 Bring anyone in who needs to be and then I'll. I'll say the magic words. And the recording has started. Nope, we have an audience member, but it's not a committee member. All right. Then I will call the meeting of the Community Preservation Act committee to order at 6 o'clock 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 4th, 2021 pursuant to Governor Baker's order suspending some parts of the open meeting law. We are meeting remotely by zoom. This meeting is being recorded and will be posted to the town's YouTube channel. Will you rename Diana there? Sorry, I was looking for the agenda. So we might see Dave Williams, but that's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. That's the only one person who might show up soon. Because Anna will be late. Okay. All right. Well, then let's proceed. Robin very kindly volunteered to take minutes last time. Do you remember that Robin? Robin. Oh dear. I'm here. I'm here. Yeah. No, I did not remember that, but I'm ready. She will. Well, we can see what you're doing. So. Yeah. I can always just watch the tape. Just yeah, let me get my last time I did. I did this at work. There was no tape. So actually funny story. And ended up being much easier to make the minutes from when you don't have the tape and you just kind of have to summarize from the little chicken stretch that you have. Sometimes taking minutes is a little. Well, it keeps it, it keeps it shorter. That's for sure. Okay. All right, but I need to take roll call. And so you answer out loud so we know we can all hear each other. All right, Sam McLeod. Here. Katie Allen's Obell here. Andrew McDougal. Was it. Sarah Isinger. Awesome. Diana Stein. Here. Robin Fordham. Here. And Sarah Marshall. That's me. I am here. So we are missing Dave Williams. And Anna Devlin got here at the moment. All right. So our first order of business is to review minutes. We have two sets, one from. November 19th. Gosh, so such a long time ago. Is everybody who's ready to, to speak about those. I did receive email edits from Katie, Diana, and I think Sarah Isinger. So I will incorporate those. I think I emailed comments long time ago, like back in January. So before our January meeting, so you might look. Yeah. All right. Does anyone have anything? Oh, hello, Dave. Can you, good renamed week. Good. All right. So we are just turning to them draft minutes of November 19th, 2020. Does anyone have any. Substantive comment. That we might need to discuss. Robin, you'll have to speak up if you do. I'm good. Yeah. All right. Then hearing none. I will move that we accept the minutes as amended with the small edits that people have. Email to Anthony. Is there a second. Sam McLeod seconds. All in favor, please raise your hands. Robin says, I, okay. Robin says, I, so that is unanimous. Eight votes. We have one member absent. All right. Thank you. Next are the minutes of. Our previous meeting, our prior meeting of January 21st, 2021. I think I don't think I emailed any comments. Andrew was late to the meeting, I believe. I even look back at the tape. I, I noticed because the number of votes didn't match the number of people. So it looks like others. Also. So perhaps under members present. Just note that. Andrew McGoogle was late. I think Sarah Eisinger was also a little bit. Late, but I don't think you missed any of the votes. So maybe it doesn't. It's not material. Sam. I'm not sure if that needed to be addressed or not. So I thought to indicate simply that. Andrew was present because he was at a later point in time. If the standard protocol going, you know, is to reference the time of arrival, then that should be done. I wasn't certain. So I submitted it as is. Yeah. I don't know the time of arrival. I think Anthony, if we just put in late after, you know, or arrived late or something you said. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Adequate. Okay. I am. No, no. Diana. I was going to say sometimes people put in. The time when someone arrives and then it's clear why the votes are different. And I did have a question about something in the minutes. Go ahead. I just want to find the line so you can explain it to me because it's something you said, Sarah. Sarah Marshall added that these projects also pay a reduced tax rate and the town will benefit from that revenue stream. So I had trouble in my head. Figuring out why a reduced tax. It's going to be a benefit. It's going to be a benefit. Yeah. Could you explain that to me? Because it will be affordable housing, not market rate housing. It's taxed at a lower rate. Right. It's more than now. I mean, we don't, we don't even have to put in reduced. I think we could just. Strike that word. I think what's confusing me is why a reduced tax rate would benefit from a reduced tax rate. I mean, I don't think it's going to benefit from a reduced tax rate. Well, the housing, the housing does certainly. But, but it also will generate more tax revenue than it does now. Because it'll be. Okay. But I think that would help to modify it by saying. We will get. New tax revenue. Then we're getting now. Or more tax revenue than we're getting now. The way that was linked. I found puzzling. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Just point me to wear in the minutes. This is. I was going to say this. Diana's comment is actually about the November minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we. Okay. Well, we just voted on those. All right. Wait a second. Is that correct? Let me just look here. Yeah. It's a, it's the November minutes. The end of section five. All right. Well, then I. I'm sorry. Even though I think the minutes basically are fine, I still think it would be helpful. To include that. Okay. Well, since we passed a ship, can we make a note of it now in today's minutes? So, so the line, the line reads. Sarah Marshall added that these projects also pay reduced tax rate and the town will benefit from that revenue stream. There. One doesn't follow from the other. Right. They could be two separate sentences. I guess. Yeah. Revenue from that property. All right. Is everyone okay? Letting Andrew just. Yeah. All right. So now with the January minutes. It was also a point. I'm sorry. Robin talked about notifying the people, people about. Saying that there is a CPA exemption. And I think it would be good to include. In the minutes, what that exemption is. Can we attach. There was. Can we attach the document that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what that means to us in which we spoke about. Spoke to. I mean, it's the assessors. I mean, I mean, I mean, I don't think you actually went into too much detail about it. In the meeting. So I think a reference. Yeah. I mean, there's probably a lot of detail that. I don't know. I don't want to misrep. Misrepresent what the abatement is. We point people to the assessor's office and they can find out what's going on. Yeah. Yeah. Didn't it have yet to be created. That the assessor was going to create something. Yeah, we've done, we've done all that we need to do. And, and I think the motion is correct. We had viewed this language and that's, that's what. No. Okay. I just found it. I think that outside reader talking about this tax exemption. I mean, Robin, I know mentioned in the meeting. That she would qualify because. Of her income or something like that. I. I don't know. I think that it's, it's, I mean, it is the purpose of the, of the meeting was to direct people to the assessor's office or have this and have the assessor's office change their webpage. It wasn't to. Explain what the exemption is and it changes every year. I mean, it's not something that's static. So there's no point in, you know, and it depends on how many people in your household. I think, you know, just to, and I mean, the minutes are what we talked about. I mean, you know, you know, it's not really a directive to where to go. So I don't sense any groundswell for altering. Desire to alter that. Language. Okay. Okay. All right. But. Always appreciate a close reading. Anybody else. Comment. All right. I had one. I'm going to go back to my own. Writing. This is in section five. CPAC fall schedule planning. Oh, I think it's, I would propose adding a. Sentence or a clause to. The short paragraph ending. A week on October 8th, 2021. I'm going to go back to the short paragraph. But publicize and then add, but or, and publicize the proposal window ahead of time. Because, because we want people to know several months in advance. When the proposal period will open. So they have time to develop their proposal. And vet it through the proper channels. And not, not for a long time. Okay. Is everybody all right with that? Sure. Okay. Anything else? What's the phrase theology again? Can you confirm it? The edit. And pub and publicize the proposal window. Ahead of time. All right. Okay. Then. I would move that. We accept these minutes as amended. Is there a second? Yes. Diana. Thank you. All right. All in favor, raise your hand. Robin speak. Hi. Hi. All right. Thank you. It's unanimous. Eight in favor. Okay. I'm in stain. Sorry, sir. I, since I missed like half of that meeting. I was going to abstain. Okay. So that'll be seven in favor. One extension. Okay. And one absence. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to be caught up. Hot up with that. All right. So we now have. If any members of the public are in the audience and want to say something. This is the. That moment. The gauge. And your mandolin. Or maybe it's a ukulele. A ukulele. Oh dear. I don't see anything. So. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. Sorry about. This, my name is big gauge. I live in North Amherst and I'm appreciate all the hard work you're doing. I'm here just to listen. Particularly. Sarah, let me know that the history trail is on the agenda. And we're a Jane Wald. Also the historical commission also. Let me know about a meeting they have next week. When that, when our project is on the agenda. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. But we're trying to just modestly listen and make sure we. Understand. What the status of the project is in particular. First of all, I really appreciate everybody's. Efforts to make the process work better. And it's a whole new timing and everything, which I fully understand. And I know how hard this kind of thing can be. And I really appreciate everybody's effort. And that's what we're trying to do. To comply. Consistent with the criteria. That's what we'd like to do. And we did start with a historical commission last, the last. And they were enthusiastic, I think, but I think we were naive about. The specifics of the criteria. So we're paying super attention now and touch with some people at the state level and. You know, if it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. That we think will enhance North Amherst. An appreciation of some history that we're really concerned not to lose. So thank you. Sorry about the picture. I can't make my camera works. There seem to be zoom