 So we will call the CPA meeting to order at 6.03 p.m. This is the 30th. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you for reminding me that. So we have everybody here, but one member and he may chime in at some point. Our agenda. It's fairly full. We may not get to everything, but we'll do the best we can. We do before we start. Someone needs to volunteer to take the minutes. Is there anyone who would like to jump at that opportunity? I believe the last minutes were done by Sam. Is that correct? Robin is presenting tonight. So I'm not sure she's the best person to take the notes. I'm not going to say that. But yeah, I would prefer not to take the notes if I can. I've done it at least twice this. Fiscal year. Two or three times. All right, I'll do it. I. Okay. Fine. I don't know if I can move you over. I mean, I, I can do it. If we don't have a. Someone else needs to keep an eye on these and things, but I can do it. Okay. Keep an eye on what was that Anthony attendees and. If there's any public questions or anything, but. That's a limited period. I could. It'd be wonderful if you did it. So Anthony, when, when the public wants to participate, do we get a notice and have to let them in or are they, do they just enter on their own? No, the public is viewing us right now. They can raise their, they, there's a Q and A. I believe they also have the ability to raise their hands. Okay. And can you see them? Yeah. We should all be able to see them if we. Yep. There's flow. There's future in the public. Let's make him a panelist. And how do I see. I don't see anybody else. How do I, there should be a participants button down at the bottom. Participants Q and A polls. Is that only for the co-hosts? It might only be for the co-host. I saw it. I can click on it. Scroll down. Sarah, you might see it. Well, then you have panelists or attendees to choose from. Oh, I see. But okay. Now I can't see them, Anthony, to see if they're raising their hand to ask a question. Okay. Well, I mean. It's up to you. I guess if you want me to take them in, it's like, I can, I have a second screen. So. Nate, I think you'll see them if they want to raise their hand. I think you'll see a hand pop up. In the attendance list. All I see is a list. I don't see. Nobody wants to raise their hand at the moment. There's, there's a Q and A and I do see one question in there. So I'm sure there will be. Okay. When we get the public comment, we'll figure out how to make it. If you'd like me to monitor the attendee raised hands, I can do that if Anthony is doing minutes. I can just alert you, Nate. Someone raises their hand. Okay. That'd be great. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Anthony. Thanks. All right. So. Yeah, thank you, Anthony, for doing that. Appreciate that. So the minutes of May 5th. These are done by Sam. I assume everyone's. Had a chance to see them. Hopefully. That's March 5th. I'm sorry, March 5th. Were there any concerns or corrections to those minutes? I had a, a note. On my comment on the second page. It says the historical commission. Robin F. The historical commission prefers that as much as the award as possible, we'll go toward systems. Quite sure exactly what I said, but the intent of the historical commission was that funding be limited to preservation systems. That was the. Intent of the statement from the historical commission. Okay. Sam, do you have the notes in front? I have them. I'm looking for them as we speak. I don't have them as a document on my desktop. Although my guess is we could agree to make whatever changes are referenced and then submit the edited version thereafter and compliance with those edits. So I'm looking for them. I know the section she's referring to. But I don't have them immediately in front of it. Diana. The only thing I noticed was that I think it was first names all the way through. And I was wondering if we wanted to develop a. Consistent thing of using the last names, but I otherwise thought they were fine. Well, we have two Sarah's on the committee. So that's that. It's an important suggestion to make sure there's no. Mixing up. And for the historical. Initials are used. Last name initials. That's. They're not confusing. I know, but I just wondered if we wanted to. Consistently use last names, but it's, it's okay. I don't know. I just wondered if we wanted to consistently use last names, but it's, it's okay with me either way. Any other concerns about the minutes? Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? I so move. Is there a second? A second. All in favor, please raise your. Opposed. Abstain looks like it's unanimous. Can we get Sarah's Sarah Isinger's vote? Yeah, I, I, I said yes. Okay. Right. Yep. Now we have the financials. Anthony, is that you or is that Sonia? You're on mute. As is Sonia and Sarah E. I don't think we have any, uh, we always, we have financial updates always on there. I don't think we have anything new to share on that. I don't think anything's changed since we last met. Correct. Don't believe so. In terms of, in terms of available funding. I don't believe so. Sonia, anything about the financials that. No updates. I wasn't prepared to update on that. Okay. I don't think anything's changed. So it's probably not. Okay. So public comment. Let me just, before we go into public comment, if I could just ask. I have a question for you. I'm sorry to say that. I didn't participate in this meeting. We ask that you be succinct. And that you not. Repeat what may have been said by a person prior to you. We're really interested in hearing your input, but we do want to make sure that we are. Crispley efficient and making sure everyone has heard. Every viewpoint is able to be expressed. So we ask that you be succinct. And make sure that your thoughts are somewhat original based on who you may have heard before. So. Someone else will have to. Paul assist. Do you see anybody? I do. Janet McGowan has her hand up. Shall I allow her to talk? Please. Janet. Janet, can you hear us? Yes, I can. I was muted. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for all your work. I just wanted to make a comment about just a suggestion for the, for CPAC. I'm an attorney. I'm a mediator. I'm recent, most recently a planning group member. And I've been a volunteer in many communities. So. I would, my suggestion for you, you know, it seems like you have a legal issue here that is not quite clear. But I think it's important to, you know, I think it's important to take the time to sort it out. And it's important, you know, to figure out what's going on and get it right. And it seems like talking to the DOR made sense. Community preservation act committees. And then talking to KP law. It makes sense that all these people should talk together that, you know, maybe CPAC members. Can talk to the department of revenue and the town attorney in a different way. But I think the legal stuff isn't as complicated as. People make it out to be, and, you know, the jargon can always be kind of like turned into English with, with stuff. And it would give a CPAC members time to ask questions. I just recently learned that the. The, the head of the library has asked for a one year delay. And I think that actually buys a little time to, to make sure you get the, the one year delay doesn't sound like the money needs to be allocated now. I don't really know how CPAC works. So, you know, my feeling was that the money can go other needs and we get the request next year and consider it. With more information in any event, I just, and I'm sure you guys don't want to violate the law or get into a dispute or a legal problem. I've done enough litigation to realize that there really is no winner in litigation. It's just a terrible process. And that as a mediator, it's there, you know, everybody has a common goal and I, you know, which is to help the town and to make sure this money is spent properly. So I just encourage you to do the right thing, take the time, talk directly to the department of revenue, ask questions, have KP law come in and just, um, you know, sort out the problem, you know, and I don't, I'm not offering a legal opinion. I'm really talking more about process. And I do want to thank you for all the work that you do. Cause I know that these committees take a huge amount of time and it's obviously you've done great work for the community cause I walk on the trails and I use the pool and I have all those, those facilities and it's either the work you're doing is very important and I appreciate the time that you've taken and the time you're taking on this issue. So I just want to thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Matthew Blumenfeld has a hand raised. It's a lot to talk. Okay. Matthew. Matthew, you're up. Good evening. Can you hear me? I can. Fantastic. Thank you. I'd also like to thank you, uh, CPAC for your careful consideration of the Jones proposal and, uh, for this opportunity to come up before you once again, to advocate for the project. Um, I think that you have all the information you need to proceed with recommending the Jones project to the town council and opinions of town attorney and the supporting memoranda from the commission and others complete the case. I'd say the debate around the project is good and demonstrates the dedication and care of our CPA committee, particularly when considering projects that are going to have a long lasting impact on our community. I would just like to offer one point of clarification. As you may recall at the last in person meeting held some months ago when the Jones presented its updated building program. It placed the historical archives within the footprint of the his existing historic 1928 library building. That was a change from the original plan submitted to MVLC. And the new plans were under development at the time of the library's original submission to CPAC. Nonetheless, the new plans demonstrate conclusively that CPA funds will be used within an historic structure to make the lower level suitable to hold the archive safely and security is