked as a committee for the town department to prioritize the two projects. My understanding was if push come to shove, the prioritization would be the pool maintenance, which raises another question and that is whether CPA funds are appropriate for the maintenance of the pool liner, the water leak, the repair of the ADA equipment and so on. And if they are, I would rate that a higher project than the bathhouse design that we might wait till next year if we're tight on funds. So those I rated, let's see, I rated a three for the bathhouse design again for those reasons that potentially would love to get it done now, but maybe we could wait if we have tight on funds and I gave the War Memorial Pool a higher rating because I thought that was a more immediate need. Thank you, Tim. David. Yes. I'm listening to the comments and looking over the proposals. It seemed if though, when Tim has just mentioned some of this, that someone need to prioritize the projects that we've been talking about, a number of the projects are school slash recreational and the question become what can we think, what can we fund? What can we recommend that be considered for another year or another two years? But it's the project is needed. Just like most of the others. But will the resources we have cover that? Thank you, David. The next project is the War Memorial Improvements and Michelle, I have you as the first person to speak on that. Yeah, so I got a three on Andy's tool, but I would like to bump this one up after consideration. I think that I would give it four or five because of the urgency and the utility of it to the town and also just the public health and safety component of having a resource for people to take swimming lessons, which, you know, there's only then one other pool in the summer maybe to use because while Poffers is there, it's often not even safe to swim in for half the summer and it's extremely crowded. So I just think this is a pretty critical resource to the community. Thank you, Michelle. Robin, you're on mute, Robin. There we go. Unmuted. I give us a one. And I gave it a one because as I think my questions may be indicated, the majority of the expenses for the pool liner. Can you hear me? OK, yes, we can hear you. The majority of the expenses for the pool liner, which it stated in the proposal, needs to be repaired, I believe, every 10 years. And they'd reached that 10 year point. And I couldn't see a good reason why the town was asking for CPI funds for something that should be just a standard part of maintaining the pool and then the ADA portion. I was curious if they had considered community development block grant funds, which I believe can be used for some some ADA projects. So it just seemed like this was a project that funds could and should come from elsewhere. Thank you, Robin. Andy. Give the three. Another project I like. You similar to Robin, I'd love to see the town be able to chip in a little bit more here. I don't have maybe the same concerns relative to this being used for maintenance. I think that this is that I think that this is an appropriate use of funds. But, you know, I would I would be hopeful that the town would be able to make a stronger commitment to to this important recreational need. But there's certainly urgency here. So I, you know, again, I something got a three, but feel strongly might round that up once we get to the hardcore voting. Thanks. Thank you, so I gave this a three. It certainly heavily heavily used. Our pools are definitely an in demand resource, even if they're only used during the time periods where the weather is appropriate. Go by there any time in the summer and you just see tons of people. You have a hard time getting to parking space. So a lot of utility value, I guess, is what I would say about it. I understand Robin's comments about the maintenance, if I understand correctly, there are three different aspects of the proposal that was made. There was the ADA chair, there was the lining, and then there was some leaks or lack of a better two holes in it. If if we were to provide less, I'd be let me restate it. I'd be fully in support of the ADA compliance or the access issue and the any leaks affiliated with it. I think those are immediate. The question I have related to the lines, if I understood it correctly, is this does this need to get done at this time? That is to say, what would happen if they weren't done? If a new pool is going to occur in, let's say, five years, what would be the issue if the lines weren't done? Would that just be people swimming and, OK, they see a blurred blue line that's not perfect? Am I talking about the right aspect of this? I am not. OK, very good. So I will stop my comment. I'll speak to the first two. I saw Matt shaking his head and, Tim, it looks like you have something to add further, so forgive my ignorance in terms of looking through so much. I must have missed that one. You see, the other thing I was going to add was I did not think it was lines. I thought it was lining. OK. And the reason for the repair and replacement now was because if you had to like rip a section of the lining out to do the the leak repair, so this would make an appropriate time to put a new lining in that that was my only I guess it's a semantics question. It could actually be interpreted in both ways. Had I looked at it thoroughly, I remember the problem with the English language. Now, it is. And I remember the scope of the estimate that we had on the Mill River Project, which was less than this, but it was fifty thousand dollars for for painting lines, if I recall, at least painting the bottom of the pool. So that's my question. My question related to this was I think the ADA thinks you get done at any point in time, as soon as we could. That's my opinion. I don't think that's maintenance. I think that's something that broke and broke and needs to be repaired. I don't think it's standard expected maintenance. Let me put it that way. But in terms of in terms of the relying the pool, that's a timing issue. How quickly are we going to get a new pool in there? And what would happen if it were not done? That's why I gave it a three. I'm speaking more than I need to at this point. So Matt, I see Andy and Dave. So I I mean, I would have put my hand also if I wasn't immediately to follow Sam. So. I gave this a five. That's probably a little higher than I probably should have rated it, because I agree with many of the things the other people said. I do think this is an urgent project and should be done to soon to increase the reliability of the pool. I would prefer, I mean, the ideal solution here would be well, the ideal solution would be the town have this in their capital budget. A secondary solution would be a match between the town and the CPA perhaps, in my opinion, to clear up a couple of things. So I'm also on the Recreation Committee and we have had additional discussion about some of these things. So there's no consideration in the pool house site design of changing the location or scope of the pool. So the pool house site design is just for the pool house. And it's under all scenarios currently being considered. The pool would remain in the same place, same orientation, same size. So there's no thing of like, oh, we're going to fix the pool and then redesign and change the design of the pool. So from from Amy, that's my understanding. And that's why I don't actually see these two projects tightly linked. The lining of the pool as Sam said, I think I think people probably have an understanding it's referring to the I think the waterproofing, basically, or the painting, but it's more than just paint, I think, of the interior of the pool, the surfacing of the interior of the pool. And my understanding from Amy is actually if there wasn't a leaking problem, they would be able to maintain the water in the pool throughout the year. And that would actually increase the lifetime of the lining. So it would not have to be relined, have a lining replaced so often. So some additional thoughts. Thank you, Matt. Andy, do you have a quick comment? I see your hand has been up. Yeah. So I'm also with Man on the Rec Commission. And the point I was just going to make, I can't remember the number you might Matt, but Amy had indicated the gallons of leakage that happened on a daily basis. Two thousand gallons per day. It was I thought she may have said even 10,000. But yeah, thousands of gallons a day in its current situation. So when the when the pool is full, right? Two thousand gallons a day. Yeah, I mean, we all kind of double took on the call. But that's, you know, maintaining with this liner has that kind of environmental impact as well of throwing a lot of excess water and that would not be required with the pool in place. I don't remember she brought that up in in the CPAC presentation, which is why I wanted to. And that leaks into the town drainage system, I assume. I believe so. So she described it as a leak in the, you know, the way if you fill the pool and then you're trying to understand how it's a leak in that drain system. Thank you, Matt. David, I see your hands up, but you're right after Tim. So I'm going to call on Tim just for expediency, because you're going to have an opportunity to speak in a moment anyway. Tim, go ahead. No further comments to those I've made. There we go, David. Yes. I guess the question that I have or as I look at this, my materials, we talk about the bathhouse preliminary design. Why is to me, it seemed to be incomplete. We were talking about the pool improvement, but the. Bathhouse. We're also in the process of looking at a design for the bathhouse, which there's another major cost there to build or renovate the bathhouse or the pool when we look at this whole project in terms of the pool improvement, preliminary design, and just questionable for me. Questionable in terms of the design. No, not the design. The mere fact that I don't know the design of the bathhouse probably need, for me, probably need to be a part of the first thing that happened as we look at the pool. OK. Or both of them are done at the same time. Not the design. Once you get the design, what are we going to do? What can we afford to do? I understand. Thank you, David. Sean, I see your hand is up again. Yeah, I just want to clarify these two proposals. As Matt said, the pool is not moving. The pool, you know, the design would not include a new pool. The pool stay where it is. The pool project is just to repair the pool and do the ADA work that was described. So the pool project is just focused on the pool, the bathhouse design. It'll focus on the new bath, a new bathhouse. And then also the area around the pool and what type of sort of additional things should go around the pool. So they do kind of work together. And, you know, if there's a follow up questions, we can bring them back to Amy, but I don't I don't see these in conflict. They sort of go together. If I hear you correctly, Sean, to paraphrase, what you're saying is that and this is similar to either Andy or Matt said, I believe, or maybe it's the pool, if the however the repairs get done to try and eliminate the leakage and the fix the ADA compliance, that pool is going to remain functioning in that state as is even after the design and the new bathhouse are completed. The pool is going nowhere. So once the pools gets fixed, lack of a better term, it's going to be usable beyond the time that the new bathhouse comes into play. Correct. The new design would design around the existing pool structure. And I understand it. Great. So thank you. We've gone through the initial comments that we have. I'm sorry. Yes, I didn't get to this on this last one on the on the repair. I got distracted. I'm sorry about that, Katie. We stopped with David for some reason. I thought he was the last one. Please, Katie, proceed. Thank you. No, I just I had asked this question when they were doing the presentations and really still don't have clarification and maybe one of you do. But that when I'm thinking about the repairs that need to be done. So first of all, I'm in faith. I think I said the pools I think are really important to our community. I do feel similarly to what Robin had said about the lining. But I think the drainage repair and the ADA lift do seem to me to be appropriate and needed. And so I guess the question is if this funding isn't available until July 1, how can the drainage and pool relining and the ADA lift be ready for summer? It seems like there'll be a lot of construction ripping out. And and so I'm just wondering, does this then mean that there's no ADA lift for the summer of 23 or that there's going to be this 2000 gallons continuing? Is this more urgent? So I just I don't really understand the timing issue. And if somebody else maybe from the Recreation Committee or someone else could help me out, that would help me in my vote. I see a lot of Sean say it's my reflection from Amy's Amy's report was that they would try to do this immediately after this pool season. We can follow up with it and confirm. I thought they wanted to get the funding in place. So as soon as the pools close this year, they could do this work. So close in 2023. So I can I can say additionally. So the ADA lift is nine thousand dollars part of the proposal. And I'm not they do need to replace that before they can open the pool. So I'm not sure how they're going to fund that, but that will get funded one way or another, but it's only nine thousand dollars. Amy's Amy said that it's better to schedule things like relining the pool in the fall because you have a clear idea of timing. So