gremlins today. Thank you. The picture I have on crutches was when I was recovering from the flu. I took up the ukulele. I didn't even notice. Well, that's cool. That's a good use. Yeah, forced immobility. I have to say, I'm sorry there was a miscommunication. This, your project is not on our agenda. I think initially the meeting was posted with an old agenda. And then it was corrected. I think it's not going to be on the agenda. I don't know. You may be interested in, but it's not going to be specifically about. Oh, okay. Well, I, I don't know if I'm still on audio. I've read the old agenda. That's what I was responding. But we are talking about, um, we are discussing, uh, allowability around historic preservation projects. So. Well, that's great. Matt. The frustrating thing. I think for everybody was we. You know, I think it would have taken, you know, we just wanted to know, do we qualify? And it's, you know, Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Sam, can you mute yourself if that's banging. In the background. I'm not making. Okay. Pots and pans. I'm here alone. Okay. Maybe it was it next. All right. No one out. No one else from the public wishing to speak. Yeah. All right. Do not see any other hands. Okay. All right. Then I want you to give a couple updates. Um, as you know, in early, early February, I presented our fiscal year 2022 recommendations to town council. Anthony and Holly and Sonia were all there. Um, I think that was well, well received and then turfed to the finance committee, which, which, which always does and always will. Um, that, uh, CPA recommendations, CPAC recommendations from their point of view. And that meeting just happened. This past Tuesday, Tuesday, Monday, just this week, a couple of days ago. I think that was, uh, Anthony was there again to help, to help me and Sonia. Um, and there was, uh, there was a good discussion, but, um, and I'll get just some of the. Kind of things that are on their mind for that we can address. Going forward. All right. But they did the, the finance committee did, uh, uh, they did a lot of the special collections thing, which is totally separate and council is not yet ready to, um, think about that project. So all the, all the cash kind of cash awards, um, that whole set has been recommended back to town council. I don't know when they will vote on it. But. Uh, it's next, it's next on their agenda for March 22nd. I don't know. I don't know. I'm sorry. Council. Council. Okay. Yeah. The last step now is for town council to. Vote and they can vote them as a package or they can vote that up or down. You know, as they like. And as we know. They can decrease awards. They cannot increase awards or obviously make any new. Any new awards. Anthony, what was the date again? March 22nd. Thank you. Okay. Oh, I also wanted to tell just to let you know, because you will be interested. I think that the Belcher town road purchase for affordable housing. Uh, that, that it was bought. Just a couple of weeks ago, I think it's all, it's all done. The town owns it affordable. The municipal affordable housing trust hopes to issue an RFP. That, um, uh, at the end of April or by the end of April. Um, that will ask for affordable housing. Proposals for affordable housing projects at both the Belcher town. Road site that is purchased with C CPA funds and the East street school site that we have heard about in the past, that was surplus. Um, I don't know if you've heard about that. Um, town property, which is now being made available for such a purpose. So, you know, we'll see, we'll see what happens, but. Yeah, it's great. We were able, we were able, and they were able to move and counsel to move fast and, uh, make that happen. Okay. Lastly, I wanted to let you know that Sam and I had a meeting. Um, with the city council. So not a quorum of any committee. Some of the members of the. Participatory budgeting commission, which is something that the charter, um, Said will exist. I don't remember if it's a kind of a limited term thing, but, but their task is to. Um, decide what that would mean for Amherst to have a, um, a meeting with the city council. So they are talking to any, any kind of group or part of the town that, um, has, has money. So they had some questions about CPA. And our work. And, uh, so we had a, like an hour, just an hour long discussion with them. So. We'll see they, they shared their draft notes. I assume at some point. I, I, I could certainly share those with you if you want to see, but I, I expect that. In the next couple of weeks, we'll get their final, the final version of their notes of our meeting, which they will then present to the rest of their own. Uh, committee. So if you'd like to see them, I'm sure I can make those available. All right. Any questions about those? Okay. All right. Then I'd like to turn to the schedule for fiscal year 23. I think Anthony hopefully has a new. So as I was saying in the pre-meeting, I have been locked out of my office computer this evening. Um, and that is not a document. I thought to email to myself before the meeting started. I was hoping to send it to the committee. But perhaps I should just send it to the email tomorrow. And I'm not a member. So if there's feedback, you can send it to me. And. Does that make sense? Yeah. Gosh, I was hoping, I don't know. Do we have to. Do we have to vote on it? No, I mean, I mean, up and, I mean. Up until now, Sonya has just set. She said, here's your schedule. Okay. I'm not sure. I think it's more collaborative than it. Yeah. So if I can just send that to everyone in the morning. As I was saying before the meeting started, this has been happening all week. And I'm not sure why, but I cannot access my files right now. Well, that sure makes working from home hard. And I seem to have an unstable. Connection. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. It's not me. So just thought I'd say that ahead of time. Right. Like I said, zoom is, I don't know. Collapsing. All right. Okay. So there is a schedule. We just don't really know exactly what it is right now, but. That's good because then. That's something we can. We can share it with other people. We can start sharing it. Okay. That just, that reminds me, I don't know why. So I guess throw this into back into chairs updates. I know that several of us have appointments to see pack that expire at the end of June. I'm one of those, but. It's quite possible I will be reappointed. And I would say that. If you're sending committee, unless you're an at-large member, you know, you should, I hope you'll be in touch with your committee or board. To get reappointed or if you don't want to be. Get someone else reappointed or get appointed. Because I don't think we'll really meet. In the summer. I hope not. Which means, you know, any new people coming on board, they might have, we might have one quick meeting in August, right, or something before the proposal window opens. So be good to make sure that the committee is fully, fully seated, so to speak. All right, so next is continued discussion of evaluation frameworks. We looked at Robbins and we looked at Andy's spreadsheet. I don't think we had time to say everything that we might say about those, but I do want to throw out there. Now, what are we looking for? You know, are we, do we want to make something formal that we expect future committees will use? Are we just sharing options for methodical ways each of us could evaluate proposals in the future? Do we just want to make sure that our CPA plan and any description of the application process adequately conveys what's expected? I mean, we can't, I put it back on the agenda, but I, I want to clarify what it is we want to do with these. Anyone? Sarah Isinger. Oh, she was first. Then Katie. Katie, do you want to go first or? Okay. So I think of this in a couple of different ways, and it's very similar to what you just discussed, but I think it's helpful to give the applicants a sense of what they, how they will be evaluated, like what are the core areas. And then we have a rubric that. Meers those, um, evaluate those points of evaluation. My vote would be to do it simpler rather than a very complex spreadsheet. Um, and I think kind of similar to what Robin has done. Um, I think we could rate things. It could be, um, we could then have averages. I think what it does, and we could submit them. I'd be happy to do that. I think similar to the straw poll exercise, it, um, it gives a little bit more transparency to our process. We have, um, some standardization and consistency across what we are all evaluating. So I think it's helpful for both the applicants and us, but my vote would be to be simple and it's non binding. You know, it just ends up being a way for us to organize the conversation and see where we've landed on our, um, on our evaluations. And I think it helps, um, wait our conversation and guides our, our agendas. So that you, so you would, um, it would see a recommendation that whatever, whatever the simple framework is, we all use it. Yeah. The way it was just a rating sheet and some of them before the one meeting. Um, the one piece that I would add, and if this isn't the right time to talk about it, it's fine is I would love for us to wait. Projects slightly differently. Like sometimes, I feel like we've sometimes had lengthy conversations with very smooth for like the amount of time that we talk about projects to me should be a slightly representative of how much they've requested. Um, we've tended to be go down very long conversations about projects that are smaller in nature and, and then not really give enough time or give even the same amount of time to the very large, uh, requests. And I think it'd be great if there could be some leveling of that. Like I don't know how we do that in a rubric, but I don't think all of our applications. Um, should be treated, get the same floor time because I think the resources are really different and we have limited. So I want to figure out some way to do that, but that's maybe a different point. So I'll, I'll stop talking and let others. Okay. I would say that to the issue of time, I would think that's just a matter for the agenda that we say. Yeah, I don't know. You know, we'll, if it's under 10,000 we'll spend no more than 10 minutes on it. You know, if it's, if it's, I don't know if others agree with that, but that's, oh, okay. But I, but all I mean is what, if, if we were going to go that way, it doesn't have to be it somehow in like something that everybody, because we all know what the request, what the amount of the request is. So we could just build the timing into the agenda. Katie, did you want to, yeah. I love that I let Sarah go first because she said all of my points. So I could just say ditto. I don't know. But I do want to just underscore, I think transparency is really important for applicants, especially those who aren't used to doing this kind of thing, just to sort of know what we're aiming for. And consistency amongst sort of. The inter-rater reliability, you know, sort of in, in all of us. But the thing that I really want to make sure. Is that it is not a decision making tool. It's a prioritization tool. It helps just helps kind of prioritize. That we can make this, you know, have discussion and make decisions about those things that are. Where we might have differences of opinions, you know, it identifies where there's really big gaps or. It's sometimes it identifies ones that we're all in line. So we don't have to have as long a conversation. So that I just wanted to. Build on what Sarah was saying. Diana, I think you had your hand up. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That I think Robin's kind of checklist. Would be an easy one. For people have never. Done this before to see. Who have applied before to see the kinds of thinking we have. We're not going to a fixed point values to. To it. They're just simply guiding questions. That's the way I would see it. And I can tell you the instability in my connection is due to the wind. We have. Oh, really? Yeah. Excuse me. If you turn off your video, sometimes that helps. We can hear you. Okay. You can hear you pretty well. Sure. I wanted to ask Anthony, can you, do you have Robin's chart? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if this is among the things. Is that something you could put on your screen. And you're muted. So. Yeah, that was, that was emailed way back for the last meeting, right? And I think I read. You re emailed it on Tuesday. Okay. Yes. I think it's called evaluation criteria. I. Have it. If you, if you want me to give it to you Anthony. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. While he's looking, does anyone else. Yeah, Sam. Yeah, I've got it. So I see two things I see one is a delineation of the. Evaluation criteria, which is derived from the plan. And then separate from that is a discussion as to how we, as a committee. Would choose to vote. It's desirable for any applicants to be directed to a central location specifically the plan. Maybe there can be some individual criteria listings based on categories such as historic, but the criteria is listed in the plan. It's, I think it would be beneficial to highlight what that is from a voting standpoint. I think that what we've done. I think that's something that would be worth. I think that the criteria would be worth. To date in terms of a single numeric. Rating. For each project from the individual. Members. Is desirable, but that. The criteria or spreadsheet or another listing similar to what Andrew generated. Is something that would be worthwhile for the committee members to look at. When they are arriving at a single. Number, whether it be one to five or whether we choose to go one to five. So I'm of the mindset that the. Spreadsheet or the items listed on that spreadsheet are. Worth while. It could be a printed document or otherwise for internal. Member decision making. But I think the. Craig. The categorization of a one through five that we've used the last two years has worked. Well, from my perspective. I think that's a good point. But in terms of identifying which ones are. Going to be the easiest and which ones are not. And for, for applicants. I think the website, webpage and or plan is desirable. One other comment regarding Sarah's reference to. Sarah ease reference to evening the timeframe based on dollar amount. I'm of the mindset that every. Unless we're overwhelmed with applications that. We're overwhelmed with applications. Regardless of dollar amount. To the applicant. That, you know, the good one church may ask for, I forget, was it $20, 20,000, 18, but for them, it's of extreme importance. Similarly to the Jones, which was a million dollar application to them. It's of extreme importance. I say that in the context of indicating. I'm an advocate for thoroughly discussing every item. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that the meetings in the calendar. Down the road. I'd be in favor of it to make sure we don't short change any conversation on. Very important discussions for the applicants. I would say, thank you, Sam. I would say to one of your earlier points. I wanted to take this up before we turn to the plan. Because we get to revise the plan. We need to revise it. So, I think that's a good point. We would like to you if this is it, you know, adequate if this is complete. Then we can put this into the plan. I agree. We know we, you know, we should, we shouldn't be driven by what's in the plan. It's ours to revise and we need to revise it. So. And this is one, one of the. Aspects of that plan. So if we can just. We need the plan to reflect. The thinking of this committee about how we're going to. Assess proposals. Oh, I see Robin has her hand. I've lost my thread. So you go ahead. All right. Diana. Yeah. Okay. So can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. I. I think this sort of a valuation. Or criteria to look at could be put in the plan. And the reason I like the idea of doing that is. Oh, we lost you. Oh dear. Robin, your hand is up still. Have you. I haven't, I'm typing. I would not say where it came from. Oh, hold on. Diana's back. Diana, your audio is cutting in and out. We don't. I wonder if she called. And if it would be better. You want to try that, then it would definitely be audio only, but. Okay. Oh, she, you're back Diana. Well, you were saying you like the idea of including this in the plan. Right. Because I think that it gives. Aspects that