insecurity. I think it's important, an important factor in this project's favor that CPA dollars can be used here to both help restore an iconic structure in the heart of our town and to create conditions suitable for the long-term preservation of our archives and other articles of historic importance within the structure. Thanks and I hope you'll recommend this project to the town council for funding without further delay. Thank you. Next. I see no other hands raised at this moment. Okay. So that will conclude public comment. So. Because this is kind of a complicated issue, I think there's, we want to sort of really make this discussion as efficient as possible. And Robin and I have had a conversation about this partly because. I represent one side of this discussion. Robin represents another and we've had a couple of good conversations about how to go at this. Robin is going to present. I've. Robin correct me if I'm wrong, but a case. To. Vote against a motion to rescind. The previous vote. And. Then I will present. My case. And we will open it up to the committee. But we'll probably try to keep it somewhat structured in the sense that we'll talk about. The issue of whether it meets the historical preservation designation. Whether it is providing budget relief. And lastly. If it's an appropriate. Proposal overall to recommend Robin is that. I think that's you. Keep those categories contained. Okay. Robin, the floor is yours. Okay. So I just, I wrote up the statements. I'm going to read it. I'm hoping everybody had a chance to review the. The. Memo that Sarah Eisenberg and I submitted. But just to summarize. As a representative to the CPA committee from the historical commission, my first obligation here is to present committee with the historical commission's recommendations. Regarding CPA historic preservation proposals. As I stated previously, the historical commission has recommended the Jones library, special collections proposal based on its importance, and the historical commission's recommendations. And the proposed proposal is to provide the proposed recommendation for CPA funding. Additionally, I conveyed at the earlier meeting, the commission's recommendation that the proposal being limited to $1 million in funding. Bonded over 10 period of 10 years and that the funds be restricted to covering specific systems related to the preservation of historic artifacts of documents. I believe the specific language from the historical commission is in my memo to the committee. As a representative to the commission's recommendations, I would like to present the proposal. Under the minority opinion, I argued that the proposal should not be rejected on the basis of eligibility under the CPA rubric for historical preservation. The purpose is to preserve artifacts and documents and does not fall under the category of create. The CP coalition guidelines via their website, promote the funding of preservation systems. The CP coalition has also provided a number of similar projects in the past, including at the Jones library. The CPA guidelines via the website direct communities to seek guidance from municipal council when there is a question of appropriateness and eligibility and the KP law opinion affirms the eligibility and appropriateness of the project. And Mr. Sagner's opinion contradicts some of the guidance provided by the CP coalition via its website. I also argued that the proposal should not be rejected on the basis of supplanting. That the KP law affirmed that the project did not fit that definition. I'm not as well versed in that area. And that my reading of the DOR guidance that was provided to the committee did not in my opinion include the project. I also suggested that requesting a revised proposal from the applicant, which aligns with the historical commission's recommendations, could help eliminate some confusion around proposals, central preservation, aim and appropriateness. My commission to the committee still stands. And I hope that our discussion can handle each area of contentions separately for clarity and efficiency. Thank you. Well, am I muted or not? You are not muted. Okay. So I think Nate, just as a parliamentary, should there should be a motion on the table. That's made and seconded. And then the conversation, just so we're doing everything according to Hoyle. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Robin. I'll make the motion. I move that we vote to rescind. Recommending the Jones library. Okay. I'll second it. Motion is seconded. Is that, is the recommendation to rescind recommending it or to rescind the vote? Okay. So. The town has sort of. Our original straw. Is in a social vote. I disagree with that. I got to stop you because there was some background noise. I'm sorry. I just muted Sarah. I think those are from her line. She can unmute. Okay. So. We, the town has made the decision. To declare our original straw poll vote, the official vote. I disagree with that. I think that's a departure from past practice. That vote is to put items onto a board. That is to say, if we have enough money for approval, then when we get to the point where we evaluate the whole slate to determine if we have enough money, we vote on that slate and send it to town council who could do anything they want with any individual item. So. You know, I, I protested that declaration of the town, but that's, that's where we are. We have. According to the town, we have already voted to approve. The Jones project. For CPA funding. We have already approved it. So if you vote for this. You are voting. To not send the Jones proposal to town council as approved. If you vote against this proposal. You're voting. To honor the original vote according to the town and, and to send it to town council as recommended. I'll go over that again before we vote. But. But that's, I think where we are. I don't know what would occur post vote. Were it not to be, were it to be rescinded? The question would then be, then what? Correct. I don't know. That's an interesting parliamentary question. Paul, do you have a response to that? Help us out. I don't know if I understand the question. So if we vote to rescind. Do we then have to have a secondary vote. To make a decision. Or is a vote to rescind a vote to reject? Is that what you're asking, Sam? I'm making an observation that if the vote is to rescind what that does in my understanding would be to negate the initial vote. Right. Therefore we go instead of plus one or negative one, we're at null. We're at a no decision. If we vote to rescind, which would then leave the potential for whatever the committee decides. That's how I would interpret your motion. Yeah. I, I, it's the vote to rescind would take away the action that you took previously. Correct. So then I, the ghost newbie, do we have to have another vote? Or do we just not send this based on that vote? Send it to town council. You could take another vote. You could just take no action. Okay. All right. Yes. For example, there could be. There could be emotion to fund specific parts. Of the proposal or to fund a different amount. It's just that the specific. You know, plan that we had would be negated, but there could be others. Other suggestions. Okay. So before we start, I just want to say, yes, Anthony. So I just. Wanted to circle back to something Nate said, which is. That we are, the town is considering the straw poll vote to be the vote. So we had a straw poll. We had a vote. We had a vote. We had a vote. We had a vote. We had a vote. We had a vote where you ranked yourself. Your preferences one to five, but then we had a vote. And last year, you had a final vote to recommend the whole thing. As kind of just putting it all together, but that wasn't the vote that was reported to the council. We reported. It wasn't the slate vote that we reported to the council. Cause that would have been the same for everything. We reported the. Actual vote in the, in the objection. So I just. I just took a vote. On each project to recommend them. And to slate or no, there are individual votes for each project. Right. But our past practice has been that that vote gets a project put onto a board. And then we have a formal vote at the end of that. That's what we've done in the past. Okay. But whatever we can. We can talk about that. So before we, before I start my. I'll just, I'll just go back to the table. Making the case for why I think we should rescind this a couple of things. I just want to get on the table. I think I know there's this sense out there that. There is a sort of. Movement of people who are opposed to the Jones libraries. Plan. And a lot of those folks who are publicly identified with being opposed to the Jones's plan. And they're trying to defeat the CPA proposal. And in a, I get. Emails from Amherst forward their blanket emails. And there was an email that came to me. That said something to the effect of. You know, Usual suspects are added again. And they're trying to defeat the. Library. So they want to come out and defeat the CPA proposal as well. And I wrote back to them and told them that that was a mischaracterization of what was going on. And they're trying to defeat the CPA proposal. And they're trying to defeat the CPA proposal. Not that it's particularly relevant. But while I think maybe the opposition to this proposal. Originated from me. I find the vision of what the Jones people have come up with for this library. Pretty thrilling. I really think it's an exciting proposal. And I hope we can find the money to do it because I think what the Jones people have been talking about. Is a building that could be a transformational public. And I think it's very, very exciting. I hope we can do it. So my opposition to this has nothing to do. With any negative opinion about what the Jones people have come up with. Secondly. When I presented the cash proposals. To the community resources committee. And to the finance committee. And they're very non controversial. Proposals. Even though we were talking about the Jones. That came up in the discussion and. There