her preference was actually to do that lining work in the fall rather than in the spring. Next fall. Correct. So there would still be there would still be a leak. Yeah, the next summer. And that that, you know, that's been ongoing for years. So but but at least it would get fixed in the fall. OK, and we haven't ever received this. I mean, I this is my third year and I don't think I've seen this request. But maybe I don't remember. My understanding is the leak has been getting progressively worse. OK, thank you. Anything else on that, Katie? No, that's all right. Thank you. So what I'm hearing from the responses that the applicant prefers that it be in fiscal year 24 for timing and scheduling purposes. So. Before you spoke and before I forgot you, Katie, I was going to say, let's take a slight break. Clearly, it was appropriate as I forgot to call on you. So. I'd like to take a three minute recess just so everybody can get a move around a little bit and or whatever and then come back. Sam, sorry, before we adjourn or take a break, can you then indicate what's next on the general? I don't happen to have that. What will we be just? What will we discuss when we come back? We'll talk about that when we get back. Sorry. Oh, thanks. No, seriously, by me, as you know, we're going to start looking at. We're going to start looking now. And I understand I'm debating whether to not participate in the second half. I just like to know what we're going to talk about, whether or not participate. Yeah, I mean, I have, I mean. Well, I've got. We're going to talk about budgeting and we're going to talk about whether or not we wish to change ratings. And then we're going to start talking about individual projects. It's not it's not a set. It's not a set of stuff. So OK, it's great. It'll all be substantive. Great. And but we can proceed when we return. Let's take a three minute break, please. OK. Sam. I'm going. Well, first of all, I want to stop sharing so that Sean can share his screen. He has will he have this screen available to us? Well, we've we've called some of some of the applicants in some of the departments and have come up with a suggested funding plan just to show everybody before. Suggested funding plan for for projects. On the assumption that all projects are approved. Well, no, no, that's what he wants to share with everybody. Where is Sean still here? Yeah, he is. You mean like like a town match or something or something or you mean a schedule? No, I think what's helpful for your conversation is to see how the funding could work. I think that helps way into your discussion. And it's not to say it's the plan. It's to, I think, promote conversation while about how it could be funded. And then there's pieces of other funding that we would like to sort of yeah, bring it to the mix related to some of the projects as well. So I got a combination. Yeah, I think it'll be helpful to guide in your conversation because, you know, we don't want you to go down a road of rejecting a project because you think you can't afford it when you might be able to afford it. So I think seeing how it all fits together or one way for it to all fit together is helpful. How long do you think that'll that'll be? I'd say it probably would take 10 minutes to do a quick quick quick go through. And then we also wanted to show you a part of that. We would show you the debt for the project, you know, for at least one of the projects that would likely be a borrowing, what that would look like. So you can decide what something the committee would want to consider on the assumption that the committee wishes to proceed with the projects. Yeah, I assume that's part of your deliberation. What what is the debt amount? Did you hear anything back from the two housing applications regarding any alterations in there? One of them we've spoken with, and that'll be part of what we want to share with you. Yeah, the only the only thought is we have yet to decide which ones we actually wish to proceed with and whether or not we wish to lower amounts, regardless of what the funding might be. In other words, there might be a dollar amount that you might present, but we may wish as a committee to only support certain projects for a certain dollar amount, regardless of borrowing is what I'm getting. Yeah, I think we would want to share is just one way to one way it could be done. OK, and then you guys obviously it's your committee's decision to change change it up, but we think this will be helpful for your consideration. We think last year this proved to be helpful when you're deliberating over different projects and again, it just gives you one way for a tall fit together and then you can still say we don't think a project should get that much and then it can be adjusted from there. Or you don't want to move forward with a project at all and it can be adjusted. Yeah, because we certainly have to go through each project with that mindset, which ones we may or may not wish to present and how much borrowing we wish to do. But it's fine with the recognition that this is just a hypothetical that you're indicating in terms of general mindsets for the committee about what things might be. But we, you know, I don't want that to be the final, you know, the committee needs to deliberate, obviously, because we have lots of projects to go through and some we may not want to go through at all. But if you want to present that at this time, as opposed to after we go through our next set of discussions where we would talk about our interests, that would be OK. OK, all right. And certainly appreciate and we need the support of the financial department with all the information that you provide us. So feel free to proceed for 15 minutes and let's wait till everyone. Let's see who's back here. I think everyone's back now. Is everyone back? So can everyone hear me? So if you just arrived, Sean has suggested that he provides an example of how projects might be funded if the committee were interested in doing so. This is not something that we're contemplating at this moment. This is just trying to provide assistance for us in getting a handle on the juxtaposition of the asks versus the projects. We're still going to have to go through each one to determine if we even want to support it. And even if it could be funded, do we want to fund a smaller amount? But it was quite helpful, certainly last year when we were at that point, slightly further ahead. So please proceed, Sean, for 15 minutes plus or so. Thank you, Sam. And I think this year, one of the things that makes it even more difficult is you have a lot of projects and they all scored sort of in the same. So far. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Can you all see my screen? Can you enlarge it a bit? Let's see. I can probably enlarge it a little bit. Is that better? It's better for me. Is anyone having difficulty seeing it? If anyone can't see it, just say something because I can't see in the list of people. OK. OK. All right. So. So what's here is the original. I'm sorry, I have to interrupt for a second. I can't I'm taking notes. So I've got my zoom window. And this is a technical question because I can't see it. I've got my zoom window minimized. I can't get to the control to maximize it because there's this note up about somebody has enabled closed captioning and it's covering the function where I actually expand my window. You can you can Excel that message there somewhere. Yeah, for the closed captioning thing, there's there's an extra. It's I think that's also off screen under the view options. There's a little arrow. If you clicked out, it says exit full screen or something like that. There's might be an option there. Oh, there we go. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So just so everyone kind of knows where we are. This column here, Jay, was the the proposal as it is over here. And yellow is sort of the initial one recommended way that could be considered. So for town of Amherst administration, we've left that alone for affordable housing trust development. We dropped that down to 250 from 500. And the reason why is because there are two really large housing projects being considered in this 250 essentially equals what Ball Lane said and their proposal that they would be going to the affordable housing trust as a request. And then outside of that, the affordable housing trust has about six hundred thousand dollars in their just in their account currently. So it felt like given the magnitude of affordable housing requests, we have this year that this seemed like a reasonable way to go. Ball Lane proposing the full amount that project hasn't received any funding from the town in the past or any, you know, in kind exchanges in the past. And that's a home ownership program, which is something that is a priority for the town. East Street School and Belcher Town Road, they had a large one point eight million dollar request. We're proposing four hundred thousand and then advising that wayfinders comes back and works with the town on our ARPA funding that we've allocated for affordable housing. And we also have existing CPA funds for affordable housing. And we've reached out to them on this and they seem to menable to that approach, at least initially is sort of a smaller award from the CPA committee and then working with the town and Dave Zomek and the town manager on accessing other funds that might be available. Rental subsidy program phase two, proposing just one year of funding given the number of requests that have come in just doing the first year and then additional years could be requested in the future, keeping the full amount for the paintings, full amount for the Dickinson Farmhouse Roof renovation, reducing the historic barn and outbuilding assessment program down to 10,000 from 15, but keeping the project in there. Removing the preservation restrictions. I think that was the general takeaway is that that shouldn't be part of this. So we've taken that out. Based on your conversation today, I've taken out this eye on church, but what we would do is we would leave that in the reserve so that based on what you said earlier, if you wanted to come back and consider that a later time as a smaller project, there would still be a reserve to do that. South congregational church steeple, the full project, what we're proposing for conservation area improvements to trails is two things. So reducing it down to 70,000. And we actually recently realized that we have a prior CPA project for Kendrick Park that didn't fully expend all of its funds, that we can repurpose for another sort of similar type project, a recreation project. So the amount that we have from that project left over is 70,000. So what we propose is reduces down to 70,000 and use that other funding source to fund it. So that'll show up in a new sort of a new summary of your funding sources. Hey, Sean, can you clarify that so that money was allocated towards one project and we're saying we can use it? Yes. So so it was allocated for Kendrick. We borrowed for it. It turned out that it actually came in less expensive than what we were anticipating, and so we can repurpose that borrowing for something else that. And we want it to be in the same category as the Kendrick Park project. And so we can repurpose it for the trails here. Is it repurposed or does it just go back into the pot, basically? And then we can it's more of a because it was a borrowing. It really has to be repurposed for another project. If it if it was just unexpended, it would be different. It would just close out into the pot repurpose for recreation. Yes, it's got to be repurposed. We want to repurpose it for a like purpose. You know how much there was 70,000. Remaining from Kendrick Park. Remaining from the original project at Kendrick Park. Got it. Yeah, so that 70,000 is not coming out of this year's budget. No, no, again, you'll see this as a new funding source to increase the amount of funds that you had previously, but it can only be used for a like project. Right. Cracker Farm Elementary School, I've spoken with officials at the school district and they are OK pulling this project back this year, given some of the issues you've all identified with design work not being done yet and waiting until the following year to request those funds for ever community recreational fields. That's just not I'll show you what the debt looks like. It wouldn't come out of this current year's request of funds. So it's shown here as a zero. But I'll show you what the debt would look like if you were to approve the debt. And then for the town, I'd say the priorities from the town projects are the two memorial submissions as opposed to the Cracker Farm Elementary project, because these two are more urgent eyes at moving those that move in that area of town forward in terms of its development. So when you add all of that together, that gives you two point seven, including the debts. And then I'm going to go over here real quick. So so starting with estimated funds available for FY 24, we're at two point four roughly. Lest the debt service for FY 24, which is four hundred forty three thousand four sixty, bringing in that new seventy thousand that I just described from Kendrick Park, we would propose using two hundred seventy one thousand of the prior year reserve to fund these projects for next year. And that would then give you sort of a total of two point two million for projects, and I would still leave two hundred sixty one thousand in the reserve that could be used for those other projects like the Zion Church. And that would be in balance. And