the individual proposer might not think about like getting multiple bids. That's why I think this is a good idea. I think it's a good idea. For instead of just presenting us $10,000. Without any understanding of where that figure came from. So I, that's why I think this is good. And could very easily. Be put in the plan. I actually have one question about. One of the elements here, and that is urgency. Is it urgent to get started? Is it urgent to finish it? Some projects. You could leave it more open. Open ended with, you know, what is the urgency of the project? I just wanted to give weight to, you know, if somebody. So, you know, because I come from the historic state. You know, I just wanted to give weight to, you know, if somebody, so you know, because I come from the historic state. You know, I just wanted to give weight to, you know, if somebody, so, you know, because I come from the historic preservation side, if somebody has a leaking roof. That gets more weight than someone who's, you know, roof replacement can wait three years. That's all I wanted that. And maybe it could say, does the project address an urgent need? Yep. That's it. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I think that's good. Sarah. This is Katie. I just wanted to. Respond to Sam's point earlier about the rating that you've been using that we use that I was able to participate in this year, the one to five. And I, I think that speaks to the simplicity idea, you know, and I think it, it, what I was interested in is how do we, how do each of us come up with that rating? You know, and this, I think helps us figure out, you know, Is it a three, is it a four, is it a five in a way that we understand where Sam is coming from or Diana or, you know, we each committee member because we're all sort of looking at the same things to get to that. Rating. So that's what I was thinking. Sam, in terms of how this would be helpful to. Inform or create that rating in a more consistent way. Or more one that's more understood and less. More transparent in terms of its subjectivity. Andrew. Thanks. I, I agree with. I think Sarah's first comments about. I think it does make sense to. Just spend some time. On the larger projects, but I would, I would just say that a lot of time the discussion is just around whether like the, I guess the quality of the application. So, you know, that extra time may be because it wasn't prepared well and we just have a lot of clarification. I think something like, like the document we have up now. Is it seems like it's a useful, it seems like it's a useful, it seems like it's a useful, it seems like it's a useful, it seems like it's a useful, it seems like it's a useful checklist for applicants to go through before they submit. And it might also be a useful framework for us to guide our discussions. I like the way that the questions are phrased. I think they're very open and some of them may be open ended as well, right? And we may not necessarily know the answer to that. So I would be reluctant to use this as a framework for scoring per se. But I do think that there's lots of really useful applications for this. I would say like in terms of the overall rating and, you know, I know the form I submitted looked complicated. That, like all of the language there was directly from the towns, from the goals, like from the CPAC document, I didn't put anything new in there. So like when it, when it's measuring the goals for, you know, like open space, I'm, I'm again pulling the language directly from the document. So there's like, there's no Andrew interpretation into that. It's, is it achieving what the goals are intended? And then also the way I'd set that up is I actually don't put any numbers in, right? Like I think the notion of like giving the number, I think that that can sometimes be a, there may be like a false sense of precision. There may just be some bias that's introduced. So I'd set mine up to provide like qualitative assessments. Did it accomplish this? You know, likely unlikely certain possible like used language that's kind of descriptive that I would apply to those goals and then it would generate a number. And then also like the purpose of that number, I think it's as many have stated, it's not to, to, to, to say one is necessarily better than the other or like five is the best. It's really to help rephrase it's really to help sort of understand how they relate to each other. And allows you to kind of compare projects within their particular need. I think the most important thing if you're doing scoring is just that, you know, you, you account for what we're supposed to be measuring. And you do it consistently. So like one through five may work for some folks, some people may want to do one through 10 or one through 100, like as long as you're doing it consistently. And that, that framework would allow us to say, this one is scores higher than the one below it than the one below that. So, yeah, just my thoughts. Thanks. Sam. So I see value in both. The document that's on the screen. And in Andes or Andrews, excuse me, delineation of the quote unquote goals or purpose. And I see a distinction between both. The, what's on the screen is very close, or if not consistent with the criteria on an application. I'm looking at one of our applications from last year. It happens to be the town steps and it lists the criteria one through nine and it's feasibility document of estimated costs, funding available, multiple sources, urgency, et cetera. So