was. There was a mention by someone in town council of, you know, people have some people on the CPA have gone rogue. And to his credit, he retracted that almost immediately. But it really made me think a little bit about. How the, the minority report. Is being perceived. In some quarters. And I think it's really important to say that. The minority report was written. And to some extent out of exasperation. When we had the original straw poll vote. Some questions came up. That it would be this committee's due diligence. To discuss and to research. And that's what we did. And so. And as that process carried on. Of asking questions and reaching out to third parties. And trying to have discussions among ourselves. There were some pretty significant resistance. From people in town council and in town hall. To the natural process of us doing what we should be doing, which is to properly vet. Proposals. So. I, I, I, I really want to make it clear. That this is not a kind of rogue operation, trying to stop some proposal in its tracks. We're simply doing what we should be doing, which is to ask questions of proposals. And regardless of how this vote goes. I think we're doing what we're supposed to be doing. And lastly, you know, I am a little critical. I think of how the town has responded to, to this. But I want to make clear that. Even though I am critical of some of the actions of the town. I think everybody involved here is acting in what they think are the best interests of Amherst. I think everybody here has total integrity. I'm very thankful that I live in a town that's this well managed. Excellent town manager or superb people working in town hall. A really good town council. None of this changes that. Although I am a little critical of some of the things that have been going on in the town hall. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing in place, but I want that to, to be on the record. So we've talked a lot in this. Kind of brouhaha over this proposal about two things really, which is one is, does this really qualify as historic preservation? And is it budget supplanting? Now the, the issue of. Is this really legitimately defined as historic preservation? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. KP law has an opinion. I think the coalition has an opinion. I think both need to be respected. To some extent, I think. That's much less important than the bigger issue, which is the issue of whether this proposal. Is a way for the town. To get relief in their budget for. To get relief in their budget. To get relief in their budget. And that's one of which is the Jones library. And the more I've been thinking about this. And that's been thinking about a way too much. That's really what I think is happening. And that for a couple of reasons that I'll go into. I'm very concerned about that. So in 2017, I believe. I was in the state library commission and presented this grant. Which is grant proposal. For this new envisioned Jones library. And in that proposal. Where a list of a handful of really critical needs. One of which was special collections. And the language used in that grant application was not all that different from what we saw in the CPA proposal. That grant proposal was approved. They got the grant. And that proposal was what was approved. Was the plan that was sent to them by the Jones. They really liked it and they approved it. So, so coming into this. We already know. That if the Jones is built this new Jones. Whether or not CPA participates in it. Special collections is going to get what they need. Because that's part of the grant. So the question then comes up. And it's kind of a weird history to this thing. If you think about it, because. When this first came to us, it was the Jones. Presenting this as a part of their 6% of the, of the town's costs that the town told them they had to raise. One of the questions that came up to them was. Will this $1 million grant be accounted for as that private fundraising that the town has told you have to do. And the answer was. That's our assumption. Some eyebrows went up in the room from what I understand the finance office in town hall has decided that that's. Not going to be the case that that will not be counted. As part of that $6 million. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. So now we have a situation where essentially. The town is, is. Asking us for this $1 million. Or a proposal that has already been accepted in the form of another grant. Two years ago. So we already know this thing is going to happen one way or another. If the library is going to get built. The CPA grant is not going to change that. If we turn this grant down and the Jones gets built. There's still special collections is going to get what they want. That is a really dramatic departure from any other CPA proposal. We've ever seen. And. If you look at CP CPA proposals that we've done. In the past. Big and small. There's nothing that resembles this proposal. If you look at it. Just looking a couple of days ago. Rolling green we funded a hundred percent the Plum Brook Fields. We funded a hundred percent North Hampton Road We're one of a handful of major funders The angel of the lily stained glass window. We were a hundred percent Hawthorne property. We were a hundred percent Epstein property We pitched in a hundred and thirteen. There was a land grant of a hundred and ninety five You can go on and on the dog park graph park. We paid a million dollars for broth park after we didn't get a park grant originally In every one of those proposals Who things have happened that are not happening in this proposal one is we were a major Significant if not the complete funder of that project and Secondly had we decided not to participate in those those projects would not have happened They would have had to go right back to the drawing board in this proposal The million dollars that's being asked of CPA, which is More than what we generally have to spend in an entire budget year is covering three percent of the cost of this building And I don't think you can separate this ask from the cost of the building You know if you sort of look at the at the structure of this It's really similar to what Amherst College might do You know if they want to build a new science building they say we're going to build a hundred million dollar science building We're going to go out. We're going to get a couple of major gifts And then as the wheels are turning and hiring the designer hiring the architect hiring the builder Then you go to the small donors and you go to someone and you say we would like a million dollars for this science building And what we will name the physics lab after your family And if that person turns them down They just go to the next doner It doesn't have an impact on whether that science building gets built But it helps the college with its budget. That's the exact same structure that we're seeing here and I think you can You can look at the Jones as I do and say this is really an exciting proposal And you can look at the degraded facilities that special collections has and say these people really need something Fundamentally better and still say this is not a proper use of CPA money. And that's where I am with this now and and So there's a couple of things and we've never seen a CPA proposal like this I think what's really happening here is That and this is something that that I think the people who wrote the CPA feared That the town is in a very tough situation with funding these four huge Capital projects and I don't envy them. I have a lot of empathy for what they're trying to do trying to make this work Sitting in the corner is this bright shiny object, which is the CPA. It's got a million dollars in cash It's got millions of dollars of borrowing authority And they're down to trying to find out the let find the last few million dollars to make this work and and They're sort of reverse engineering a historical preservation project In order to fill in a budget gap with a million dollars, which by a certain definition meets historical preservation It seems reasonable But if you step away from this argument about the definition of historical preservation That's what I'm seeing And to me We have to look at it in that broader sense And this is not just sort of an academic argument about you know, are we going to be prudes about the rules and regulations of the CPA I mean, I think we should honor the rules and regulations of the CPA, but but here's What I think is the real damage that this does First of all If we if the Jones gets this money this million dollars and it's bonded over five years Every year for five years two hundred thousand dollars will be taken out of the CPA budget to pay for the Jones at a time when The already Dire affordable housing crisis in Amherst is about to get a lot worse because we don't know With the result of this pandemic on people not being able to meet mortgages on people being evicted We're entering into some really unfamiliar territory with affordable housing. It's going to come out of that We know the town is going to come to CPA next year for the field project for The fields at the high school in the middle school. That's going to be a big ask We are going to drain the CPA budget of 20 to 25 percent of its entire coffer in order to pay for this I Think contribution to a capital project and that's a really terrible financial decision for the CPA It's also Ironically really going to hurt historic preservation because for the next five years the minute we start conferring We've already spent 200,000 on historic preservation and And some of the most exciting projects that we've done in the time. I've been on CPA are these kind of somewhat micro projects 50,000 40,000 100,000 and When we've already spent 200,000 on historic preservation and we've got these incredible needs for We know for recreation and affordable housing. How much money is going to be left? Historic preservation takes a big hit in this proposal ironically And there's the other issue is one that I