then let me just show you one more thing before you go or I turn it back. So this is the updated debt schedule for CPA scores for the project. So we've got the housing authority that went off in twenty two. Rock Farm that's going off in twenty three or sorry, twenty four. Anne Wayland is going off in twenty four. Rolling Green is a large one that is going to be going off in FY twenty five. Groff Park will go off in twenty four. The Kendrick Park borough that we describe will be going off in twenty six. Those are all currently bonded and permanent financing, so the debt schedules are fixed. We have a number of bands with bond participation notes, which are sort of year to year short term financings. One for Belcher Town Road and one for Valley CDC. These will probably be rolled into a bond potentially the next time we go out for bonds, they'll move to permanent financing. And then the ones that have been approved but haven't been borrowed for yet because of the timing and confirming the project will move forward as the Jones Library project currently estimating that debt comes on around FY twenty five. Again, I could move forward or move back a year potentially depending on the time of that project and then the track and field project at the high school. I've got that as FY twenty five again depending on the timing that can move forward or back. So right now for FY twenty four, your total debt number is four hundred forty three four sixty for FY twenty five with the two projected projects. If the debt moves forward as we are anticipating right now, it would be five twenty and for FY twenty six, it would go back down to four twenty five. And now what we want to show you is if you were to approve the Fort River project, I thought it was two point two, but maybe I was off point two on that. But we modeled what the debt would look like at two point two million borrowed over ten years with a with a four percent interest rate. So we the debt we're having. Yeah, four percent long term rate. Is that the current rate for our long term bonds? That's what they're when we get reports from our financial advisor session. Recent upticks in the. Yeah, so so short term rates are much higher than long term rates right now. Short term rates are substantially higher. Long term rates, at least the last report I had, we're still in that four percent range. So projecting that out, this is one way to do the debt. This is a level principle where you pay the same amount of principal every year. So it starts out a little bit higher and then winds down each year as you pay off more of the project, the first year debt. Again, this could it could be FY twenty six. It's possible that debt may be as FY twenty seven. So this could get pushed back a year. But that would bring your total debt number for for FY twenty six. If this was approved and move forward according to the schedule to seven thirty three and then to six seventy six in the following year. What you're showing right now, Sean, if I understand correctly, would be the impact of fully funding the two point two million dollars for the field. Is that correct? Yeah. If you were to if you were to say we wanted the project, the only way you can really do it is to borrow for it under this scenario. Really, I mean, you don't have enough money to while I suppose you could reject every other project. But generally speaking, the only way to do it would be to borrow for it. OK, I have a question for you. Aside from the Port River project that you just showed on the go back to where you were just before with that number in red down below the two point five note the previous. Yes, scroll down. OK, you're saying. This includes the impact of what your town hypothesis would be. We, my understanding is we have one point nine million in our current fiscal year twenty four budget. We have some reserves. What is can you go over what you're showing us right now again? Yeah, so the one point nine million that you have is this estimated funds available, less the debt service. So that comes down to one point nine million. I see. OK. And then we're showing is adding in the seventy thousand using two hundred and seventy one thousand of the prior reserve or to fund two point two million, roughly of new projects, not including the debt, which would equal that would equal these projects. Can you go back to what you were just showing again with that two point two three because it's it's relevant down lower. Yeah, there. Yeah. So again, we have one point nine and you're saying that that one point nine million is derived from the two blocks that you're highlighting now, the debt service and the other. You're suggesting that under this hypothetical set of projects, we'd have an increase of seventy thousand from the Kendrick part, which might exist anyway, and taking two seventy one thousand from reserves from the twenty twenty three to allocate them twenty twenty four leaves a balance of two point two million that would be what we would have available. In other words, one point nine million plus two hundred and seventy one thousand plus seventy thousand, we have enough to fund two point two five three. And can you now go back to what your recommended options are the hypothetical and what's the total of that exclusive of the debt service? So the total of that is the future bonding, that is to say. Yeah, the total of that is the two point two. I see. So you're suggesting that what you're displaying right now matches what would be available were we to allocate two hundred and seventy one thousand from the cash reserves towards fiscal twenty four. And if we were to also include the seventy thousand, is that correct? Correct. Okay. I have a question for you if it's OK, Sean. So I'm curious what jumped out of me to me on this at first is the reduction from one point eight million to four hundred thousand in the East Street School in Belchtown Road Affordable Housing Project. Certainly it was a project that scored high in terms of interest from the committee. Did are you indicating that the applicants have understood or confirm that this might be a viable option for them? Yeah, Dave, are you Dave's? Are you there? I can't see who's in the room, but I can. Dave might be best to speak to it. Yeah, if it's OK with you, Sam, it's OK. Yeah. Yeah. And I and I do see in the attendees that that Jamie Gruber is here from Wayfinders, but I did speak with one of her colleagues at Wayfinders. And yeah, I was working with Sonya and Sean on on the plan or the the ideas that have been just presented to you. And I just want to make it clear that yes, so we have had a conversation with with Wayfinders. This is a project that, you know, the town is partnering on. As as you all know, we are going to land lease the land at East Street School and the land we bought at Belchartown Road. And I really just want to also say before I talk specifically about that that, you know, both of these projects, both the Valley CDC project and the Wayfinders projects are are ones that the town should support. They're bringing different kinds of affordable housing. I think we all recognize that they're both, you know, extremely positive projects for the community. Wayfinders, I think if all goes well, we'll probably be in the order of 70 new units in town. So it's a great project. So what I talked about today with staff at Wayfinders was the town supporting them at the one million dollar amount. And as Sean indicated, we if if you move forward, you know, in the 400 range, we would bring together ARPA funds or other CPA, previously approved CPA funds and bring Wayfinders to a million dollars. Now, having said that, it was clear to me that staff at Wayfinders said there may be a need in the future to come back. That's a many year project. The development of that project and the funding of it will take millions of dollars and they may need to come back to the town. And part of that is simply based on the climate, the building climate, where we're all working and living in, which is, you know, escalating costs in labor, in borrowing and in materials. So they're comfortable. There was a comfort level at a million dollars, but with the caveat that they might come back next year or the year after if they can't fund the whole project through other federal and state sources. Thank you, Dave. I do see your hand, Andy. I have one question prior to calling on you. So, Dave, thank you for communicating how you arrived at this. And just for yes, since there is a representative of Wayfinders, I want to make sure, you know, if if you need more information, you know, perhaps Jamie would comment, but that is the discussion I had with with Wayfinder staff today. OK. If I hear correctly in paraphrasing what you said, the proposal last was for one point eight million. You had communications in light of the partnership between the town and Wayfinders that perhaps the town could come in with support of one million dollars, which seemed to be amenable to both parties. And you're further suggesting that that one million dollars might be arrived at with four hundred thousand from CPA funds and six hundred thousand from funds that are available to the town via another mechanism, which might be ARPA funds, but if it were not ARPA funds, if I heard you correctly, you're saying it would come from the trust. Is that right? OK, you said other housing funds has previously authorized CPA funds for affordable housing. OK, so we would come to the table with one of those two sources or a combination of the two to bring that total support for Wayfinders project to one million dollars. And that that other previously awarded housing funding has been CPA funded awarded for other projects. So are you suggesting that it would be a repurposing for lack of a better term? No, it's not. It hasn't been awarded or or allocated to any other project. This is last year's. It was a broad project, Sam, last year. So it was it was generally what we provided for the one you first came to our stand with the eight hundred thousand dollar request a few years ago. Is that what you actually don't recall what the original. I'll take your word for what's five hundred. It was five hundred thousand dollars. OK, I understand is available for us to use to support the Wayfinders project. OK, thank you, Dave. Sorry to ask such direct grilling questions, but I think it's certainly helpful to me. And Andy, I saw that your hand is up. I'd like to call on you. Thanks, Sam. Sean, great, great summary here. This helps a lot. I remember in years past, you know, we come in and it's like what are we going to do and then you present this and and there's there's a path. So I appreciate that. My question actually glad that Dave's on. I think I may know the answer to this and I'm kind of behind in the bulletin. But the recent BFW purchase, is that impacted by you know, past CPA funding? Is that ARPA? I just I'm not up to speed. Well, anything we do here have impact on the BFW purchase. Really not not at all. We are going to use ARPA funds for that purchase. Paul Backelman with the authority has to to allocate ARPA funds allocated one million dollars to homelessness and the creation of supportive permanent supportive housing. So we're using ARPA funds to purchase the BFW and then we'll use some of the remaining funds in that one million dollar account for pre-development work. We'll demo the building with it, etc. So anything you do here is really not impacting the progress or the forward forward motion on that. Thanks. Thanks, Dave and Andy, Tim. Yes, this is a question for Sean. Your second item, the trust. Your suggestion is two fifty. And that is to cover the request in the Wayfire Finers project. That's they're requesting two fifty from the trust. And you're suggesting CPA fund two fifty or allocate two fifty for the trust. And that's the source of the funds. Yes, it was the Ball Lane, not the Wayfinders, but the Ball Lane project. Ball Lane, excuse me. In their proposal, they have a request to CPA for seven fifty and another request to the housing trust for two fifty. OK. So essentially what this would do would be to allow that that Ball Lane project to move forward and not have to take it out of the housing trust existing balance. You'd be basically awarding the funds of the trust in order to to award it. And that the housing trust, whether or not to do that, though, it would still be their decision. And my recollection is the existing balance is roughly six hundred thousand. Correct. So that would maintain the six hundred thousand and the and Ball Lane wouldn't dip into that. We would fund we would allocate two fifty. OK, I understand you would still leave them with a balance to be able to respond to something that comes up in the future. Understand. OK, thanks. So thank you, Tim and Sean. So if I look at this correctly, Sean, and thank you for putting this together and for discussing options. Can you go to the top again? What I'm seeing is the hypothetical changes that exist here. There's a few projects, but not all that are impacted under this scenario. Under this scenario, you're referencing a reduction in the affordable housing trust amount to two hundred and fifty thousand. You're referencing a reduction in the East Street School. Down to four hundred thousand. You're referencing a reduction in the rental subsidy program from two hundred and five to two hundred thousand, excuse me, two hundred five thousand to sixty eight thousand, in other words, three years to one year. You're referencing a reduction in the historic barn and outbuilding from fifteen to ten. You're referencing the