 being recorded. We're live and we are now being recorded. All right, then I'd like to call this meeting of the Community Preservation Act Committee to order at 601 p.m. on Thursday, November 19, 2020, pursuant to the governor's order, suspending in-person meetings during the pandemic. We are meeting remotely, and this meeting is being recorded. The video will be uploaded to the town's YouTube channel, hopefully within a week. So I would like everyone who's, all the members of the committee to just say their names in any order, just announcing your present. Robin Fordham, Historic Commission. David Williams, housing. Thank you. Andrew McDougal, planning. Katie Allen, so we'll at large. And Sam McLeod's here, and I'm Sarah Marshall for LSSE. As I said, we know Sarah Eisinger will be late. And here is so sorry. So sorry. That's okay. We're just just taking attendance on a devil and goth ears here. Did I get that right? Yes. Okay, I will try. Keep trying. So who, who is absent? Other than Diana? Diana. Okay. All right. We first need to choose a minute taker. David, is that something you're able to do? Can you take minutes? I can send you a recording. I can send you a recording, David. Afterwards, if you need to supplement. David, can you hear me? All right, maybe Anna. Sorry, Anna. I know you knew. I can do my very best. Anthony, did you say there was a template that you would be able to send me? Yep. Thank you. That'd be great. And it's your choice. You could enter some notes now, but just know that you can go back and That thought actually fills me with more dread. So I'm going to try to capture it. Have to do it twice. Yeah, I will. I will send you the link Anna, as soon as it's available, even before it's public, I'll send it to you. At least have it. I found that using the word yada, yada, yada helps a lot. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks, Sam. That's right. And robust discussion, I think, is that Ah, yes. Yes. All right. So we need to reorder the agenda because Sonya has to, and I don't know if Sean's listening in, they have a meeting at 6 30, a budget meeting. So I would like to give the floor to Sonya and she can go through the financials. I hope everybody had a chance to look at what she sent out yesterday. So Sonya, I don't know if you want to share that on your screen. Oh, you have that. Oh, I can have it in about 20 seconds. Hold on. Diana's emailing me. No, she doesn't have the link. It hasn't changed, but you know, let me. So I can start off anyways, I sent an email out to everybody yesterday. I hope everybody got it and had a chance to read it. And basically, I'll just go through each bullet item. Number one is our the eight hundred thousand dollars for the affordable housing project. That has to be pulled out of the 22 cycle and put into 21, because that's probably going to happen in this fiscal year. And we can do that because it's a borrowing authorization. So the funding source allows us to do that at any point in time. So you're saying that, I mean, if we choose to fund it at all, exactly, we will recommend borrowing in fiscal year. I'm just saying it's no longer part of FY 22 proposals. It's going to be considered as a 21. Okay, let me change. I'm making there. Does anybody have any questions about that? I'll just I'm sorry. I'm I'm new Sonia. I I'm this is Katie Allen. So I'm not sure I do understand how that works. So this this proposal came up suddenly and it happened to be it was before the 22. The proposals had to go out for 22, but it came up at this point in time, but it's moving along a lot faster than anticipated. So it's probably going to happen before the end of this fiscal year, which is fiscal year 21. Right, I'm just wondering how how you I guess I'm trying to understand the order of how how the money is then would be assigned to that. Well, there's money in 21, you're saying? Yes, this is just a borrowing authorization. So the money for this would really show up as debt service in years. Can I add Katie that we all of our all of our decisions are merely recommendations to town council. We're still in fiscal year 2021. So if we say we recommend you borrow in this fiscal year for this project, then they can do that quite rapidly and we don't have nobody has to wait until next July. Got it. Okay, with with the idea being that they need that money because it's tied to the closing on a property. So that's the urgency for this as opposed to some of the other ones. Right, they need the money in order to go to move forward on the project. So if the committee could see into voting that recommendation, if you so if you feel you want to recommend it tonight, that would be great for moving this project forward. Is there any more questions on that one? Well, I would just add if I understood you right, Sonya, yesterday that if if we do recommend this to council, then council has to have a public public discussion of this project. Right. Once there will be opportunity for the public to weigh in. That's right. We wouldn't even put the order to the council until we we had a plan. We had the funding plan and everything. And then we it would go to the council. They'd recommend it to finance committee. Finance committee would vet it and their public could weigh in on it. So there's other vetting. I think there has to be a hearing on it too. I'm not 100 percent sure how that works, but. So Sonya, does that mean we would take it off of the slate? We'd vote on it separately so that it could just we could easily that we could potentially do that to move it forward more quickly? Right, that's why I removed it if you see the proposed projects below. That's why I removed it from that slate for 22, but we're confused. In fact, in fact, I will, I will bring up that one first when when we get