think we we I never really thought much about until this came up But it strikes me that it's something that we really need to think about The CPA is kind of a remarkable thing in some ways because It's it's a voluntary self tax In Whenever it was 1999 or 2000 way before I got here when the town voted for the CPA for the first time It involved a kind of compact between taxpayers and In the town and That compact was you know, my roads are bad And there's a leak in the elementary school roof and I go to the park on Saturday morning and the grass is five inches high But we will voluntarily Let you take three percent on top of our property taxes to fund tightly defined focused projects in four very specific areas but We better not catch you paying your bills with this money and That is what the original drafters of this legislation feared Towns would do with CPAs that they would use it to kind of float plug holes when they had budget problems Understandably it's sitting there That's the reason why part of the legislation is if you adopt the CPA You have to organize a citizen committee, which is what we are to vet these proposals to make sure that that temptation is Not at play in any of these proposals now That sounds like it's kind of adversarial, but it's not really this committee in the time I've been on it has been extremely collaborative with the town We have been very much working in sync with town priorities I think especially in open space and in recreation where those proposals tend to come from the town We have worked very closely with our bills and Dave Zomek to make sure we get those programs off the ground so I think it's it's dangerous in a time when We have very high taxes We have a kind of imploding economy. We just saw what happened with the sewer rates To enter into a territory where decisions we make Can really be questioned by taxpayers And what I fear is well first of all I think the CPA is one of the most amazing things we have at our disposal as as as a town We get to fund things that funding is always hard to find for And and to put that in danger to me is really something that we need to think very Seriously about, you know, if there's ever any kind of tax revolt in Amherst and people say I've had enough Why am I paying this extra 3% when my roads don't get fixed and the grass doesn't get mowed in the parks If there's ever any kind of tax revolt like that CPA is the first thing that's going to go because it's low hanging fruit And if the CPA ever goes away This is going to this kind of discussion is going to be a good old days Because trying to find money for projects in recreation and open space and historic preservation affordable housing It's going to be a completely different situation. So when I see this framed as A good faith but a flawed attempt by the town To help plug in the holes in the last stages of funding the jones library. I really fear That that's how it's going to be interpreted um I think the jones proposal in itself Is is kind of a no-brainer. Of course. We want a better jones. Of course. We want A special collections facility. That's right But I don't think this is the right way to do it at all and I think there's a fairly simple solution to this The the you know the mblc and rounding off here They're contributing 14 million the town has to contribute 22 They've told the jones the jones has to pitch in six of that 22 That leaves the town with a 16 million dollar dilemma. How do we come up with that 16 dollars? 16 million dollars um I guess their answer to that is will contribute 15 and will draw A million a full year's budget From the cpa. I think the simple solution is to just have the town borrow the 16 million and leave the cpa alone um This proposal is not going to lever die on whether this grant is approved or not approved It makes it easier for the town if it's approved Absolutely, but we really need to be upfront and honest about the budgeting of this thing If we want a new library and I do We need to pay for it the right way and we shouldn't be engaged in what I think is bordering on an accounting trick To drain cpa of an enormous amount of money to help pay for this project So I recommend that you vote for rescinding this Proposal so can we go to the committee now? So Maybe we start with the issue of whether this qualifies as historic preservation Is there anybody who'd like to speak to that diana? Well, I do not have eloquently prepared remarks As nate has given you I think I agree with everything he said What originally caught my eye and stuck in my craw Is that this is creating or was creating a wing a new wing to be added to the jones library I now know that we're talking about the building being within the existing footprint What is not totally clear to me Is whether that involves building outside walls? I think that this proposal could be delayed if the whole Project is going to be delayed and could be brought back in a way that would assuage my concerns I'm very worried about Doing what I originally had in mind which was creating a new wing I have no problem with fire suppression With h back with containers that would guard our Important documents in ways that they should be preserved None of that is a problem with me Um, but the idea that this would be a new wing somehow Is what originally stuck in my craw Um, I am also very concerned About the precedent we would be starting By going against what the community preservation act coalition has written I think that For example Hadley Had a revision to their goodwin library Uh, an amount of money they were asking their cpa for Which was about let's i'm going to round them off roughly say 280 000 And they did not approve all of it. They pulled back about 60 000 Because they felt they were violating the intent Of the cpa Um coalition what the cpa coalition wanted I think it would be a rotten absolutely rotten thing to do To go against the coalition and it means we would be setting a precedent We could be sued. I don't know that we have a larry kelly around who would do that kind of thing now But the fact of life is it could happen And why not just delay this thing and let it go and let them come back with their proposal that clearly is okay by everybody's Agreement and then cpa Uh cpa could be behind it So at the moment those are the things that occurred to me Um, and maybe i'll add something later robin Yeah, I just wanted to respond to that that the purpose of the historical commission's recommendation was to get away from any ideas about a new wing to limit The proposal to preservation systems is actually entirely in line with everything on the cpa cpa coalition website and both um kp law and um Stuart sagler's opinion, um looked at the proposal as it stands. There was this unfortunate, uh Moment in in between where the historical commission recommended that the proposal be amended in a way or restricted in a way to be more alignment with appropriateness and That is one of my suggestions that we ask The Jones to submit a revised proposal in line with the historical commission Recommendations so that we get away from all this discussion So we don't have to have it anymore If we get something in front of us that doesn't include walls and doesn't include new wings And we can just talk about climate control and and other sorts of systems that are just standard practice and historic preservation Um, if if that if that is helpful, I would uh recommend it and I'd be willing to make a motion on that Michael I'm now unmuted. Okay. Um, I I agree entirely with what both nade and robin has said has been saying And it seems to me that uh, we could Solve this problem at least momentarily By doing what the historical commission has suggested requiring I'd rather than asking requiring The library to come back with a specific proposal for specific items which relate to historic preservation i.e. fire suppression hvac shelving Proper material containing Anything that that is related to The specifics of historic preservation And I am very much in favor of of that kind of Of expenditure Then we can decide whether that amount whether it's 500,000 800,000 826,000 Is an appropriate? Expenditure forced for us to recommend to the town council Uh, the fact that it started out as a 1.5 million Request a percentage of the total cost of the building then was reduced to arbitrarily one million dollars Which can't be anything less than just another arbitrary number because nothing would add up to a million dollars even Makes me very suspicious and made put me in the line of joining the minority It seems to me that we can get away from all of this by simply going to Following what this was the historical commission is really suggesting which is asking for a new proposal for the next funding cycle Robin paul i'll get to you This is a very quick note the the million dollars Was an amount that was suggested. This was through a commission based I would say on Jane mald's experience with preservation systems. So it wasn't entirely arbitrary She felt that that was a figure that would easily be achieved in terms of of having to pay for those systems We just wanted to clarify that but it's an estimate. It's a blank check estimate So the idea was that we pay up to that point for historic preservation related items We don't operate that way. You don't do blank checks in the c-pack. It seems to me and mommy and i have very limited experience here But we fund things that are specific and when it's when an item is unspecific We rejected as we rejected the north lot north amherst library for being unspecific It was asking for a certain amount of money which would solve the problem But we didn't know how same thing goes here Okay, I mean I would Just counter briefly that It's not a blank check in the sense that it would be up up to that amount with the anticipation that this is An expectation of what those systems would cost in a project like this Which was a little different from the north amherst library We had absolutely no information whatsoever and nothing to base it on and with that I will