not to consider the preparation of housing restrictions. You're referencing to consider at a later point in time, the Zion Church, a reduction from one hundred thousand to seventy thousand in the conservation area improvements and a. A reduction in totality or approval for both the proper farm and the Port River projects, unless there's a desire for the committee to go to bonding for the Fort River community fields projects. Is that correct in terms of everything you said was 100 percent correct? I'm not. We are not saying yes or no on the Fort River. I understand. Yeah, we just want to just figure that if you are going to do a borrowing. All right, well, great. Certainly it's very helpful for me, and I assume for the committee members to understand that there's the possibility of a reduced amount by apparently one point four million dollars for the East Street and Belchtown Road project, even though that could go forward under what you're considering, under what we're considering. So this is interesting. I'd like to. Can we go back, Sonia, to the chart that you had previously? Sure. Yep. Is that can that be enlarged? That's not enlarging it. Is that the largest it can be? That's a little bit better. OK, so committee members, I assume you all heard this. I'm not proposing at this point in time that we consider the slate of recommendations that Sean provided here in totality, but rather that we consider the projects and the value of the recommendations or the options that he's presented to us. Slight dilemma in terms of how we might proceed. I guess a couple of things come to mind. The ratings that we provided there in our straw poll are just that they were hypothetical ratings, they're not going to be what we vote. But I did indicate that individuals would have the opportunity to alter them. And so I'd like, yes, Matt. I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile just getting each member's like two sentence response reaction to Sean's sort of outline of of making this sort of from completely unmanageable and outside of the budget to something that's a little bit more realistic. Well, we're still going to need to communicate on the individual projects. Do the committee members think that they could keep their comments to two sentences? Does let me put it this way. Does any committee member have a desire to have a two sentence comment on Sean's presentation? I assume you do, Matt. Yes, I'd like to get to get like a while. I'd like to get a sort of a straw poll type of response from the committee if they can. Well, for right now, we're asking you if you have a comment on. Oh, just just for me. For me. I think that it takes the just the proposals that we we we received and the the discussion and puts it in a framework that it's it's a little bit more manageable or a lot more manageable. And and we could talk about differences from like it variations from Sean's proposal might be a faster discussion than than than reviewing everything that that's that's something that makes sense. Yes, Katie. Oh, I just wanted to agree with madam. I like I really appreciate the illustration that was given to us. And it's a great straw man, you know, for us to then have the discussion about. It's like it's a great tool to your point, though, Sam, you know, we have to go through each one. But I like the idea of going through it with the I with talking about funding and sort of is it more or is it less? Is it different than what's been proposed as an as an illustration? Andy. Agree with Katie, Matt, it's a path. And I think it's a more pragmatic and realistic one. Let's let's start from what we can do and then kind of tweak the edges. Also, I just appreciate that this brings in some additional conversations that we weren't privy to relative to what could be pushed other other means of addressing this. So I'm all in favor of think it's a great I think it's a great first pass and would love to just work from this. Additional comments from anyone? Yeah, Tim, is that I can go ahead, Tim, just quickly, Sean, I don't quite understand the reserves. Is my understanding is that you're suggesting we use some of the reserves, but for fiscal twenty four, you're not suggesting we use some of the reserves for fiscal twenty three. Yeah, so what the the previous plan showed was using some of the reserves to support FY twenty four projects. But that would but not all of it. It would leave roughly half as reserve for this year that you could use for the other. So you're suggesting using roughly half in fiscal twenty four and using zero in fiscal twenty three, at least in your proposal for right now? Yeah, because not deliberating on the twenty three projects at this time. Does anyone else have further any comments related to what Sean provided question? Whether we put Sean's numbers in this chart here or the one that he had there, would it make any difference? We don't necessarily need to see our ratings, but there is benefit in seeing them. How hard is it to just do exactly what is somebody's entering in right now? I think that's a good way of approaching this. So that takes what Sean suggested, everything except for the proposed bonding, the debt service for the Park of Farm, and this will allow us to continue to converse while looking at what we've talked about so far. So I think the East Street was the East Street, four hundred thousand, not one million, four hundred thousand. It was just wait a minute here while these get entered. What am I missing? You're missing the Ball Lane community homes. Or are you just adding the variance? You're just adding those that changed? Yeah, I see. You need to put a zero in those that were potentially zero, but. I'm calling them all in. OK, OK, give me a sec. Can you actually put a zero or not? I guess it doesn't matter for now. People can see that. And maybe an asterisk by the Crocker farm by the Fort River fields. Because you're so. I guess what makes sense here is. For us to actually. Talk about the concept of the fact that we are. We have potentially one point four million dollars reduced on the East Street school program, two hundred fifty thousand on the portable housing trust. And really the variance, the ones that have been removed. My comments as I as I look at these is I think we need to talk about those that have been changed and whether or not there are any that people are certain they wish to support or not support. I'd like for us to just go down the list. I think that's the way to do it. This is not a vote. This is us talking about how we feel about the projects in light of what we've heard and what we've talked about, whether anyone wants to change. I know it's not the quickest process, but there's a twenty five thousand dollars in administration. Do individuals have any opinions on that? That is to say, do they have opinions in terms of it changing? Sam, do you want to just go quickly by roll call? I mean, with, you know, I mean, it's not. Are we are we asking if we want to change our straw full votes? I mean, you know, because we didn't have any for the administrative one. Right, right. But I mean, that's essentially the question. I mean, I would be changing my votes on a number of these. I don't really comment on it. That would be fine. We can go through it. I'm curious what everyone thinks. Not in terms of straw full in terms of the administrative twenty five hundred. Yes or no. It's not not a vote. Thumbs up or thumbs down. I am in favor of twenty five thousand. I mean, of that slate, we aren't voting on it. We're just considering it. So you could put up. What would be an alternative next to a why? In support. Plus, you can put a plus for me on the administrative twenty five thousand or even a why, I guess. Michelle, what do you think about it? So I see that the historical restrictions have been taken out. Is that assumed that it's going to go into administration? And is that it is not? It is something that we would have to actually add to the projects to my understanding, and that's something I would be in favor of. I'd be in favor of altering the historic preservation projects to add enough to cover the historic preservation themes. Because we heard from the town from coalition. My understanding is that the historic preservation amounts can be awarded in the current timeframe, but not retroactively. So the current historic preservations, we could supplement them with this, unless the town had another means of paying for. We could supplement them with the funds specifically for them, but not admin. Correct. And that applies to the previous ones that are sort of pending or not. Previous ones were not discussing in this moment. OK. Do you have an opinion on the administrative budget? Twenty five hundred twenty five thousand. Not further than that. So thank you for answering. OK. Robin, what do you think about the administrative budget? Twenty five hundred. Andy. I'm fine with it. I'm wondering also just procedurally then. If this is just going to be, you know, fifty yeses, maybe we just be quick if we have an issue with it instead. Well, this is brand new. We have no. We have, I know, but if we're going to line, if we're going to line out in here, the other ones, it'll be it'll be changes by person as opposed to by line item. Fair enough. Thanks. I'm comfortable with this. OK, so you're comfortable with the twenty five. Is anyone. Well, let's go through the list. I'm comfortable with the twenty five thousand, Matt. No opinion, no opinion. Tim, I hate to ask this. Remind me, somebody, what those funds would go to. What is administration? So you don't want to jump in? It's not administration. Oh, sorry. We use it to pay our dues to the coalition. And we use it to for the advertisements for the open hearing. There it was increased a couple of years ago because we are trying to put together money to do signage for CPA. You know, this product, this is what your CPA dollars paid for or plaques on buildings or signage at trailheads and stuff like that. So we're trying to get that out. OK, yeah, that's fine with me. And thank you. I've forgotten David. Any comment on the administration? Not hearing. You're on mute, David. Can you hear us? I didn't see David signed back in. I can see him there. Oh, David Williams, do you have any comment? Twenty five thousand fine. OK, Katie, great. Yep. I'm OK. And Michelle, you said fine, I believe. Is that correct? All right. So there's no issues with that. I'm going to go person by person, even though we aren't required to go by our straw polls to see if anyone wishes to change their straw poll ratings based upon the conversations that they heard previously. This is not based upon the do we want to base? I don't want to predetermine the budgets yet. So does anyone want to change their straw polls based upon what they heard previously from the other committee members? Some people said during our discussions that they were comfortable making changes. This was 10 minutes ago. So I would raise my war memorial pool designed by from a three to a four. And I would raise my war memorial improvements from a three to a four. So I'll start. Those are the two changes that I would consider based on what I heard from our fellow committee members prior to Sean's discussion. I'm going to go across the list if anyone has any ratings that they wish to change prior to what Sean's displaying. This is based on what we heard earlier, Michelle. I like to change war memorial pool or pool of four and Fort River Rockfields to a three. Pull improvements or pull the pool. And what else? The Fort River field to a three. OK, do you get to Robin? Do you have any that you wanted to change based upon the initial comments from committee members? I don't think so. It's a little hard for me to think it through, but I think I can't hear you. Sorry, I think I'm fine. OK, Andy. Yeah, I'll just address mine in the phone. I'm good with this. It's done here. OK. I've already done mine. Matt, did you have any change based upon the general discussion? I'm not sure that the purpose of changing them. If you if you have a change in influence based on what you heard before, we start talking about the dollar amounts that are in front of us. Two step process. Not not not really. OK, Tim. No, no change, David. No changes. OK, OK. I can't hear you. None for me. OK, so now we have the ability to talk about each project with potential dollar amounts. There's two steps. One is, I guess this is kind of hard. There are some projects that are being considered for lack of inclusion, and I think we need to go through each one. Maybe we can come up with some for which we're in agreement first. And I'm going to look at the projects for which there are there seems to be consensus to as we go through this, does this make sense for everyone? In other words, this process of identifying those that we seem to be agreed upon and supporting a dollar amount makes sense. And then we can eliminate and talk about the ones that we have further questions on. Yes, Robin. So your question is, does it make sense? I'm a little confused. It would seem to me that I would change a number of my votes based on dollar amounts if that was the case for other members of the committee, that some of the projects might go into the dark green area. It could be great. So. Right. And so I'm trying to identify those that we might already agree on, regardless, in other words, without changing the dollar amount, taking the dollar amount as it sits, is there consensus on them? Are there some that we all agree? We might want to support, for example, the the conservation of five paintings by Mabel Loomis Todd for