ready to actually make decisions on projects. We'll deal with that one first. Okay. Yeah. Are we good with that one? Go ahead. Yeah. The other one is the Johns Library. Again, it's just a borrowing authorization. It is for school year 22, but if you recommend the borrowing authorization, it would not go forward again to council or finance committee until unless council decides to go forward with the with the project with the library. So no money is borrowed or anything until the project moves forward. Any questions on that one? So the other thing is I know there was some confusion with debt debt service and where that was. So I sent what you're seeing there is the box that's on the financial statements all the time. That is the existing debt out there. That is it would be on if you see Valley CDC. We haven't started that debt yet, but it's there. If you vote the other two debts, they will go there as well. Sorry to interrupt Sonia. We're going to share screen I would have the email up just so we can follow along. Yeah, I'm trying to find trying to find my own copy. I can grow up now. Thank you. Thank you, Sonia. Just kind of direct me to where you want it to focus. Scroll down a little bit. There you go. Oops. More. No, bring it back. I should have set up, I guess. Okay. No, then I should have set down. I want to see the FY 22 there, the yellow box. Yes, okay. That's it. So that's usually on the bottom of the financials that we hand out periodically through these meetings as this gets updated and that I'll always show what's outstanding for debt and when it's being paid off. Also in the budget book and the appendix, which is usually linked in the budget page of the web page, you can always find what outstanding debt is for CPA. It's separate there and you can always contact our office and we'll be glad to share the information. Are there any more questions on the debt? The Kendrick Parks, Sonia. Year one or year two of five? Year one. We've only borrowed $50,000 so far because they needed to do the design, I believe, or the study first. So year one. Some of these debts are permanently bonded and some of these are still in the band stage, meaning we haven't gone out and gotten a permanent bond on it yet and sometimes we permanently bond, sometimes we roll over the debt for five years. So once we meet with Bond Council every year and we figure out what we're going to do with that this could change, but we will let you know when it does. And can I say to the committee what this does is correct to what I showed you last week because I was wrong that there were past borrowings authorized for the North Common. So that was wrong. So this is everything that's on CPAs that is our responsibility, even if we don't know when it's going to start. Well, it was an easy thing for you to be confused with because we did, we do have a borrowing authorization for the parking lot for the North Common in transportation fund. So that happened right around the same time. So that's probably where confusion came in. Can you scroll down to the recommendations? So this is basically, I was just trying to figure out how the committee could fund all the projects if they wanted to. So and I also had conversations with the town manager and staff. So the, I know there's some vetting that needs to be done with the Mill River. So I took it off the list for the amount because the way it is now it is not fundable through CPA. I don't know if there's a different proposal they're putting through, but that's going to take time. So I just wrote in there and I talked to Sarah about it and I just wrote in there that to table it for now till further further. It can go beyond this because if you, if you vote a budget reserve, then we could fund it at any point during fiscal year 22. Right. So our options tonight for that are either to reject it outright or to table it, but we cannot vote to approve it tonight given, okay, and we'll get into more. Right. Right. You can vote to recommend it, but I won't. You won't let it happen. Okay. So the other part on this is when I talked to the town manager and the facilities director about the roofs and explained and it was the lowest priority from your straw pool. I asked them if it could go out another year and they said that they could do that. The only thing that we needed to do is add a little more money to the other two because like I said, they had packaged that whole thing so that they could get a bid for all three at once. So I added, we put the two roof projects, the town hall and the months and back together. And the reason I put them together is because if one comes in like $500 more and the other is $500 less or there's extra in the other, we have that flexibility to just continue the project and finish it without going through all the process again, where if they're voted separately, then we have to come to you for a recommendation to move it and then go to council and everything just to move a little bit of money. So it's just flexibility and how the funds can be used. So it's the same, it's for the same purpose. So it's fine to bundle them together. So that's why we did that. And we added $10,000 because of the extra cost. Losing some of the efficiencies. Right. And whatever of that $10,000 is not used, just goes back to fund balance when the projects are done. And let's see what else. So if you see here, without funding, we got a pretty good state match this this year. I haven't seen it this good in a very long time. And it's kind of mind boggling to me, but during this time. Anthony, I think you have to scroll further down now. Is that right? Just so that gave us a little extra money and not funding. If you decide not to fund the North Amherst School roof, that gives us flexibility to put money in in general