drop Further discussion. Thank you Sarah Can you hear yep, can you hear me all? Yes Um, I apologize. I'm not able to be on deal and I um have to get off the line at seven o'clock So I'm very eager to have the vote. Um So I wanted to say a few things One is that um I really appreciate The points that Nate has raised with us. It's a nuanced End up thoughtful set of arguments Which I really um Find persuading On the other hand I think the time for that we did a set of investigations we talked to the cpa coalition who said consult with an external attorney a council Which the town did and then we also got A very lengthy we said we voted on it and then we got a lengthy set of Comments from our town manager That really asked us to Support the integrity of our previous vote And laid out a whole set of arguments as to why it really wasn't Our place to sort of question the public finance process. I'm just paraphrasing here I think and while I support people's personal and Support of the project in the end if you vote against this it doesn't really matter It's a little bit if I may saying like I supported the the war in Iraq, but I didn't really I voted for the war in Iraq But I didn't really support it. It doesn't really matter in the end. It's the vote and we've voted And I would say on the precedent. I have a couple of points on the precedent setting issue I think that's a material. I think we should set a precedent by supporting this project. This is the most important Uh, it's one of the most important, uh, capital project. It's the largest project Before the cpi the other Others are not at the moment It's highly visible. This is the space that is used by the most diverse members of our community It's used by poor people by families by young families I think as I said in the very first meeting Our vote for this regardless of how we felt about the proposal would be a vote of confidence for the library and I stand by that And I'm prepared to give that vote of confidence And I think it would be a real shame If we voted this down over procedure It's just I don't think that's the town that we want to live in a town that is bogged down in process and legal Issues and I'm I'm prepared to support vociferously The proposal I think we could have had this debate And I maybe would have been persuaded, you know, three or four or five months ago when the proposals first came before us But I think we had a conversation We did due diligence and we discussed it and we voted on it And I don't really want to be in a position where we vote against it at this point and I I think it would be A real shame if we uh, I think No matter how we feel about it, it will be interpreted as Saying the taxpayers don't support the Jones library and I don't think that's the political position Or the outward message that we that's not the message I want to send And I don't want to be on a committee that sends that kind of message. I want to be supporting Uh, the the town I want to support this kind of project this kind of renovation full-throated We have the backing of the town manager and I'm ready to support it anybody else Sarah You're not you have done. Yeah, here. I am here. I am. I would just defer to call though and spray this to sand many times Um, but that's Nate's call um, I just Speaking only to the historic preservation question um Although I might say more broadly. I don't see that we have any information before us now that we didn't have on March Fifth or even a couple weeks before that um We've had only one legal opinion that I can that I remember seeing and that's from the town's attorney um or legal counsel and for me that's They represent the town and have the town's interests um at heart I hope and Maybe I'm oversimplifying I'm relatively new to this committee and perhaps to the town still after eight years but um I'm gonna I'm gonna rely on their opinion And I don't I don't I know that our process was cut off, but I feel that we're just having the same discussion tonight that we had March Fifth and I haven't heard really heard anything new yet So that's it for now anybody else Well Just two very quick points one is you only have one legal opinion as Sarah said It's from your your attorney your town attorney who may rendered that opinion You don't have a competing legal opinion on this particular question So you are able to act if you choose you don't have to act it doesn't say you have to act It says you may act the second point is Also, the cpa committee is not the final arbiter on the financing of it that ultimately resides with the town council The elected officials who are elected by the people So and that's where the the financing arguments I think would should reside at the town council level Not the cpa level yours is to judge if this is something that the cpa committee would like to support or not Thank you for letting me speak Michael did you have your hand up? Yes, I did um I have a question for uh, mr. Bachleman. Uh, is are you suggesting that whether or not the cpa Uh approves or disapproves this project the town council can Extract one million dollars from cpa funds whether or not we approve it. No it cannot arbiter No, it cannot but but my point was that you have to act and the council has to act As well if you don't act the council cannot act so you would you would truncate the process here I'm fine. I want to make sure that was the case and I'm glad I'm glad to know that um The second point I wanted it. Well the first point I wanted to make prior to uh, mr. Bachleman's suggestion a minute ago, uh, was to, uh Respond to what sarah said we would not heard anything new I think we have heard something new and that that's something new has come from the historical commission and the suggestion that a new Application from the library for specifics would be welcome And I would welcome that and if she would like to make that motion or a motion that would Speak to that question, uh, I would be very happy to support that. Uh, I think that's a compromise uh, and since the Issue of funding the library at this point seems not to be a time sensitive terribly time sensitive the way it was before Um, I think that might be a way to get out of this issue and to really get Good support from the town relative to a proposal that would speak to specific issues relative to historic reservation anybody else Diane I I have a very minor point that I would like to ask paul this question The town lawyer's letter does not mention Anything about what she investigated from the department of revenue Which is supposed to be the ultimate Arbiter And I found that a little surprising. I believe there's a one-line mention Of dor but not anything she found out from their postage guidelines or trying to reach the commissioner Of revenue. It's it's a very minor point But I would like to bring it out because just saying it's the town lawyer's letter If it's deficient, I think we should recognize that but I appreciate what michael said um, and I really do wish we could just Put this aside for a later application that CPA would totally be for the department of revenue would be for things that are truly Not building an outside wall but containers and so forth inside To preserve to historically to preserve the historical documents that we all care so much about Sam, did you have your hand up? I did I've been listening to everyone I've read the CPA plan the CPA law the information guidelines released that diana referenced every Submittal twice Every report twice and everything else There's a few different issues. I would say that my opinion is that there is New information from the time that we met in february and march New information would be aside from a commentary from the CPA coalition. We have a letter from the lawyer But we also have letters and submittals and public comments from at least 40 individuals on both sides Aside from our own discussion and the historical commission and others comments about possibly Seeking updated proposal. We also have the information that the director of the library has contacted the mblc for and requested a one-year Delay in their approval of the grant. That's my understanding from the town manager's report I think all of that is relevant And that is separate from opinions that may or may not exist regarding the Merits of the discrepancies that we're talking about here um I also think that given just like with anything, uh, it's advisable to make decisions on the Best available information available at the time of that decision I would say that we have not yet. I don't think it's an appropriate metaphor But I don't think rock has been invaded yet I think it's in the discussion planning and the latest information for all Is a good thing for everyone to consider and in that regard It's clear that there are some committee members who have Reservations or beyond reservations about the current Frazeology and references and I think they should be a lot of the capacity To register their votes with the latest information I I do believe that Uh Additional information is requested or referenced by Nate Diana michael and robin Regarding clarification of the submittal is not a negative and one combined with a A likelihood of delay That nothing would occur between now and the next year's cycle which really isn't that far away Uh, the only other thing I would comment in terms of what's changed. I do think that the financial situation of The town and the country for that matter or the world is uncertain And I would say that's a new piece of information that some people May wish to consider. I'm not saying if I do or not So that's my comment about the general nature of the overall discussion Regarding questions about whether something qualifies Whether or not it's a supplanting of funds. Those are more specific issues, but I think we could Enable for the discussion and allow the committee members to vote With the latest information according to how they feel I just want to respond to something sarah isinger said Um, uh, I don't see this at all as us getting hung up on procedure