sixteen thousand four hundred and fifty. Does is there anyone who would not want to support that in any scenario? That doesn't seem to be anyone. Yes, Andy. I was just because all of the projects where the chance proposal matches the the applicant's proposal, I am in favor. Katie, you had your hand up. Yeah, I say I I don't know if this is helpful at all, but I hear what you're trying to do, which is prioritized. And if there's anything that we agree on, but for me, it's maybe just me, but I just I would find it easy just to go through and one by one and and then just say just I'm sorry. Go top down, in other words, start at the top and go through and just say, is anyone is if anyone's in disagreement with what's proposed, then we can have a people could speak up and we can have a conversation and it might change people's views, you know, or whatever. Project by project. Yeah, that that and then if no one has a disagreement, then we can we know that we have consensus or I'm hearing. I'm seeing a couple of thumbs up in the audience. That's a fine way to proceed as well. So the question is, do we start from the top or from the bottom? The big one is going to be the Fort River fields, of course. So let's start from the top. We have the Affordable Housing Trust consideration of two hundred and fifty thousand instead of five hundred thousand. Is there anyone who would want to support a lower or a higher amount than that? If at all or not supported at all? I guess we can go through the list, Michelle. I guess I'm just thinking about this little differently now because it's solely now for Paul Lane. And so it's not a fund that funds other potential needs for the for the trust. So my consideration of it is sort of tied into Paul Lane. So I'm interested to hear what other people say about it because to me, those numbers are going to interact to actually. Yeah, OK, Sean, go ahead. Yeah, I just want to clarify my rationale was Paul Lane. But if you were to the trust, it's, you know, it's up to them to just determine how it's not guaranteed for Paul Lane. So Robin, do you have a comment on this? Fort River Housing Trust. I'm highly in favor of it. Two hundred and fifty thousand. OK, Andy. In favor of fifty. Katie, I see your hand is up. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Were you going to go? I'm going sequentially, but I see your hand. No, no, no, I'm I'm I will stand down. I would support a lower amount on this with the potential for using some in a different project, given that there's an existing balance of six hundred thousand in the affordable trust, I would consider these funds for some that may currently have no dollars on them. That's my thought. Matt, I am agreeable to two hundred and fifty thousand. I would also be agreeable to a lower amount. Yeah, Tim. No, I feel fine with that. OK, David. I'm fine with that and will not agree with a lower amount. OK, Katie, I did. Oh, OK. The Ball Lane Community Homes at seven hundred and fifty thousand. That aligns with the request. Does anyone have comments in turn to if that dollar amount makes sense for them and their interest in it? Michelle. If I go this way, Michelle, you'll be the first one every time. Is that problematic where you would rather we stagger it or are you OK going first? I actually have to grab my cord. OK, so we'll go to Robin. We'll do it the way we did before. Robin, I'm in favor of this amount. OK, Andy. In favor of this amount. OK, this is another one where I contemplated a slightly lower amount, although given the at least that was my previous disposition, given the given the fact that we have freed up a potential large amount of funds from the street school, that desire for less is not as big as it was before. Matt. I'm in favor of this amount. OK, Tim. I'm in favor, but I have a suggestion to save time. Can we just have the people who have a have a problem with the number rather than just calling on everybody and saying they agree? Does that make sense to me? I think it'll be quicker to do it this way, actually, Tim, because it's just a one word answer from others and I have a hard time sorting through the sorting through picking everybody reasonable suggestion. But let me see your hand, Michelle, we'll get back to you. So, Tim, do you have a you said you're fine? It's fine. OK, David. I'm fine with it. Katie. Yes, I'm in favor, Michelle. Yeah, I didn't mean to raise my hand. I'm in favor of it. I would also support a lower amount allocating some elsewhere. OK, thank you. So East Street Project 1.8 versus four million. Essentially, what this indicates is that instead of the one point eight, the town, the town of Amherst would buy two different avenues, seek to provide one million instead of one point eight. Dave, Zomac has indicated that there's been some amenability to that. So we're going to go the way we did before. So, Andy, you would be first on this regarding four hundred thousand. This amount. OK, Matt, excuse me. I'm next. I am in favor of this. Matt, I'm in favor of it. Tim, yes, fine. David, yes, Katie, yes. Michelle in favor, Robin, in favor. OK, and Andy, you already spoke on this, correct? Yes, yes, I did. So the next one is the rental subsidy at sixty eight thousand. I'm not in favor of this. I would like to fund this at the full amount of two hundred and five thousand two hundred for three years. I believe there's efficiencies of operation and consistency, particularly when you're dealing with housing. Those at risk, I think it's a very successful program that has demonstrated a track record of achieving results. And I would wish to I would not wish to reduce the request to one year. My opinion. I'm OK with one year. I don't I prefer not to use CPA funds for this purpose. Tim. I actually liked your idea, Sam, and where the question is where we get those other funds? Something else would have to give and perhaps they'd come out of the trust funding because take it out of their balance. I don't know that's just my thinking on that one. You would prefer a higher. I wouldn't prefer. I just I think one year is fine. Nice to fund it for more than one year. But if we go up up from the sixty eight four hundred, where would we get that other those other funds? Since Sean's analysis basically allocates everything according to what funds we have available, so we'd have to something else would have to give. I guess that's a discussion we can have as we get through where people think on these. I would come up with a few different alternatives as to where to get that funds from. Well, OK, my answer short is I'm flexible on that one. OK. David. I supported you support the one year funding. Yes. OK. Katie, I would be in favor of supporting at least two years and would highly I'd love to do three if we could. OK. Michelle. It's for three years and I think that money can come from Pauline. Thank you. Robin. Um, I highly support three years and it seems like the money might still be able to come out of reserves. I'm not sure. OK, Andy. Yeah, three years would be ideal for me. Three years with Michelle. I think maybe if we pull from one, I would pull from ball lane first, but reserves if that's viable with opportunity to. I've heard five people in favor of three years, two or three years and one is flexible. I would suggest that we consider changing that amount to the two hundred and five. And then think about where we get it, where we reduce it from based on the fact that five members is the majority. Could you maybe just leave the original number in and like highlighted or something just so we'll call our attention because it's not the other numbers written down elsewhere, right? Say that again. I think it would be useful just to leave the sixty eight number and just highlight the cell so we'll know to come back to it. Right. Green sixty eight. I don't recall what one third of that was. I think it was sixty eight four. That's a fine that would be fine. I would actually change the background of the block green so that we can really see it as opposed to the as opposed to the tech, the font of the numbers. Can that be changed? There was one way of doing it, although I'd actually there was a significant interest in that one. So we see that's highlighted. Conservation of Mabel Mabel Taun painting sixteen four fifty. I spoke first last time, Matt. Agree. Tim. Again, I for that small amount, I'm not sure why we wouldn't just try to fund it, have them come back and ask for the money out of the fiscal twenty three funds and just be done with it. But do you want to fund it? What do you want? I would not fund it for twenty four. I would have them come back and ask for it in twenty three. Next year. No, this year. Oh, you mean have them come back and ask as a cat preserve to come out of the existing five hundred thousand dollars we have in reserves right now, we can transfer reserves into this fiscal year and apply them towards this group of projects. Is that not correct? Sam, can I? One second, Robin, Sonia, can we transfer? OK, I'm not going to be that was just my six. I'm fine with funding it, but not a problem at all. Hang on a second, Sonia, are we able to allocate existing fiscal year twenty three reserves? Are we able to put those take them out of reserves and use them towards the fiscal year twenty four budget or not, you'd have to you'd have to table it and thank you. Yeah, Robin. I think it might be. I'm not sure when the moment is is going to be when it's helpful to clarify the appropriate use of fiscal twenty three reserves. Yeah, now is the moment I have a comment. I'd say not now. I'd say we go through these and we have that right there. But Tim, your your comment in terms of your preference for how it's funded is noted, David, I'm fine with it. Katie, I'm in agreement. Michelle, agree, Robin, fully agree. Andy, love it. Sam, very much in favor. Matt, did you speak on this yet? Yes, I already did. You already did. OK, very good. I don't have it in front of me. So I'm trying to remember which one was I agree with it anyway. Yeah, very good. Thank you. So there's very high level of agreement on this one. Doesn't freeze here. There's going to be a need to change it. Dickinson Farmhouse Renovation. This is listed at ninety seven twenty ninety seven thousand twenty dollars. Tim, I believe you're first on this. Why are you not? That's fine. OK, David. Fine. Katie, I'm in favor. Michelle agree, Robin agree. Andy agree. Me too. OK, and Matt. This is one I could defer. OK, so that is considering that one for another point in time, although there's a lot of folks here. I mean, I mean, no, no, I'm not deferred discussion. I mean deferred to a future year. That's what I meant that eight of the members were in favor and you're thinking that you might like put it at a later point in time. Farm renovation project assessment program. Fifteen thousand with a request for ten thousand. What do we consider on this one? David, I'm fine. Katie, yes, I'm in favor of this. Michelle, I'm fine with it. This was sort of a lower priority for me, but it's a fairly small number. So I'll go on with consensus on it. Andy. Yeah, I go, Michelle. My only question on this one is these the CPA coalitions reference to the ability to use the funds for private benefit and, in other words, would it or would it not qualify? I'm in favor of it. So unless there is something that indicates that it can't be funded accordingly, I'd be fine. I would actually consider it at the fifteen thousand dollar level as opposed to ten thousand, but I see the benefit of the pilot nature of it. So either way is fine by me. Did I miss somebody here? You missed me. I'm sorry. Oh, Robin, go ahead. I'm sorry about that. Yeah, my intention, OK, ten thousand is fine. We've never done it before. That's fine. I assume you're in favor of possibly higher on that. Ten thousand I'm good with. OK, and Tim, I am good with that. As long as when we write our final report, if this is approved, we say that it's for a pilot program. OK, and David, did I call on you on this one? No, I'm fine. OK, and I believe I spoke with you on it already, Katie. So the preservation restrictions for CPA funded projects that's being put to zero. I guess a separate question affiliated with this is if we would wish to alter the funding for the historic preservation amounts, such as the historic such as the Dickinson farmhouse to include the funding needed to create the historic preservation restrictions, we could have that discussion whether or not to add the HPR dollar amounts at a later point in time. But it's something that is in discussion here. So there's a dollar amount currently for the preparation of preservation restrictions for CPA funded projects that 20,000 and do we wished we could use these funds if we wished for the current CPA historic preservation projects, if I understand it correctly. Anyway, I'm talking more than I need to on this. So the dollar amount is zero at present. We started, I believe, with David last time, I think. So I'm going to start with you, Katie. Yeah, I was confused over this and sort of who should be paying for this and how. And I understand the importance of it and I. But I think zero is fine and maybe we could have a further discussion about this in terms of going forward. Yeah. OK, Michelle. I mean, if we're not increasing any of the other costs to account for it, then we're just creating another backlog of these things that need to happen for next year. And if you know it might come back to CPA next year, I hope that it's considered again, but in general, I'm in favor of actually supporting it. Supporting what? Funding the conservation. So you