reserve. We have 377 reserved for fiscal year 21. But I don't believe there's any plan to spend it. So it would go back to fund balance a year in. So you could take that 377, roll it over and add to it to correct to have 600,000 for a reserve for a project that may come up. Like I said, I just did this to show that it could be funded. With two bar. Yeah. If we wanted to approve everything, basically, you could approve everything with two borrowing recommendations. Yeah, and Sonia have two questions. Is this assumed that everything was is that the exact same, except for the roofs of what they requested? I just don't remember all the numbers often. Like, did you change any of the numbers? The numbers I change is I added 10,000 to the to the months in a roof. That's the only number. That's the only one. OK. And then the only one that we're not funding in here, according to this is the trails, right? And then Jones Library, you're you're talking about treating it as an FY 21. Jones Library, the housing project. OK. Oh, so I rate is here as a borrowing author. OK, for FY 22 housing would be FY 21. OK, forgive me. Sorry about that. That's OK. Actually, I'm I'm sorry. I was still confused on the Jones Library piece, so we don't have. Why is it not in the schedule now? Because a borrowing authorization doesn't really get added to this year's appropriation. It's not the appropriation happens in future years. This is just saying we can borrow the money when debt when the mortgage payments or debt payments are due. That's when they get added in the blue area down here. And that's when it becomes something that needs to be funded. Andy, this is like our cash. So. And then we make a lot of mortgage payments that are in blue eventually. But it's all coming out of our of our. So if you put the million dollars in here, then it would show that we we would need to fund three million two fifty nine this year. That's not how borrowing works. It just it tells it's just saying we can borrow the money to do this project. And then we have mortgage payments we have to make on it every year. And that in every year it shows up in the blue each year. That pays interest payments. Those those future mortgage payments come from future CPAC allocations. Yes. Yes. And thus diminish what we can spend in out years. Yes. Yeah. So even even where we I guess that just surprised me because I thought we were carrying over enough sort of mortgage payments that we wouldn't have been able to. Accomplish all of this. Oh no. If you look at the did you see the attachment to the email that said book one on there? The book. Yeah. That was a debt. That shows the debt out through the years. Can you bring that up, Anthony? Like Andy, some of these are ending. They're ending in the next couple of years. They'll be all paid off. So yeah, I think it helps that we've got eight hundred thousand out and thirty five for the North Amherst roofs. That's what made a huge difference in this. Right. The million two though, right? Yeah. Did you think it was larger than that? The eight hundred thousand, if approved, would pop up in later years, though. Correct. Right. It would pop up in twenty three, actually. You'll see the debt service or that in twenty three. And it'll probably be eighty thousand plus whatever the interest rate is at that time unless it's permanently bonded. So that would show up in fiscal year twenty three as one of those payments. But others are dropping off. So this is the professional version of what I tried. Right. So at the bottom of the two items in red are ones we're considering. This committee will decide whether to recommend those or not. And you can see how they will affect our debt service. Right. Over the years. So the debt service will be about five hundred about five hundred and thirty thousand fiscal year twenty three and the highest that will reach is six about six hundred and thirty one thousand and twenty four. But then it drops right back down and then it starts dropping pretty drastically from the issue. But that's if we don't do any more future projects. So right. So like as we get to next year's projects, we're going to be adding potentially more into this. Only if you borrow for them. I guess is how how common is that through CPAC to have projects where we need to borrow. It looked like there were eight or nine. I mean, I don't know, maybe five or six. Sarah, could I comment on this? Yes, please, David. Since I've been a part of a lot of the larger projects over the years. So yeah, I mean, this is a great conversation on many communities. This is kind of the balancing act. Many communities like Amherst that are kind of proactive on affordable housing projects, open space projects, larger historic renovation projects do this kind of dance, if you will, between available cash and then bonding larger projects. So through the years, you know, we have done some pretty large projects. I think the largest bond that we did was for the preservation of it's on here, the Rolling Green Affordable Housing Project, which was one point two five. I think that might be the largest one we've done, Sonia. So so it's it's it's a fairly common practice. But as some of you are pointing out, it's that balancing act between not bonding so much that it eats into your principle so that you can't do new projects. And I think that's what staff and and committee CPA members are always kind of balancing. And I do think it takes kind of foresight to look forward to say, OK, we want to make sure we don't bond too much so that when a good project, a new project, an exciting projects in one of the categories comes up, that we're not fluid enough and and don't have enough money to fund it. So I think this is a great conversation, but it is a common practice to do these