um, I think I think we have a really complicated proposal of which there is Very differing opinion from two third parties, which both of which we have to take into account And I think we're talking about a million dollars. This is a lot of money um, and I think That isn't procedure. It's about correctly dispersing money fairly precious money in some ways because of the nature of the cpa That's given to us in essence to distribute. So I I don't see this as being procedure based at all now Some of the things that people have been talking about we could rescind this proposal as is And invite the library to do what michael and others are are proposing which is to come back with us Come back to us with a proposal in a budget For things for which there will be no mistaking its qualification and its appropriateness for cpa I would invite that as an individual member Sarah Sarah missle. Yeah. Yeah, I just wanted um Correct a misunderstanding of what I said. I was confining myself to Nate's first question Which was just can we discuss the whether it this project? Uh meets the criteria for historic preservation um So when I said we had no new information, that's what I was referring to obviously we have lots of public comments and and some other documents That's Hi. Yeah, thank you. Um I had asked Three weeks ago or three or four weeks ago in a note to you and anthony to see if the library could come back And present to us on their current plan. So I had if we thought there was sort of all of these You know issues about the status of the project and the timing and I had asked for that library to come back to present to our committee at the So I don't know where that idea Why that didn't happen? I I thought that was an appropriate next step because we're kind of talking around We we're not actually talking to the direct library folks. I guess Matt Blumenfeld is on the call here But um, that would have been helpful um If that To get more information on the timing of the project the revised construction budget all of those Issues that have been raised here Well, I'm sorry that must have fallen through the cracks But we can still get that information, right Sarah's on mute I mean, it's it's not up to me, you know, I I assume they would come and present Um, we think so Paul I do note the chair of the library trustees is in the audience just as a note to you Yeah I'd welcome a comment from him after robin. Let's have robin speak and then if austin would like to speak that would be fine I'm just trying to clarify the the difference between them Coming before the committee again and actually submitting a revised proposal Well, I mean, I guess Paul can correct me if I have the parliamentary process wrong. I guess we could We could reject the proposal as is but invite Another proposal that we could that we could We could very swiftly meet on and make a decision about I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt Go ahead That was the intention of the historic commission's Recommendation to define the proposal within reasonable parameters So if it's better to do it via formal return of proposal to the committee I would definitely support that return to the committee by rejecting the proposal Uh, I'm not sure how we would we're just sending it back and say we need you Sending it back and saying and bring bring it back to us here. The historical commission's recommendations. I have the text present us with a more specific proposal that fits within the guidelines because it's an appropriate project and it just needs to be appropriately presented well So where this stands now is that it's it's considered a vote because there was a vote. It's in the town council's hands Um, they have not acted on it And they don't tend to act on it for quite some time So you can let this ride and then come back in a different time and say we'd like to rescind that previous one And use this other thing And use this alternative or you can rescind now and and then move forward In the hopes that there'd be something different, but there is No time urgency for you to act tonight. I don't think Because the council does not intend to take action on this till Well until they really need to which is at the end of the calendar. You're most likely Michael Uh, there is a motion on the floor to rescind period. Correct Correct Can we add to that motion or as an addition to the motion to rescind the motion to rescind the original vote and encourage the library to resubmit of And then we can use the the language that the historical commission Has developed which escapes me at the moment But put those two ideas into one motion Or do it in two I mean, I don't see why we couldn't rescind the vote and then have a second vote to say we would invite a new proposal The library Paul The chair of the library trustees has his hand raised if you want to invite him in. Okay. Is that Austin? Yes Austin you're on Austin you're muted. Thank you, Nate. Again. Thank you all for the work that you've done Um, I've been on many town committees, um This is a kind of procedural morass that you seem to have Uh, I believe that what would be fair would be for you to invite the library To a meeting at which we could respond to some of what has been articulated tonight Because much of what has been articulated tonight is So to speak new it's new to us Of arguments have been made that we're not previously been made References have been made to conversations among members of the cpa Um, I wasn't at a meeting in which those comments were were were made So it seems to me that It would maybe help the process if you gave the library a chance to actually Respond not in the way of public comment in in advance Of the conversation, but it's been invited us back to talk about some of the concerns that you have Of I don't I don't think we really had a fair chance to talk about those concerns because many of them are I think new on the table at least to me as I've listened to The conversation tonight Thank you. Okay Rob I just want to stress um, what I feel is the need for A defined proposal. I think having more conversation without a defined proposal that clears up all the Issues around whether it's historic preservation or not. Um, just create invites An opportunity for more confusion. So, um, I'm strongly in support of asking For a revised proposal from the library and then allowing more comment and discussion But without without defining it in terms of the historical commission's recommendation, which is very specific I think we get Into too much confusion and lack of clarity I think that's a really important point Letcher has been trying to talk for a while. No, it's okay. Um, I've just it really seems that Everybody right now at the moment on the committee seems to be in them Um In agreement that we should rescind this and that the library committee comes back to us very That that's that that seemed So, no major If not everybody I think there certainly seems to be some interest in that there's a way to to effectively move this process forward Just move move forward. So so we could have we could have the vote on the motion on the floor We could follow that by a motion to encourage um the library With working with the historical commission submit a proposal Robin. Hey, sarah. Do you want to mute? Go ahead Robin. Um, I just I prepared a motion for the previous week's meeting So just I just emailed it to anthony. So I do have language ready if we need it Okay So the people michael I think it would be wise to put the two ideas together to rescind and to invite Because I think that will create a a stronger vote in favor. I was going to say the same thing I'm not comfortable with one vote and then another. I feel like they have to be together. Yeah, I agree um Would somebody like to volunteer some wording for that? Just so we have some clarity robin I already had it written Uh, okay. So the wording is uh that the cpa committee requests to revise proposal from the apple panther friends of the dunes library Which aligns with the historical commission recommendation to the cpa CPA committee on july 30th 2020 the text of which follows The embers historical commission is in favor and principle of preserving the town's special collections of cpa funds targeted to h back climate control and fire suppression An appropriate document and artifact storage in an appropriately secured space Up to a total of one million dollars with the recommended bombing period of 10 years That in addition to the revised proposal the applicant submit an explanation as to why the line item budget for this project Is not currently available in the timeline for when this budget can be expected And I said to t anthony so he's got I'm just asking a question about that. Um Why do we give a dollar figure? Yeah, you know up to a certain dollar figure. Why wouldn't we simply say You you understand, you know, they you understand what the concerns are among the committee resubmit an a an historical preservation proposal With a budget so that we know what the money is being spent for as opposed to saying find another way to come up to a million dollars That's a fair question. I mean again the the million dollar figure And jane wild isn't here to speak to this and she has much more expertise in this regard but the million dollar figure was um decided upon because 1.5 million seemed to maybe um I don't know I don't want to praise this the wrong way Was not an appropriate figure But that with her experience in terms of what all these systems would cost To give the committee a sense of what they would be looking at in terms of those systems that around a million dollars would be relatively Straightforward to reach a million dollars if you put all those systems in place But the motion doesn't have to have that dollar figure It was just put there as helpful guidance from someone with experience of Going through these sort of uh installations of preservation systems to give a sense of expertise of What was a realistic amount one could expect to spend? I guess what's awkward about