would like to see you would like to see a dollar amount included in here. OK, Robin. Um, if the town has taken it off the slate, then I'm going to defer to the tense judgment. And so I support not funding it for the recommendation. OK, Andy. That seems Robin. OK. I have the same thoughts as Michelle on this, which is I'm uncertain how we you know, if this will be an issue with existing with current projects to be approved. I don't want to approve the past and the consultant, but I do have questions about if this is going to be an issue for any of the existing historic preservation projects, because I don't think it's appropriate to ask them to pay more down the road and we can't do it retroactively. If the town's judgment is that it's fine the way it is. And it's not just a funding question, no problem. So I have two thoughts on it, Matt. I'm in favor of not funding this. I would prefer to see a clearer guideline from the town about solving this problem. OK, Tim. I'm actually in favor of it. My understanding is in favor of funding it. Yes, because I think the town because I believe the town's position was they would take the number out of this, but then redistribute that 20,000 to the other historic projects or basically allocate the funding by increasing the requested amounts from the historic preservation requested projects. But maybe I misunderstood the town. So if we put zero, we aren't going to do it. And I don't think that's wise. I don't think that's what the town said. I think they're trying to do it and they're just not succeeding right now. Well, Sean has his hand up. Yes, Sean. Yeah, I think, you know, I think talking with they are our perspective would be I think the same way you recommended, which is add them to the other projects. I think the CPA Coalition said we shouldn't have a project that's just to do these restrictions. It should be added to the individual. So so we'd be in favor of support of that if you were to increase the other ones by a few thousand dollars each or something to reflect that. And perhaps the town could come back with a list of other projects. Although I don't know if that's how that's going to fly. But thank you, Sean, for clarifying. Tim, does that well, if that's the case, I would favor putting the 20,000 back because it's going to affect the total. Well, we can we can revisit the individual because we'd have to actually add them to the individual projects. I know, but for now, why don't we put the 20 in and then at some point when we redistribute, take the 20 out because it just affects the total. Right now, it's zero. So that two million six ninety six really should be two million seven thirty seven sixteen six. My understanding is it's about four thousand dollars give or take per historic preservation project, according to what I heard from the presentation. And so if we had three historic preservation projects that we were approving, it would be somewhere around 12,000 dollars. Sean, do you have a comment, Sean? Your hand was up. Is it down? All right, that was that was left over. Robin, do you have a comment related to this? Yeah, I was just going to say if we add what three or four, whatever the town recommends to a project, the funds are they have to be a it's a reimbursable request. So if the cost comes up to be two thousand dollars, then the money just goes back into the product rate. You're suggesting that it's preferable to add them to the projects? Can I suggest that we just add? I'm not sure if it's three or four. Do you can answer that, but we could add it to the projects and then deduct it. That would be that would be my suggestion and deduct it from the admin admin budget. I'd like to let's hang on on the admin first because we could deal with that with cash, cash amounts. So I'm not a trader at present to remove in the admin budget until we talk about it again, which we could sign up. Well, I just want to remind everybody we still have fifty three thousand dollars in previous year, we can come back to that. The question at the moment is the do we wish to allocate anything for this twenty thousand dollar proposal, which the town says zero and in conjunction with that, if we make it zero, do we want to add them to the individual projects? David, your hand with that first. Go ahead. You have a comment, David Zomek. Yeah, very quick. I would add five or six thousand dollars per project. I mean, this is OK to the project. This is yeah, this is going to be legal costs. I mean, two or three thousand dollars, if you all know how far that'll go with with attorneys and and or consultants, it doesn't go very far. But I would add a minimum of five to six thousand per project. And I I think it's a good idea. Andy, yeah, that's a good thing to say to me. All right. So what I'm hearing is that let's continue with this discussion on this one. The consensus seems to be that we can add it to the individual projects for those that are in favor. I was speaking with Tim, were you the last person to speak on this? Yeah, and I guess based on what Sonia just said, I I would go back and reduce it down from twenty five thousand. We can get to that. OK, so on this one, though, it's your thought that it's OK to have it zero, but to then would know that I understand that. I just I just didn't want it to not happen if it was zero. I understand. No, I think most folks here are in agreement with that. David, we're talking about the zero dollar amount on the preservation restrictions. Does that make sense based on what you've heard? I'm in support, but that is need some clarification. OK, questions of being asked that I don't think we're getting. I'm not getting the answers that I think we should be getting. OK, my suggestion on this, who did I start with here? Katie, have you had a chance to talk on this one? Yes, I think I started. OK, so my suggestion on this one is that after we go through all of these projects, we will come back and we will discuss certainly the adding four or five thousand dollars to each of the historic preservation building projects within this spreadsheet context. But for now, to allow us to continue with what we're doing. There's one alternate way we could do that. We've only had one historic preservation project so far, which is the Dickinson Farmhouse. Let me ask this. We have a spreadsheet that references ninety seven thousand and twenty dollars. Would would the folks like would I'd like to ask the committee members if they would be in favor of having five thousand dollars to cover cover legal expenses for historic preservation restrictions to this project, which we could then if there's any excess it gets kicked back. So I'll start and say I'm in favor of adding five thousand dollars to the Dickinson farmhouse for the renovation and I will do so for the other historic reservations. Matt, are you in favor of that? OK, Tim. And I understand that you want to have it reduced elsewhere. OK, I guess I'm totally somewhat confused in terms of maybe being an old town meeting member. I didn't think we could add any funds to applicant. We can only decrease funds. I believe we can add them if we can. I'm in favor of if we can't, then I would just put it in the individual line item. But I don't Sean or Sonya. Are you aware of whether or not we can give more than requested? I believe we can. Yes, I think that's a council council can add. Right. The council. What the council can add can or cannot cannot when based on your recommendation. But I think you guys can add. We can add it. They can't add anything to what we recommend, but we can add it to the applicant request. Yeah, that's my understanding. I mean, we'll go back on it, but that's right. OK, if we can add, I think that's a cleaner way of doing it. OK, not. Yeah, I would say. OK. So let's put it up there with five does five thousand. That's what Dave is telling us is desired for these. So let's go through the list. Let me. I said yes, Matt said yes, Tim. You're saying yes, David. This is our yes. And I'll just say yes. OK, Katie, I will say yes. If we reduce the administrative. Got it. Yeah. That's an if we'll get there, Michelle. I mean, yes, to all of those. I'm not in favor of reducing administrative too much because it'll probably be needed, but I also just want to ask if it can be restricted to be used for the historical restriction or if it's just going to go into the pot of money and, you know, if they will probably need another five thousand dollars if it might get overlooked, we will. We will track it. We will make with our request the recommend the reference that fees for. I would only be in favor of that five thousand could only be used for those purposes, because I'm hoping that I'm hoping that it wouldn't always cost five thousand and some of it would roll back. Correct. I believe we're all under the same assumption here and we can communicate that within our request recommendations. Who is the last person to speak in terms of being in favor of this? I was. That is Michelle Robin. Perfectly in favor. Can I just I just have a question about time, Sam? About what? About time, I'm just noting the time. Yeah, and it would be great if we could get a sense of what how late we're expected to go each meeting and when the time rolls around that we should be winding down that we check in and see how much further it just by nine o'clock it gets hard to not have a sense of when when we're going to wrap up. It's not there's no specific time. I'd like for us to, at a minimum, continue with the historic preservation projects and get a sense of the committee. I don't think we'd go past another 45 minutes here. I think it's important that we make a little progress on what we're talking about right now. I don't know how quickly it's going to go, but I think going through this one time while we're all here and it's in hand makes sense. So I'd like to continue. And I hear what you're saying, Robin. The next topic, the next item person to speak, we heard from. Was it you, Robin last? Forgive me. I just gave it the thumbs up. You gave it Andy. Yes. OK, and I already said yes on this and Matt did. So I believe that's everyone's in favor of increasing that one. And Sonia has already done so. Historic barn. We already went through that proposal. We went through the preparation of restrictions. Everyone said no, if we did it elsewhere. The next one is the Zion Church. This has a zero dollar amount on it. It is an historic preservation project. But this one might be a slightly longer conversation. I'm going to skip ahead to the South Congregational Church first and then come back to the Zion Church. The South Congregational Church has a request of two thirty three two eighty nine. Could we add five thousand dollars to that, Sonia, for the purposes of our talking about it? I'd like to start with. Michelle. Yes, in favor. The problem is in favor. Andy. Yes, I'm in favor of it. Matt, I'm in favor. Tim, favor David. Yes, Katie. Yes, OK. So this next one is one that I'm not sure how this discussion will go, but let's open up talking about the preserving the Zion Church, which currently has a zero dollar amount recommended for it. This is an interesting one because it's a question of whether or not we want to hear more details on this project or whether or not we want to fund the proposal in its current application form. I believe Robin, you're first on this one. So are we weighing in just on whether to load the project with another five thousand or we're not we well, we could we could do so because for any historic preservation project we're going to need to. So, yes, I just want just trying to figure out what we're on here. Please put five thousand to the less of this project as we begin discussing it. Uh, the nature of my answer is that sorry, my brain is getting a little tired. I believe that we should not be. I am in favor of funding this with FY twenty three funds either while ideally at what the revisiting of the proposal, I would like to see it excluded from FY twenty four funds with the provision that the expectation is that something would be funded with. So your reference would be you like the project, but you'd like to table it for discussion related to future fiscal year twenty three application. OK, Andy. Yeah, actually, the exact same answer that. And then in terms of that five thousand, then whether it would come off or we would just roll that into that future discussion. So your thought is you're in favor of tabling it in relation to a more specific proposal in terms of what they want to have done for their urgent short term need. Yes. OK. And are you also in favor of funding it with cash reserves in fiscal twenty three as opposed to fiscal year twenty four? I am OK, because that's something that I don't know if it was factored into this or not. I don't think it was Sean spreadsheet had a two seventy one balance in the cash reserves, if I understood correctly, if we were to fund this, I believe it would reduce that amount further. My opinion on this is I'm in favor of funding the most urgent need affiliated with this in. Ideally in fiscal year twenty four, but I'm not sure that they're going to be able to come back with a proposal in time. So I'm in favor of I would be in favor of tabling it for a further discussion. We might even be able to get more information by in advance of next week, since we're not voting on it now anyway, Matt. My sense is that the final amount combined with twenty three and twenty four is going to be something like that one hundred and fifty thousand plus the five thousand. So my concern is that's going to come out of what in this Sean's proposal, the reserves, which is going to basically leave with very little final reserves, because he's already using two half of the reserves and then this would take most of the rest. Right. So my concern is we're getting we're starting to run close to the edge. So are you indicating you are in favor of supporting this project or not? I think I think I think I think that everyone well, my I am in favor of supporting roughly that amount, because I think that's what's going to actually happen. Yep. But then my concern is we're going to have to find some savings elsewhere. OK. Tim. I would agree with that. And I think we need to better understand what projects would what would receive allocation from those reserves. I just don't understand that. And I would agree with Matt that we should be careful about using the reserves. I would put zero for reserves for fiscal twenty four are used, but spend them now to reduce the reserve amount, if that makes sense. The other question I had was I'm not at all comfortable with a five thousand historic preservation for a quick repair or during an emergency repair. I think we should wait till they more fully describe their project before we put in a historic preservation. It just doesn't make sense to me to put an historic preservation for a quick roof fix for a reason for a small amount of money right now that just doesn't. So that would be a comment on that one. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Well, I know that, but true. But you're saying you fix it without a restriction if it's an emergency. Yeah, for an emergency, it's an emergency repair. But the ones that's repaired, then we have to debate whether or not we can't do much more with that. And at that point, if we allocate more money, we can put on the five thousand for the historic preservation. David. I support the project. Yeah, that makes sense. Yes, it does. Katie. Um, yeah, I don't want to make this zero. I'd like to support the project as discussed before in terms of the urgent need and what, you know, the hundred and fifty or approximately. So. How it gets done, whether it's reserves or not, is you know, it's that's we can figure that out. I want to make sure that this is I just want to say note something that Michelle said earlier and I'm sensitive to this, too. And I think Andy referenced this and I don't want to lose it, which is, you know, we have two projects that are very similar to historic churches. And one is, you know, a fairly well resourced in terms of numbers of people and community members supporting and another that isn't. And it does seem like it's important for us to take that into consideration. And so I I really would want to emphasize the support for this project. And I also just want to say that I do think reserves are meant to be used at some point, and especially in a year like this, when there's so so many requests and that, you know, the reserves got built up over time because. You know, we had the ability to do that so that for a moment like this it could be used. Michelle, did you have a chance to speak on this one? No, but I echo Katie when I met talking about resources for this project was that there was a lot of participation in the application for the South Church. There wasn't really that available resource, not necessarily money, but just investment and the kind of people that were able to submit. So I don't want it to get overlooked because they may not have been able to have time, I support this and I don't know how it should be funded. But I'm I'm in favor of. Sonia, can you highlight this box, please in yellow or green? It seems to be yellow is the standard to the right, because it seems that the committee members are in favor of doing something on this project. And the question is how we're going to fund it. That's what I'm hearing from from folks. And so this is one. But again, we're going to have to discuss at a later point in time. It's a could you also highlight, Sonia, the administrative budget of 25,000, even though we said we're in favor of it. I'm hearing people referencing that as a possible offset to the historic preservation restrictions that we're considering. I'm going to push on a conservation area improvements as a request for 100,000. Sean's Sean's the town's references, seventy thousand dollars. And what are our general thoughts on this, Michelle? If yes, I'm in favor. OK, Robin, in favor. Andy, in favor. I'm in favor of a lower amount. I'm not sure what that lower amount would be. It would probably be twenty five to fifty thousand dollars based on the fact that there's existing funds. Matt, I'm in favor. OK, Tim, in favor. David, I'm in favor. Katie, I would recommend a lower amount. OK, so this one we have a couple of folks who, you know, this is for general discussion, we can visit these. But there's certainly majority who are in favor of it. Crocker farm playgrounds, this is biggie. And the first person on this one would be, I believe, Andy. Currently, the request is three million. Their actual crime rate was for two point two million or two point four million, I believe. Crocker farm. Oh, we skip Crocker farm. Excuse me, Crocker farm four hundred and fifty thousand dollars is a reference for zero dollar amount. Andy. Yeah, if Doug Slaughter is comfortable pulling it, I am too. OK, so am I. I'm in favor. I'm comfortable with zero next year, Matt. I'm comfortable with zero. Tim. We. Pardon. We. Agreed. OK, I couldn't hear it. I couldn't hear it. David. I'm fine with it. Katie. Yes, agreed. Michelle. Agree. Robin. Agreed. OK. Next one is the Fort River Community Recreation Fields Project. The application initially was three million, the actual request based on subsequent communication, I thought was two point four million. It might be two point two million. Sean had a zero in this. Would the suggestion that it be funded through through a bonding, possibly be funded through a bonding mechanism, which would add a fair amount to each. I'm not in favor of the current total. It's of the of the total in the spreadsheet, nor of the total of the request. The request is too much money, I believe, for our budget. I am in favor of allocating a small amount to this, not the request, not be a updated request from the applicants, but a smaller amount conceivably taking some from the other large projects, whether it be the affordable housing trust or the bowling community fields. The amount I would be considering would be a small amount, given the fact that this has to go forward in front of the, as we all spoke before, in front of the taxpayers to see if they want to do it and let us a small percentage of it. So my Ag of C would be for a one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand for this. That's me. Matt. So you are just a question of clarification. You would request one hundred and fifty or two hundred and fifty thousand out of FY 24 funds. I would one way or another whether people. No, I would request that to be bonded or funded otherwise. OK, so I I support a zero dollars out of 20, 24 funds. Yeah, I would support bonding a partial amount. So, for example, just the materials portion. You're you're saying not the fields portion, but you're saying the. Well, like half of the fields portion. OK, that's sort of you support bonding. Very good bonding, but not the full two million. I understand. Tim, I support zero and zero. David. I support. I support the project. OK, Katie. Wait, David, are you supporting it as it's here is. Bonding for three million or. I think two point two. That's excuse me. Yeah. David, are you saying you support the project? However, we're able to fund it, whether it be bonding as opposed to as opposed to the current fiscal year twenty four one point nine million. Who did you ask that I'm asking you, David? Oh, if that's the direction we need to move in the town and the committee CPA committed aside, then that's where we should go. So you're you're in favor of funding it one way or another. Sean, yes. Here's two things. One, the email we got from the applicants was two point two million. OK. And just a reminder, if we did go with that, the debt would start sometime in FY twenty six or twenty seven. Got it. Yeah. Thank you. Katie, did you speak on this one yet? No, not yet. I still feel I yeah, I I have to be convinced about the timing of this and and and would only, you know, favor a lower amount and and debt financing, but I still have to be convinced. OK. Michelle. I would favor a lower amount of debt financing. Lower amount of debt financing. Yeah. OK. Robin, did you speak on this one yet? I have not. I'm with Katie. I have somewhere between Katie and Tim. I definitely don't support it as it stands. And I might be in favor of a smaller amount, but we don't have room for it in FY twenty four and I don't understand quite the urgency for it. So I think I'm more of a zero zero, but it's such a confusing project that I understand, Andy. I'm going with zero zero. OK, so we've heard from everyone. There's a mixture of some who want to support some via bonding, some who don't want to support any. It certainly warrants for the discussion. I don't know. I would put a yellow next to it in that it's one we should talk further about if you're able to, Sonia, the yellows mean different things to different folks, I guess, inside. Yes. Somebody speaking. Sorry, it was me. I interrupted you. I apologize. Yes, Katie. I'm just wondering for my sake to have to be convinced or to have a better understanding, more information, I I'd like to know where the town stands on this. Well, they're not there's no comment and there won't be a comment. Is that all I've heard I've heard from Sean is that they want to be very careful about the communication, the financing for the school projects and communicated all in one go, which hasn't happened yet and hopefully will happen in a month or so. So we heard from the school committee who indicated they were in favor of recommending the fields project in general as it relates to the school. But at this moment, we don't have further information and if there is uncertainty, that's certainly fine to influence how someone feels about it. So Sam, just sorry, one procedural question that I've never I don't think in my time we've tabled something and then revisited it, say, in January, February. So is that possible so that when I was just going to say just that that you table it, it's going to be a borrowing anyways. Right. And that can come off cycle because there's the debt service doesn't happen until later on. So I suggest if you need a lot more information, when we get more information that we can give you, I would just table it for the for the time being. Let's keep it yellow, meaning I'm certain because we may we don't know if we're going to table it or not. But right, I just want to understand if that was possible. Thank you. We have different opinions on this, which means to me that it warrants uncertainty regarding the budgeting amount. We're highlighting the ones that are in yellow at present upon initial review of the committee members that have consideration for redoing. I would if we're going yellow on all of these, I would make the rentals. I would make the rental subsidy one highlighted in green, if you can, Sonia, since it is distinct from these other ones, that one had pretty much unanimous, not unanimous, but it had a majority of folks who were in favor. Can you turn the number four rental subsidy phase two to a green background, please, or light green background? And I won't do that with the administration because we've had consideration to redo it, but it's a distinction when we come next week. So we'll know what we're talking about. Two other proposals here. I believe we went through everybody on the Fort River. Did anyone not have a chance to speak on Fort River? Did you have a chance to speak, Michelle? Michelle? Yes, I spoke. OK, so we went through all those two more and I want us to let's go through them since and then we can stop for the evening, since this is an initial understanding. I think it's all for us to give us a step of where we are. War Memorial Pool, we started with who spoke first on Fort River. I think it was me. So, Matt, War Memorial Bathhouse Preliminary Design, the suggested budget amount is two hundred thousand. I'm in favor. OK, Tim, I'm in favor of both. OK, David, I've been in favor. Katie, I'm in favor. Michelle, in favor. Robin, I'm in favor with the caveat that if we needed to take money from somewhere and put it into the rental subsidy, this might be a possible place. Andy. I'm a yes. And I am in favor as well. Next one is the War Memorial Pool Improvements. Tim. Oh, I just said yes. Fine. Yeah. David. Yes. Katie. I would go lower. OK. Michelle. Yes. Robin. Lower. Andy. Yes. I'm in favor based on what I heard this evening. Matt. I'm in favor. I think my ideal solution would be the town capital budget supported part of it. OK. So I think we've made significant progress in terms of turning in where we're going thanks to the input from Sean and his staff and David. We still have further discussions related to how we're really going to get to financing these a few of the big ones are what are we going to consider to do with Fort River and are we going to what are we where might funding come from the rental subsidy for the rental subsidy program, whether or not we're going to go off budget related to Zion Church in meaning cash, cash reserves. And that's the majority of them. There are differing opinions. We do still need to consider what we may or may not want to have in terms of our capital reserves. We can, you know, what