what's on the screen here is a nice way. If I were an applicant, or even if I were just going through a checklist as a committee member to say, yeah, okay. So particularly as an applicant, have I done this? Yes, no, yes, no. It kind of guides them. It's essentially part of the existing application at present right under the criteria section, but it's a nice visual way of focusing on it. And regarding Andrews comment of the goals and the listings. Again, I think that the delineation in some easily located form, whether it be just a PDF saying here are the listed. You know, purposes for each qualifying criteria basically it indicates does it qualify is something good to have ready readily available to look at when considering a project. That's what I've done each of the last few rounds. I've basically looked at each project in line with. Andrews delineation. And during the discussion, we also talked about what's got Robbins here. So I see them both as worthwhile job aids. I still believe that the committee members will benefit by taking the information, digesting it and coming up with a simple rating for the purpose of prioritizing our discussions. So I see value in both. I want to note that on is here. Welcome. Oh, sorry, I was late. That's, that's fine. Glad you could join us. So I, I would say this. One, we need to get the plan done. Two, we can always, and I will want the plan to say this. We need to get the plan done in many, in many places. Something like for the latest details of our process, please see the website. You know, so I want. So maybe we're talking about two different things. We need what's in the plan to be at least. I don't know. Not leaving out something important. Right. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Perhaps. I mean, again, it may be, it'll be a new committee, probably some new people. Who are going to be evaluating the next round. Maybe at one of their early meetings, it's well, here are some tools. Which would folks like to use. I mean, as, as long as. The, the rubric that we use. To judge proposals on things they knew nothing about. It's, it seems to me it would be fair. It would be a fair tool. Right. So. So maybe we can step, maybe we don't have to have, because the plan, remember the plan is a document that's only going to be updated. I mean, it seems to take forever. I mean, it seems to me it's going to be a fair tool. I mean, it seems to me it's going to be updated every few years. So we, it has, it has to allow the committee. Some room for. Modifying its process. Right. So would people be okay with. Making sure that the plan. Replicates this list that we see. And Anthony, could you just scroll to the top? Just. Just in case. All right. So I would propose that we make sure the plan has. Basically a chart like this. All right. Right. And, and again, we get, and maybe it's on the website, but there'll be language in the plan that says. For the latest information, blah, blah, blah, go to the website. The website should refer. People to the plan. Yes, but I mean, for what they, what this, this year's proposal. You know what the proposal form looks like, or the proposal instructions for this year, like, you know, you can submit it between September 1st and whenever. You know, November 30th of 2021. And here's the link to the form and. You know, like that. So any Andrew. Yes. Yeah, thanks. And I, I may. Apologies if I missed this before, but so the. On the website, the community preservation plan final December, 2017. Are we talking about revising the language in that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because I sent out, yeah, because the committee. A year ago had been working on a revision for months. And then COVID happened. And then the committee turned over. And we didn't ever finish. So I'm trying to really hoping we could just finish it. And. But, but the end of the document in particular, two pieces, kind of the criteria. And I'm trying to, you know, kind of the instructions for applicants. Those were the things that didn't quite get resolved. So that's. So I'm, so my focus right now. Is. And I know people raised the concern about how are we going to evaluate in a transparent way. And, and that's fine. And, but maybe that doesn't get completely nailed down. As far as the plan is concerned. So is it acceptable to, I've heard somebody maybe. That was Robin Robin. Yeah. Yeah. No, I was going to say, I mean, I think it's a great idea to include it in the plan. I'm a little biased, but, but I also wanted to say that. I mean, I created it because when I came on this committee, I really didn't have any sense of the kind of questions I was supposed to be asking. And I think that's a great idea. And so I think that's a great idea. And over time between this and my job, I got more of a sense of how grants are evaluated. And so I think this, you know, all of these things are kind of a useful step forward. And they can always be revised in the future. But yeah, I would be in favor of both using it as a guiding tool and including it in the plan so that applicants understand what criteria they are going to be evaluated on. And so you're, you're a spreadsheet, which again was a thing, a thing of beauty. You said it takes all the language out of the plan. And, and applicants will have been directed to consult the plan. So it would not seem to me to be again, tricking anybody if this is in the plan, and then we do something even more fleshed out along the lines of your spreadsheet. When