things. And oftentimes affordable housing projects, open space projects are big ticket items. Yeah, big ticket items need. Yeah, thank you. Well, Sonia, you just tell us when you need to leave, but I don't know if there are any more questions from the committee. I got Sam. It's for Sonia. I see in the open space column, we don't have any on this schedule, but we do have a requirement to spend 10 percent. Of new expenditures towards that. Am I correct that there? Yes, in number here that we would allocate and reserve? You're correct that there is not 10 percent under open space, but recreation counts as open space. So we're we're good about that. OK. But yes, we're not required to to approve a project in in order to spend 10 percent on it. We can, as we did last year, reserve reserve money for a specific category in the future. Any other questions before? Right. And I just want to point out in this model that fifty thousand is being used to fund historic projects this year, which helps to increase if you go with this model, it helps to increase the general reserve to six hundred thousand. Right. But we'll have to vote specifically to use and it's better to have it in our general reserve, because then you can use it for any lawful any one of the purposes for for CPAC, where if it's left as a. Historic preservation fund balance, and you can only use it for historic preservation. But anything else? All right, thank you very much, Sonia. You're welcome. I assume you and Dave are both on to the next meeting, or maybe Dave's going to stay with us. Don't know. You're saying. OK, good luck, everybody. All right. Well, thank you, Sonia, for your work on this and Holly, I'm sure, also. So thank you, very helpful. OK. Yes. All right. So you've noticed we are taking reordered the agenda. What I would like to do now is. Hopefully approve the minutes of October twenty second. Those were sent out a week ago. So can I just see a show of hands of people who are ready to take those up? OK, that looks like most people. All right. So these were taken by Diana. Anthony has. Thank you, Diana. I have to watch the whole thing over. Anthony has the text and I have already and maybe some of you have already sent small small corrections. So I think I think three people sent me a list of small corrections, not all of which I have reviewed, but all of which I have received and will incorporate. Great. So does anybody have any substantive correction? I see none. I probably should have asked for a motion to accept the minutes. So I will do that now. Can I have a motion to accept the minutes of the October twenty second meeting as amended eventually by Anthony, according to the changes requested by committee members? I assume. Robin, thank you. Second. Second. Sam, thank you. Any more discussion? All in. I have to do a roll call, right? All right. So I'm going to ask how you will vote on this motion. I is to accept the minutes as amended. Sam McLeod. All right. Dave Williams. All right. Andy McDougal. Hi. Diana Stein. Hi. Anna Devlin. Gauthier. Hi. Katie Allen. Sobel. Hi. Sarah Eisinger. I'm abstaining because I wasn't there. OK. Robin Fordham. Hi. And Sarah Marshall. I thank you. All right. So we are all caught up with minutes. Hopefully in advance of our December third meeting, we will have draft minutes from the previous to November meetings. OK. All right. So I have just lost my agenda. I believe we have public comment next. Yes. Do we have anybody? There must be people observing. Is. Yeah. If anyone in the audience, if anyone in the audience wants to make a comment now, you can raise your hand. There's seven attendees. No one is raising their hand right now. Someone had an issue apparently last time. So you might. Yeah. And that person did email and her email made it into the packet for the week. So yeah. By the way, there was one letter sent late today. I'm just expect we'll be added to the. Packet tomorrow. All right. So. So we are now up to discuss and vote on proposal recommendations. So as I said, we should first take up the Amherst municipal affordable housing trusts request for eight hundred thousand dollars for land purchase. We should take that up as a FY 21 borrowing item in order for it to be useful if we so approve or recommend it needs to be in the current fiscal year. So I think before we open discussion, would anyone like to move to recommend that council borrow eight hundred thousand dollars for this purpose? I so move. Diana, thank you. Anna, was that a second? Oh, that's fine. Enthusiastic second. I'm excited about it. All right, with any. So the floor is now open for discussion. If anybody wants to speak in favor of it, opposition or some concern about any part of it about the. Amount or. Sam, just wondering if we had any new information about it, that's all, but otherwise I'm good to go. Dave would know, but I haven't heard any. Yes, Dave, go ahead. Or perhaps it would help if we heard all the questions and then John Hornick, who's on this call as well, or I could answer all of them. They might be similar. Are they so so we can provide a brief update, but are there other questions or concerns? All right, we'll we'll float them all then right now. Sam, what's your. Sorry, my phone. I'm going to mute myself. So. I believe I understand that there's a request for eight hundred thousand dollars and there's a reference made in association with it to a potential purchase and sale agreement that's that may be imminent. But my understanding is that there's not a completed purchase and sale at present. And that is a significant factor in my thought process. At present, if we approve eight hundred thousand, we're approving it for general usage and not necessarily specifically tied to an unknown to a project that there's not a purchase and