would be the desired amount for us to retain in capital reserves for lack of a better term? Tim, I see that your hand is up. Yeah, I was just before we leave the meeting. I would like like Sean's probably going to do it anyway. But I would like to get a copy of that spreadsheet on the debt, you know, the debt schedule that he had proposed when the library debt is coming on when the whatever the other one was. And then what his proposal was for the debt coming on for some of the other big projects, the impact of the debt related were there to be bonding for the he showed a spreadsheet of that. And I love a copy of that. OK. I see another hand up, which is David Williams. His hand is down now. It's back up. David Williams. Yes. An observation. Oh, a question first. It is my understanding. Be sure that I'm correct before I make my statement that the deserving design church. Receive zero in funding. That it has not been determined at this point in time. We have highlighted it as something that we need to identify how we might fund it. Members have expressed interest in meeting the immediate need of this. And the question is, would we seek additional information from the applicant with more clarity on what they propose and whether or not we would fund it with cash reserves or whether or not we would fund it with fiscal year 24? That's my understanding. The thought was we could table it at this time with the consideration to fund it through fiscal year 23 reserves. But if we were to do so, that would reduce our cash reserves balance. So it has not yet been determined how we wish to proceed with that project. What we've done here, none of them are final. But we've tried to identify where there might be consensus or where there's certainty of further discussion. We have a few highlighted in yellow where we know we need to discuss further. That would be the administrative fee minor. But do we want to reduce the HPR funding for the other projects from that? There is the rental subsidy support for raising it to the 205. Although how are we going to do that? Because it's as you know, potentially a zero sum game. Potentially we could also find there is the Zion Church, which there seems to be a recognition of the need to deal with the immediacy of the roof. But how are we going to do so? And then there is the Fort River fields project where there's quite a distinction among the members in terms of how they want to proceed. So it is not yet a zero. We have not voted on any of these David, but we are trying to get an idea of what we think about them. Does that help at all? Thanks. OK, Michelle. Just quickly, before we discuss taking money out of admin, would it be possible to see the fees and some kind of dismantling of what is an admin so we know just how what we're taking from? Sure. We can revisit that further as well. I don't think we're going to make decisions at this point in time, but you're asking for clarification for the next time when we discuss how much we might be taking out of ads. And Sonia did indicate there's a budget amount. We could look at what the current budget is on it and what we have spent in past years. There may be some expenses coming for signage, David, and our committee has voted. Really, it's been a couple of years at this point to fund signage throughout, including conservation trails to add the fact that CPA could contributed to these, but that has yet to come to fruition. When that occurs, there'll certainly be a drawdown on the administrative fees. At least that's what we allocated the funds to. But we don't have details. Certainly, we can get a budget update from Sonia related to the and we may have already seen it. We can highlight that when we begin to discuss that, if that answers the question. Yes, great. Thanks. OK. So we've talked a lot. We haven't come to conclusions on anything, but we seem to be moving towards consensus. The areas that I'm seeing a significant discussion are, you know, what do we or don't we wish to have in cash reserves? In other words, is there a minimum amount that we don't wish to go below or not? It's funding that we can do and how might that occur? I am there's uncertainty on a few projects here. Specifically, how how might we proceed with the preserving Zion Church? And if we funded that, where would the money come from? There seems to be an interest in that and we may or may not seek to. I don't know how we're going to proceed on that table or not. And there's also uncertainty related to the Fort River recreational fields. Does anyone else here? Is anyone else here aware of uncertainties related other than the four that have been highlighted? I say that with the caveat that we may wish to adjust some of the dollar amounts of the unhighlighted areas such as Ball Lane, Housing Trust, whatever it might be to fund some of the uncertain projects. But is there any comment anyone wishes to make about something else that is of that we have not recognized that we need to further discuss on the projects? So let me let me take a quick show of hands of committee members to see. It's already nine thirty seven. We typically go from six to nine, but this time of year is a little bit more problematic. There are two factors here. It is it is December 15th and soon it will be the holidays. And there's a time element affiliated with things we probably could, based on our discussions to date, come to conclusions in one more meeting. That's my belief. But if we were to stop at this point, we need to schedule a subsequent meeting, which would be December 22nd, which is a Thursday. I would be available for that meeting. I'm curious if other committee members would be available at that time. Or let me rephrase that. Is there anyone who would not be available for next Thursday? I see Andy, would that mean you wouldn't be able to participate at all? Or you wouldn't be able to be in the moment? I'm not sure the difference means, but I would not be able to make a meeting on that Thursday. OK, how about others? I think it's important that we have all our committee members to chime in on their thoughts on the projects, because there is, you know, there is great significance of them. I'm also I'm happy. I mean, for experience, I'm happy to start interrupting. I'm happy to email you with with my thoughts. OK, that would be easier as well. Well, I couldn't I don't believe I can vote on your behalf. The alternative to not meeting next Thursday would be to continue on now. That seems to be not ideal or to schedule a time different than next Thursday. So, Matt, you're shaking your head. Does that mean you wish to meet next Thursday? Can't hear you. I think we're done for the evening. Right. And I'm trying to before we're done for the evening, identify when we're going to meet next and it could be next Thursday. I'm trying to get from the audience what time frame would work. Are you suggesting, Sam, either that either next week or the 29th? Or are you suggesting going into January? I'm not sure what the I'm not suggesting going into January, because Sonia, I'm not sure how that works in relation to the town council and everything. Do you have thoughts on this matter? Um, just for clarity, we we already had the date of the 22nd budget. I mean, scheduled. OK. On the. Yeah, I mean, I think we should go ahead and meet on the 22nd. And Andy, you can provide communications. Is there anyone else who might not be able to make the 22nd? OK, so. That's what we're going to do. Are there any I think we've made significant progress, progress to the point where we're really going to be able to hone in on things that are next meeting? I realize it's a protracted process, but I think it's a necessary one, given what's being discussed here. Yes. When do we expect to be voting on the slate? Is that at the next meeting? Not this evening. No, I don't understand that. Do we expect that the next meeting will be actually voting on the slate? Or is that further discussion with another? That would be that would be the hope. The hope would be that we would get we would get to a point where we can do so. But until we get to that point, we can't vote. And, you know, it's a function of our discussions, really. I'm not going to set a deadline that we must vote at this day and prevent discussions from occurring. I'd like for us to continue with the process that we're using. And I think we're honing in on where we're at. So I just wasn't sure if there was if there was a deadline deadline. There's not a deadline deadline, but I would like for us to be able to complete it next week. I think we can do so, whether it be tabling items or voting on funding or voting on bonding, I really don't know the thought processes. We would have what we need to be able to do so next week, because I think we'll be able to focus right on particular issues or budgets and financing, because we have a pretty good idea what everyone thinks about each project at this point, at least to my understanding. So. I'm going to go ahead and call on members are here with the recognition that soon will be ending this meeting. I see two hands up. I see Andy just withdrew his hand. Now it's back up. Andy, do you have a comment? Yeah, I was just going to ask Sonya, could you email this to me just so I have the revised numbers for. Tim, I see that your hand is up. Yeah, I would certainly want us all to get this sent to us. My question, my concern is that we should vote when we have 100 percent participation. I do not feel comfortable if a member is not going to be there to, particularly with some of these controversial projects. I think we need everyone in attendance. So I have a real concern about next week, unless we clearly understand how Andy feels on this. I don't want a project to be either approved or shot down because of the absence of one member. I I don't. What I'm hearing Andy is there's no way you can meet next week. Is that correct? That is correct. We could conceivably try to identify a different day where we could delay things further. My preference is that we complete the work that we have at hand and potentially we could identify another day in the week where we could meet. Is it just Thursday for you, Andy and or your folks? We could do it. Do it all. Go ahead, Sonya. Is everyone available on the 29th? Twenty nine. That's New Year's Eve. No, it's not. It's the day before two days before New Year's Eve. I was just going to say that and I appreciate that comment, Tim. The I guess another idea is you meet you though. If anything is within one vote. Then I don't know. I mean, you could you could approve a partial slate, but the only the only way I'm going to sway something is if we have a tie or we're within one vote. I don't know that there's a project necessarily where we're actually that close. But I think you know, and you know, I can't make next week. If someone else may not be able to make the the one after. So here's the question. Is there we could conceivably make tremendous project projects progress next week with a final vote with everyone attendance if we wanted, is there anyone who cannot make the 29th? Tim, is your hand up? Oh, sorry. My hand was up, but that was a mistake. Is there is there anyone here who could not meet on the 29th? I just don't know yet, honestly. I've got so you might not be able to meet both. We've not formalized or finalized our plans for that week. I would not want to say I could definitely make it. I might not be OK. Given that, I think we need to meet next week. And if we get to the point where we choose to delay voting on projects, we could do so. But I think we should make progress and try to go forward. So we'll retain our meeting for next week. And Andy, I hear what you are saying regarding if there's something that's close. It would be good. I agree with Tim for us all to be able to be present to proceed. But at the same point in time, it's on our calendar. It's on our schedule and we need to make progress. And even if that's progress is to come up with a slate that we choose the majority and not all that that's one way of doing so. Any further comments from anyone? I'm sorry, but because I'm doing some traveling the 29th, can we agree to meet on the 29th or not? If we don't agree not to meet on the 29th, that's going to be helpful. If we agree, we are going to meet. I need to know whether we're going to meet or not. It's a function of what we get done next week, Tim. Oh, you mean we might be done? It's possible. If there's unanimity among seven members and then that would be a majority, regardless of Andy's presence or not. OK, so I'll just tentatively put something just in case. Got it. Thanks. So we have a schedule for next week, which we will meet currently listed as six to nine. I realize we ran over today. I'm glad it did, though, because we finished out that portion that we needed to. And we'll see about the 29th. And Andy, you're welcome to provide me comments and or thoughts on anything you wish to make. Unless I see comments from others. I'll shortly adjourn the meeting. Asanya, if you're able to provide that spreadsheet, Shanya or Sean to the committee, that would be great. As well as the debt listing through 2026 that Tim was referencing. If we have further questions or comments regarding some of the issues that came up, if we have further information regarding some of the issues that came up during discussion, we'll provide those as well. So with that being said, I'm going to adjourn the meeting at nine forty seven p.m. with our next meeting to be next Thursday, the twenty second at six p.m. Feel free to email me and it's on. Thank you, everybody. Yeah.