that to me is it sounds like it's backfilling a dollar amount Which is and that was not that was definitely not the intention and if we want to strike that language I think that's totally fine again It was really from the cerebral commission to give the cpa a sense of what realistically these kinds of systems would cost Okay, michael, I think we need to second robin's motion first of all Anybody like to second the motion? I will Okay seconded by michael. Aren't we in the middle of a first vote? Yeah, I think we're going to add this language to the first motion That's right This is a substitute an addition to the original motion is what this is and we're voting on whether to add it to the original motion Diana The first thing is I think we have to rescind the vote that was on the Made originally and the second thing is I think when this The library Resubmits they should submit a budget. That's what everybody else does. We shouldn't tell them What? Kinds of things they should budget they should decide what the most important things are and put them in their new proposal But if we need to take that vote on rescinding that wasn't even part of the last motion Go ahead michael Yes, it was part of the last motion It was the last motion was in addition to rescinding at least that's that's what I was Suggesting and I think that's what robin intended So the motion is to rescind and the language. She just gave us Okay, and that's the substitute motion and that we have to vote on whether whether we accept that as a substitute to the original motion Sam seems to be An awfully long-winded addition to a motion from my perspective I think we'd be better served to accomplish rescinding and then to have a simple statement that says the committee and seeks to invite another proposal and provide Without those parameters it provides the flexibility for the library to accomplish whatever to be accomplished in that proposal But the substance at hand And the decision at hand is whether or not to rescind the vote that existed in March Then thereafter Our doors are open for whatever Would be requested it would allow and I think it's two separate motions from my my opinion robin um If you look at the text on the screen Perhaps like what not quite as long as it sounds the reason it sounds on is it because it includes the exact text that we developed in the historical commission meeting to help direct The proposal to appropriate An appropriate presentation so we don't end up in the same situation that we did now Which is that they don't have enough clarity about what would be an appropriate Ask And I I feel that we should keep these These two ideas together because I think there's greater support on the committee If we combine the ideas then there would be simply for rescinding because I think some people on the committee might not be willing to vote to rescind Without the additional Correct. I'm one of those people. Thank you. Yeah, I was first saying that michael Sarah marshal May um That david I just I think it's I imagine that from the library's perspective And given the the opinion of the town's turny they think they've presented something that Passes, you know, that qualifies so I mean if If their proposal is turned down, then I guess, you know, they'll decide what's their next best step, but um to tell them to do something that satisfies the historic Preservation guidelines, I mean, I think they think they've already done that so David Yes, I Sarah just stated but the question I if you're going to rescind this Um proposal Uh, so you're asking the library to send me a different million dollar proposal Well, I hope not because I think that would be a terrible message. Um, well, that's what I'm getting There are questions being raised and the library needs A million dollars They've come to the cpa So We are saying we are going to reject the proposal that sent us another proposal uh And we have not said send us for proposing Was a half million dollar and we will seriously consider funding I think they've sent us a proposal for what they need Yeah, I I think I'm with you Robin can says your question. Is there an objection to just keeping this fairly simple and just Including we invite the library to come back to us with a budget And a list of items that they think are I'm just not sure That's that's fine. I think that I think that um somewhere in the process we got We steered away from the historical commission trying to provide guidance to both the applicant and the cpa And that was the purpose of the statement It's not to ask the library to propose something different It's to ask them to refine their proposal so that it fits appropriate with the guidelines, which is everyone's intention So Because we have a recommendation from the historical commission, which is an important part of the process It seems helpful, but you know, I'm I'm open. I'm open to to making it more Let me know less verbiage, but I just want people to understand that the purpose is that That the part of the reason that we're in this situation is because The library did not clearly enough understand What could and couldn't be allowed In terms of funding for cpa and because of where they are in their grant process They didn't have a line item budget that we could direct them toward to say These are the things that we could cover you can ask for them So that's the purpose of the specificness of the recommendation and the fact that the The commission itself made a statement at its meeting, which I purposefully wrote down and purposefully brought to the cpa to To provide as much clarity as possible That's a long answer. Sorry Michael Robin, would you be willing to remove the one million dollars from that amendment? Yeah, that's fine That makes a big difference. I think in terms of the signal it sends to the library It may come back essentially that amount anyway, but If we're not suggesting it then it doesn't necessarily come back that way right understand your point so uh Sam did you want to say something I still think we need to I still think we need to accomplish the item on the agenda which is to vote on the rescinding and then to have a second comment whatever that might be in favor of The question is seminal. That's my opinion. I think it's cleaner that way and It's easiest Anthony um There's a lot of back and forth about how you're going to vote. You have a motion in front of you to amend the first motion I might suggest someone calls that vote That's all Okay So retract it Yeah, I mean, I think we are getting caught up in the weeds a little bit. I think we're in there's much more agreement among all of us then then um Then one might think I mean I I think We seem to all be very much in support Let me back up. We seem to be most of us seem to be leaning toward Either Rejecting the Jones proposal because we think it ought to be rejected or rejecting it because we think we can get something better from them. So If if we and Anthony, I don't know what the procedure is Are people comfortable with just to keep it kind of simple to vote on? rescinding and then voting on What we want to encourage the Jones library to do because it doesn't seem like there's much disagreement among the committee About the substance of those things. It seems like there's some disagreement about whether we vote in one motion or two, which We could probably talk about all night Paul go ahead So there is a procedure under Robert's rules. You have a moat you put a motion on the table Nate to rescind Robin put a a either a substitute motion as Michael said or an amendment to your motion And so that's what's on the table now as Anthony said. That's what you can either vote on or not Or vote yes or no on so I think That's how actions take place So we we have a motion on the floor and we can amend that emotion and then vote on the amended version of the motion Okay, and do we have to vote for the amendment before we vote for the Sam I think we should Ascend the amendment and just vote on the first motion and put a second motion in there. That's clear Anthony said You don't have to rescind the amendment. Just vote no on the amendment So I call the question on voting on the voting to add the amendment is there a second Second so we are voting on the Addition of an amendment to the original no Michael has called the question this is a closed debate Okay And we have a second correct correct Is there any discussion? This is a motion to end debate Yeah, I don't believe you discuss You can't discuss it Good point. Uh since this is a since this is a remote meeting. Uh, we'll do this as a roll call vote Okay What are we voting on this is a vote to this is a vote to call the question on the amendment on the Motion to amend the motion and end debate on that So this is a motion to close debate Uh Burt whistle. Yes buddington. Yes Clark Yes Isenker Yes Fordham. Yes McLeod Sure What do you call me? Yes. Yes. Stein. Yes, Williams Yes Okay, debate is closed. So, uh, we'll now move to vote on The amendment so the amendment Is i'm going to read it one more time That the so this is this will be added to the first motion That the cpa committee request a revised proposal from the applicant the friends of the jones library Which aligns with the historical commission recommendation to the cpaq on january 30th 2020 The text of which follows the mr. Historical commission is in favor and principle of preserving the town's special collections with cpa funds Targeted to hvac climate control and fire suppression and appropriate documents and artifact storage in an appropriately in an appropriately secured space That in addition to the revised proposal the applicant submit an explanation as to why a line item budget for this project Is not currently available and a timeline for when this budget can be expected This is a vote on this amendment to the motion Okay, burt whistle. Yes buddington. Yes Clark. Yes Isinger Yes. Yes. No, I'm right here and I'm leaving in about two minutes Okay How what's your vote sarah? I said yes Fordham. Yes McLeod Marshall no Stein Yes