sale. That's my understanding. I may be if somebody can correct me, that would be fine. So I'm quite interested in hearing more. I'm, you know, I like the the fact that the town is coming to us and that John is coming to us with, you know, something on the hook, I guess, I would call it. But am I incorrect that there's not at yet as of yet an actual confirmation of that? I'd like to hear more about that. All right, any more questions? Yes, Andy. Thank you. Yeah, I had a quick question, I believe in the materials. And then, John, when you presented it as well, you talked about a multiplier for this investment. I was just wondering whether that how that multiplier comes into play when we consider this eight hundred thousand number. So maybe I could maybe I could start and then turn it over to John to talk about the multiplier and where this might go from here. So yes, so we appreciate your patience on this. John and I have been working very closely and almost daily contact for a couple of weeks on this. So the town working with the trust in this collaboration is moving very quickly. And that's one of the reasons I listened in on your earlier conversation with Sonya. And and it is somewhat unusual to have this project be considered at this time as part of this this grouping of what what our FY twenty two projects and and the need to pull that out and move it to be an FY twenty one project is really driven by the fact that if we want to make this opportunity happen, real estate is real estate and we need to move so before somebody else does and buys this this this property out from under us. So we appreciate you considering that in answer to responding to Sam's questions. The purchase and sale agreement is is extremely close. I think we will have that finalized within days, not weeks. And really the CPAs your your charge is not to authorize spending, but to recommend to the council that the council consider moving forward on this project as well as the suite of projects that have been presented to you. So what would happen here is if all goes well, which I think it will, and we lock in a purchase and sale agreement, we would then present to the council and any committees that they refer this to. Sonya referenced the finance committee, it would certainly need to go to the finance committee. It might also have to go to TSO, which is another committee of the council. Those committees would make a recommendation back to the council and then the council would take a vote. Throughout that process, we will need to present all of the information. It's just we can't do that until we have that sign purchase and sale agreement, which I said is very close. So we would present maps, development scenarios and a full budget, not only the purchase budget, but also any development costs or excuse me, any due diligence costs, appraisal, survey and the like legal costs that form this package. Our hope is that the number will be less than eight hundred thousand dollars. So we feel very confident that we can bring this project in lower than that. We want it to be conservative that eight hundred is a conservative number, but we hope to bring it in lower than that. Dave, I think part of what I heard in Sam's question, though, was how since we don't have a name for the property or the project, how do we make it clear that this recommendation, if we make it, is for this specific piece of land that we can't describe and not that it turns into some other project down the line. I think I think that's pretty easy to do that. You simply if if the committee so chooses to make a motion to support the proposal that John put forth, this collaborative project with the town and that your recommendation, again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that motion would be specific to this, the the proposal that John put forth and not for anything else. This is not a general request from the trust for eight hundred thousand for development money or for project, you know, other projects. It is for this project and only this project. If this project does not come through, then the town would not bond for that eight hundred thousand or whatever the number is below eight hundred thousand. John, do you is that the approach you would suggest? Yeah, I think that's correct. I actually do have one question. If the Community Preservation Act Committee goes forward and recommends eight hundred thousand dollars to town council and then we later say, OK, we don't need quite eight hundred thousand dollars and we have a lower number in mind, which honestly, we've been working on. I don't think town council can actually lower the eight hundred thousand dollars. And my recollection is that historically, when town meeting used to vote on the CPAC recommendations, they either voted them up or down. They couldn't reduce the amount. So I'm wondering, excuse me. So I'm wondering if after the purchase and sale agreement is signed, we come back to you and say, OK, we appreciate the fact that you recommended eight hundred thousand, but we now think the correct amount is X. And we think you should change your recommendation to town council to be X. I think you have to do that. But maybe Holly would somebody else would know for sure whether that's required. So my understanding and I'm not 100 percent, but I'm close is that, first of all, we don't borrow until we know exactly what the project is going to cost. So we wouldn't be making any borrowing until we have an exact dollar amount. And second of all, what CPA has done in the past is just rescind whatever the difference is. And then it goes back into the available funds for the following year. Or in this case, it would reduce your future borrowing costs. Well, it's certainly going to reduce our future borrowing costs. We never