it comes time for evaluating, is that. Yeah, I didn't, I thought that the evaluation criteria were, were pretty good in the existing documents. And I thought also like what the proposal should include was also pretty clear. You know, obviously I didn't fill an application so I couldn't say how hard that was to complete. But I, I, I don't know if I like would say that there's a compelling need to change the criteria. And that's what I guess I'm trying to discern from this conversation now. So we feel like the, the criteria that were, that are already in the plan are not appropriate. I think we wanted to. I wanted to revisit that in light of the concerns. That had been raised in this. In this committee. Okay. So I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'll just real quick. I thought that they were pretty clear. They're very useful for me to use. That in conjunction with what the overall goals were for the, for the four components. So I would, I mean, if we can make it more transparent, great. But I don't feel compelled to like modify it. Okay. Sarah. Yes, Katie. I wonder if this. It might be helpful when I look at page 14, 15 of the plan, there's proposal requirements listed and then there's evaluation criteria separated out. And so some things like urgency is in the requirements, but it's not saying that you're getting. Evaluated or. You know, prioritize based on that. So I'm just wondering if maybe there's some. A way to clarify there. That might help. To Andrew's point, you know, this, this to me seems like great evaluation criteria, but there are some other things that we talked about. And that each of us might be looking at, you know, like say urgency or feasibility that isn't in that criteria, in the evaluation. Section. Well, I wondered about this proposal requirements. Again, this is, but to me, part of the problem of having a document versus a process that can change every happens on the website. I wonder if. If this so on begins on page 14 proposal requirements. So, you know, you can, can basically list what was in our last form. But say. That, you know, that the application is submitted on the website, you know, through the website. And that form and requirements may change year to year. So goes, go to the website. You know, to see exactly what they might be. You know, what they might be looking for the year in which you're applying. We'll include the requirements because that's what we ask people to complete. Right. And we'll, on the application, it's really helpful to say, and this is how you'll be evaluated. And so you could include that as well there and update it as opposed to updating this piece, but you could update the application each year. Sarah. Yes. Sorry. I just joined on. So we're having a little bit of an issue. And Anthony will probably know what I'm talking about. We have a JCPC meeting scheduled at seven. Oh, is that why, is that, was that that call? Yeah. You got to take Anthony away. No, I don't have to take Anthony away. And I'm looking to Anthony to see if he has any recommendations. We can only have one zoom meeting going at a time with the JCPC meeting. So we can't start the JCPC meeting. Ending your meeting. And I want to be respectful of your meeting too. So I'm looking to Anthony to see if he has any suggestions. As to what we could do for, if there's another account that we have access to. And no, they took my account away. Yeah. I T they, they consolidated us down to one account. Oh no. Yeah. And I scheduled, and I scheduled this like. Three weeks ago. All right. I will try to figure out if we can get another zoom setup. If you have any suggestions, Anthony, give me a ring. I can't use one of our own zoom accounts because that's not a public. It would have to be public, right? It has to work. Well, I don't know. Recording and all. Yeah. Yeah, I would have to be announced two days before the meeting too. Could we, can I take a quick poll? Could we reconvene next Thursday? People able to do that. I got a look at my own. I'm pretty sure I could do that. I can do it. How many people think they could meet? You know, Or could we split the difference timeframe was. Instead of ending at eight expedite here. And then Sean's group started. Well, no, that's a bigger group. No, that's. Yeah. I got a lot more money than we do. My only issue is we have some departments that are coming to present tonight. So. You know, I, again, I feel really bad about this. If there is a way that you could reschedule the rest of the meeting, that would be really helpful. I'll, I'll write you all a very personal thank you. I would be really happy to, to have this meeting and early because the wind is meaning I'm missing about a quarter of the conversation anyway. So. Okay. Sarah, did it look like most of us could do just cause I know he said they were starting at seven. I didn't see everyone's hands. Please raise. One, two, three. What are we raising our hands for? Can you meet next Thursday. At six. And I'm a yes. Robin. I'm an unknown. Actually, let me go get my. I don't want to. I'll be right back. If it's the 11th, I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. Could we do it the following one? So until Sarah gets your calendar. Can we just also just do this via email? Yeah. Yeah. Why don't we do a. A doodle. Yeah. I have to get off. I think so. All right. Again, I thank you all so much. I really apologize. That's crazy. You have so many. Thank you everyone. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.