Williams Yes Okay, the vote is seven to two in favor. So the motion is amended Call the question on the motion second Okay, a vote to call the question on the first motion. This will end debate Uh Burt whistle. Yes, buddington. Yes Clark. Yes Isinger Yes Fordham Yes McLeod Yes Marshall Yes Stein Yes Williams Yes Okay, so This is a motion to I wrote this down I want to get the exact text So this is a motion to rescind the recommendation of the jones library project and to append Uh the text that I just led to you a moment ago To read it again I'm serious. This is the motion to rescind the recommendation for the jones library project And that the cpa committee request a revised proposal from the applicant the friends of the jones library Which aligns with the historical commission recommendation to the cpaq on january 30th 2020 the text of which follows The unhurst historical commission is in favor and principle of preserving the town's special collections with cpa funds Targeted to hVAC climate control and fire suppression and appropriate documents and artifact storage and an appropriately secured space And that in addition to the revised proposal the applicants submit an explanation As to why a line and a budget for this project is not currently available and a timeline for when this budget can be expected Okay, so this is a vote on what I just read buddington, uh burt whistle. Sorry Yes buddington Yes Clark Yes Isinger I'm sorry Someone other I'll vote in a moment. Hold on. Can you keep going? Fordham Yes McLeod I'll vote in a moment What Marshall No Stein Yes Williams Yes Isinger I mean, yes A cloud Sam your vote Yeah, I'm contemplating it I'll say yes The vote is eight to one Thank you, anthony for your, um Efficiency guidance. Thank you paul for your roberts rules of order guidance Um So we can move on Mr. Chairman, I just want to let you know I have to leave right now. I'm sorry Over time Thank you for hanging in there with us. Thanks. Thanks a lot everybody. Bye. Bye sir um I would recommend that maybe we um Well Okay, so the cpa plan I think correct me if i'm wrong. I think the one issue in the cpa plan is the The language submitting the language Give us some flexibility to ask for money back unspent money back after three years Am I wrong in that? Are there other outstanding issues with the plan? Okay So, um Maybe that's something that we can make some Suggestions for and bring and we're probably going to meet again given what we just did And we can include a fairly Simple review and vote about that language as inserted into this document. Is that Is that okay with people That's diana That's fine. I think asking for the money back in Uh to come back into the town car first if It hasn't been spent in three years is a good idea. The only question I had Is might there be an appeals process to eat paul or sonia? Or somebody outside of the committee if there were some Um Catastrophe let's say that led to this delay in spending it. I would like some appeals process possibly add it So I just mentioned that I don't know the right way to do it. Sonia has it Well, maybe if if anybody would like to contribute some possible language to that and bring it to our next meeting Um, I don't think it's very complicated. Um, but I think diana, you're right. That's a The appeals process seems pretty critical To that. Um, why don't we do that if anybody wants to chime in on that with some alternate with some language And hopefully we can make a decision on our next meeting and finalize the plan Um, I will talk to sarah. I mean it relates somewhat to the reporting process in terms of being able to ask for an extension So, um, I'll try to talk to her and see if we can pull something together. Excellent. Okay. That's great um Is the report is a report from the outreach task force sam that would be you right? Uh, that would be me We held off post march meeting with the onset of all the issues that affected the world We agreed to meet again in july where we will generate a list of Projects for which we would like to have signage made My understanding from sanya's email is that paul has agreed in concept To authorizing town staff to generate signs signage and the process needs to be determined In terms of how we would make that ask and sanya and paul and others would Return a comment to us in terms of how we would approach that but in essence The subcommittee will try to come up with a prioritized listing for signs separate from this We also have an email and a request in to set up a facebook page for The c-pack committee. We believe that it would be worthwhile to highlight some of the benefits and the nice projects that are out there And we're I emailed Brianna paul And paul, uh, excuse me. Nate had contacted her previously There was positive response and that the question that related to it was how it would be overseen administratively to make sure that it Functions smoothly and so we're certainly amenable to whatever methods The town uh deems appropriate But we'd like to be able to start as soon as we could with the intent to have positive engagement with the community with the idea of increasing the potential submittals of projects beyond the usual players We think that the committee does a lot of good things and we'd like to see more proposals from well reaches and anything We can do in a positive way to outreach would be helpful. So whatever Feedback we get from Brianna and the town would be great on facebook and we have some other Issues that we'll start up again on the checklist to do in July, but I don't anticipate that we'll be going to any district meetings as of yet to Discuss what we're doing. We'll see how that plays out Thank you, sam Anthony, did you have something to say? Yeah, I just wanted to note on the facebook thing Um CPAC actually has a facebook page already Uh, if any of our veterans know who controls it that would be Info that's news to me Yeah, I have I have contacted the anonymous owner of the page and not received a response. It's not active. Nobody's used it since 2017 Um, and it's not associated with any town email addresses So i'm guessing a former chair, but nobody in town hall seems to know who's running it If anyone so us we all agree and concur with paul and sanya and rihanna's Request that it be managed properly, right? So if anyone has an inkling on who already owns it that just it'll save us the setup We could just resume But if nobody knows then we'll just ignore it and start to rain in that rogue facebook page somehow. Yeah Sarah Yeah, I I I wonder it must be possible But I don't know how difficult it would be to get facebook to take that down if it's Representing itself as a government page and in fact, if effectively it's not Yeah, I I I don't know. I mean it's I mean it it it's a couple years out of date, but clearly it was maintained by someone Who worked with the committee like it's It's linking to our proposals. It's written professionally. It's using photographs so Somebody did this legit at one point and I'm guessing a former chair who's just oh So we do wind up with these rogue pages that individuals set up not and in terms of maintaining Sort of consistency and liability issues for any kind of social media pages for the town Because you are a town committee We do run them all through our communications manager Who's Brianna and we make sure we sort everything so that everybody's working on the same platform It's being managed the it department has the ability to change things if things get up there so Just be patient on how that works its way out wicks through Thanks Robin did you um want to talk any more about the reporting task force? I do not have anything to report at this point. Okay Um, I have no topics that the chair didn't anticipate but anybody else sarah I I wonder if Since town council Approved our recommendations for the cash grants. Is the reporting? Is that ready to kick in as a as a requirement for these some? Organizations that have successfully uh Been granted money You mean whatever robin's group comes up with? For reporting Yeah, I mean the sooner the better at you know tomorrow. It's july 1st the new fiscal year. So I would like to remember whatever robin and her group come up with would be ineffective immediately. I would assume I I will uh get back to touch with sarah eisinger and um, um, I'll report back We have this touch base. That's the last Time we reported okay, that's great Anything anybody else So I guess we will be hearing from the library at some point And we reconvening Uh, won't be with me. I'll be leaving the committee. Uh, probably tomorrow Um, because I'm moving So I'll paul. I'll send you the official email about that tomorrow if you need if you need that So I guess our work is done. Thanks for uh, I know this has been long and laborious and kind of exhausting Uh, thanks for everybody being so thoughtful and civil In doing this the way that I think people in town Should be proud of I think we really worked well on this issue even though it was a long slog So thanks for doing that. Thank you, Nate for your thank you, Nate On you guys are a great group. Where are you going? Yeah, williams town Oh Really? You can visit You're going to it now Who will be taken so who's uh, who was the vice chair again? I know we voted on that Marshall, I believe Sarah. Okay got it from the next meeting. You'll probably have to elect officers. Um Yeah, so I'll convene that I convene that I I guess so Let's you and I talk about uh setting up a doodle poll or something and figure out what our next meeting is We'll need to give the library time Respond and figure out what our schedule is And so we will have a vacant at-large seat So I forget that that used how that used to be determined paul is that something you can Decide now. Okay Um, do we have a motion to adjourn? So move that we second it Uh any discussion all in favor? Hi Thanks, everybody. We are. Thank you. Goodbye. We'll miss you. Thanks, Nate. See you Anthony. Bye. Bye. Thanks, Anthony Thank you. You're welcome Very much appreciated You guys are good