borrow until a project is, you know, we have a real cost or the money has been spent. So if it were to come in at less. We borrow less. I believe. Yes, yes, we're never going to borrow more than. And we and we literally cannot just go out and borrow for something that is unknown. It has to. So we wouldn't be able to just go out and say, OK, we're going to authorize this eight hundred thousand dollars and then you guys can spend it later on something else. There has to be a purpose for a bond. So I know the purpose is not named exactly, but it is for this purpose and this purpose only. OK, so that also answers Sam's question about whether the money can be used for general purposes for development. It needs to be specific. Thank you, Katie. I just wondered, can we vote on an up to amount? Well, they are essentially because the recommendation is to borrow up to. Yeah, I mean, so that seems to cover that. Right. OK, I wanted to answer Andy's question because I realize that's out there about the multiplier effect. Essentially, what happens with these projects is by and large, they are paid for by some kind of tax credit deal, most typically, or some other kind of deal involving the Commonwealth's Department of Housing and Community Development. So most of the money that comes to pay for this project, which includes the purchase of land and all the costs of development will come from that agency. So you might say, well, why does the town need to give anything? Well, the answer to that is Department of Housing and Community Development wants to see that the town or city has some skin in the game. So they're generally looking, for us, in this case, Amherst, to make some contribution to the larger project. But in fact, if we look at, for example, the 132 Northampton Road Project, you permitted borrowing of half a million dollars from CPA funds. Well, that project actually will probably be around five million dollars once all the development is completed and all the costs are satisfied. So that means that the five hundred thousand you recommended, which Town Council did approve will ultimately turn into about five million. The amount for the multiplier is going to vary by project. So I just gave an example with a multiplier of 10. I think if you go back into the history of these projects, it's probably eight, nine or ten times what the town puts into it. So that's where the multiplier comes from. Is that a complete enough explanation, Andy? It does. No, thank you very much. And that just makes me feel even better about the project. And can I can I add something that I learned in the in the whole Valley CDC project is that affordable housing projects like this do pay real estate tax at a reduced rate, not the full. The full rate, residential rate, I guess, but it. So the town does, in addition, get that revenue stream. Sam. So I've heard what Dave referenced, which is that there's a good possibility that sometime in the next three days to five days, there may, in fact, be a purchase and sale completed. And I did read the submitted proposal, which references that it funds that may be used to acquire property, et cetera, which is distinct from allocating it for this particular project. I'll reiterate, I'm pleased and it's good to hear this more than prospect opportunity to buy land. And I recall your explanation, John, of the multiplayer effect last year as well. So I think all of that is great. But what I'm wondering is why wouldn't the committee simply wait until next week when we have confirmation of information? We don't meet next week. It's Thanksgiving. Why don't why wouldn't we wait until two? It's it's because the we'd be writing, we'd be making comments or how we would authorize the funding that would be distinct from the proposal that was submitted by my reading. And my comment is not intended to be a negative mindset towards the the proposal, quite to the contrary. But I am having a hard time under understanding why it doesn't make sense to get the information. We know the exact amount that would be desired. And it seems to me that there's not much of a difference there. Sam, excuse me, we John submitted his remarks that explained when he appeared before us during the presentation phase. We have all those that same information. It's part of the record. So I think we all understand that that has now replaced the general funds for just putting in our coffers for for later use, right? I think I think we recognize we're talking about a specific project now. And I I'm not sure maybe Holly or Dave knows. I think I think council would appreciate probably be grateful if we acted sooner rather than later. I'm just guessing on that. But I was just going to say, Sam, have you tried to buy property in Amherst recently, because you have to go really fast. That that's my thought is just like having as much locked down as soon as possible is going to be is going to set this project up for increased success as it needs to go forward. I bought property in Amherst in the last three and a half years. And we fast. But, you know, the the point is valid. And I guess that's a question for Dave, which we might have brought up last time, which is is the capacity for a purchase and sale to be affected. Dependent on our authorizing potential funds at this point in time. Or does the town, you and the trust have the capacity to proceed with your negotiation and confirmation of it, regardless of what our determination is? Um, the week, in other words, if I could, Sarah. So, yeah, I mean, time is of the essence. There's no question about that. We we need to move quickly on this. But I recognize the position that the trust, excuse me, that the the committee is in. But are we would we be delaying your capacity to move? Is what I'm asking. So I'm going to make a guess here is that because this is going to have to go to finance committee, because this is going to have to go to town council, because this is going to be have to be reviewed by bond council, that all those other things are going to take so much time that two more weeks would push everything else off. That's my best guess. And maybe even in two weeks, we wouldn't have that have the absolute number. So, I, you know, I would like us to move forward tonight on this. I mean, hold on, Sam, does anybody else have either, I mean, a question that John or Dave or Holly might lay in on? Sarah, can I just say this that I agree as I was looking at my calendar here, you know, the earliest that you could meet again would probably be December 3rd and then the council has a meeting on December 7th, December 21st, and we have holidays both next week and then coming up. So, you know, time is is ticking. As Holly said, we, John and I are committed. We whenever we provide to the council, we will provide to see back as soon as we have it. So we will provide you with an update on the purchase and sale agreement. As soon as that is finalized, we can go fully public through you and the council. So we are, we will make that promise to you tonight that whatever the council gets, you will get as well. If you saw a need for I'm offering that if you saw a need for a meeting that week of December 1st, John and I, I'm sure, would be happy to attend that meeting to fill you in on anything. But we will provide you with written information, all the maps, all of the supporting documentation as soon as we have it. And we'll do that simultaneously with getting that information to the council if you choose to move forward tonight. But we would be willing to come that first week in December as a follow up if need be. OK, Sam, let's it's so what I'm hearing. And what I heard from Holly is that we would if we did not proceed, we would, in fact, be delaying your capacity to move forward on this, which is very significant and that's the purpose behind my detailed questions. If we were not to approve the funding for this particular purpose this evening, it would potentially delay the finance committee in the town council granting you the authorization to proceed, which is certainly significant. So I appreciate the response, Holly and Dave, to the question that I asked. And hopefully everyone can understand why I was asking it, because I'm certainly not against the project. All right, thank you. Does are we ready to vote? Does anybody want to say just say make a very brief statement in favor of it? I have this Diana. That'll be very brief. But I think I'm a firm believer of getting this land, which could, in fact, be big by some other organization. I think it's an incredible. Opportunity for quite a lot of quite a big piece. So I'm absolutely for it and vote for it without any reservation whatsoever. Thank you. I'm in favor of it as well, recognizing what's been communicated this evening. OK, Andy. Yeah, I just point of order. Is the do do we vote on each project as we go? Or do we review all and then vote together? This one we're going to do entirely on its own because it's fiscal year twenty one and is on a different track and basically a different. Yeah, just a different track. Sure. OK, but then the other ones we're going to well, our our practices to to vote to put them on the draft into a draft package. And then when we've done all that, we make sure we can afford it. We have a last opportunity to make any changes. OK, thank you. All right. And was there a motion on the floor? Well, yes, there is for this. But I'm asking if anybody else wants to say something in favor of it or we should just. Call the question, Anna. You just just going to say, let's call the question. I'm ready. OK, all right, then. So the motion is to recommend to town council that it borrow eight hundred thousand dollars. To be paid for by CPA funds in fiscal year twenty one to fund a land purchase which the town and the Amherst me's municipal housing, affordable housing trust are in the process of purchasing, hope to purchase very soon. Sarah, can I just put it from the amendment of it's just saying up to just going to hundred. It's not there. I mean. OK. Right. Holly, it's not necessary. It's it's not necessary. But I don't think it will hurt because we will only borrow. You said borrow eight hundred. So I just want to say recommend up to sorry to be. That's OK. No, I understand. I'm a newbie. You got to let it go. All right. I think recognizing that council might borrow less in the in the event. All right. So this is a roll call vote. Sam McLeod. We have to second the motion. Well, we already I just repeated the motion. I think we seconded it at the beginning of the discussion. I Dave Williams. Andy MacDougall, I Diana Stein, I on a devil and got here. Sorry, my mouse is too far from a keyboard. I Katie Allen's oboe. I Sarah Isinger. Hi, Robin Fordham. Hi and Sarah Marshall. I the most motion passes unanimously. Wonderful. I think this fingers crossed. It all works out. This could be a great thing for affordable housing in Amherst. So thank you, John. Go get them. Yeah, keep us. Yeah, keep us. We will keep you posted as soon as we have more information. Good luck. Thank you, everyone, for your support. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Dave, you sticking with us and Holly? OK, all right. I'm here. Yeah. Unless you don't want us. No, no, no, I didn't know. You know, but so now we turn to all the other projects. Anthony, maybe you can throw that spreadsheet back up. Oh, and let me say we'll take a recess, maybe five or seven minutes at seven thirty ish. OK, because we we planned to go to nine. So we'll all need to get up and stretch our legs or whatever. All right. So. So this is not. Does not reflect the changes that Sonya showed us, right? Because I still see while I see the north, the roof restoration at North Amherst School, which we're told has now been basically put off for a year. OK, so we can skip that one. All right. And after having last week voted to split all those roof projects into three, which we did. As we heard, Sonya would very much like us to combine those into one project. But I don't see her amount right now. Anthony can get that. It should be the sum of ten thousand dollars, right? Eighty three five. Yep. Right. So but now we have to have now we have to vote. I guess vote that. All right. So I move that we combine ten a and ten b into one project in the amount of eighty three thousand five hundred dollars. Does anyone second that? This is just procedural. We'll not voting on that. Thank you, Diana. OK, we're not voting whether to fund it, but just to set us up appropriately. All right. All in favor. Can you repeat the motion? I'm sorry. I just to combine ten a and ten b. Vote. No. Somebody's mic is on. Oh, it's. All right. To combine ten a and ten b into one project equal to their sum plus ten thousand dollars as recommended by Sonya, OK, to make up for the some lost inefficiencies since them since the Northammer School Roof is put off. OK, so the motion is just to do that much right now. So everything is a roll call vote. Sam. Hi, David. Hi, Andrew. Hi, Anna. Hi, Katie. Hi, Diana. Hi, Sarah Eisinger. Hi, Robin. Hi. And Sarah Marshall. I thank you. OK. So I think we I think we always knew or rather recognize that if we want to recommend the Jones Library project, that that would be through borrowing, right, because it's such a big amount of money. All right. So maybe. Well, that's neither here nor there, but just to recognize that if we recommend it, it won't come out of the pot of money. All right, Sarah, is the Mill River still in? Well, like I said, well, it's right there. It's there, but the the the most up to date word from the CBA Coalition is that it is not eligible. All right. So I think that means we, as Sonya said, there's no point in our approving it since she would not let them have the money. So we can either just put it off, you know, put it off till next time in case some new information develops if we want to and we can deal with other other projects. Or if there's just insufficient support for it, we can just reject it and that's it. Sam, you have a comment just on that procedure there. Are we going to discuss the Mill River trail proposal later? Is that correct or not? Well, yes, but the question is, do we do we do we want it? So I do have a question for a specific project. Well, OK, I don't want to get into the specifics of the project. Why don't I'm confused. We don't have the option of voting to fund it. At the moment. Yes. So the question I want to raise is, although it was referenced as a historic project planning portion, to me, it seems to have elements of recreation within it. And does the committee have the capacity to consider a project such as that in a category that would be different than historic? I understand from Stuart and Sonia's comments, their opinions related to historic nature of it. Recreation is a possible different category for it that I think warrants conversation. Sam, I've had that conversation with CPA and and it's not eligible. OK, it's just not there what they're proposing. Eventually might lead to something that a piece of which could be recreation, but their current proposal is not eligible as a recreation project to Stuart. Yes. Because I did read some aspects of the descriptions, and I don't doubt that he communicated that, although I haven't received that. And there are some elements of the categories of recreation for which it seems to align. I think at this point, I want to push off this conversation to another time, because this is the smallest request. And I wouldn't be voting on it today. Well, not first. If we get through everything else, we'll talk about it more, Robin. Yeah, I mean, I was going to suggest we push discussion to the end, but there I want to especially want to remind the new members of the committee that we went through this issue about what's eligible and what's not under CPA last time. And the coalition was not the final word. So I would like to include that in our discussion when we get around to discussing it. But I agree that we should we should push that discussion to later. We have several things that are much more straightforward that we could get through, right? OK, so I would suggest we start with the most highly rated projects. And right now it's unless anybody based on new information they read, there was some other things added to the docket, you know, and in the last week wanted to revise their scores or we we can just just go with these. OK, all right. So how about we take up the Goodwin Church restoration? And, Anthony, that's the current number that includes. Contingency, yes, Robin, I see your hand. So I just I just want to make sure we're. Yep. Yeah. OK, Robin. I just wanted to clear. I mean, first of all, I can say that the Historical Commission, I believe this was number one on our recommendation list in terms of ranking. I just I'm not clear on what the new number is for. Because it had come in 12. And then I think we agreed on 18. And now it's at 21, 412. And I don't know where that extra three thousand four hundred and twelve dollars is that right came from. OK, hold on. I'm going to look for the actual submission from Ms. Schrader. Thank you. So this is. What she submitted last week. Right, this is in the dock was put in the dock in a week ago. No, that. So the the thirty thousand three hundred that they meant, sorry for speaking out of order, but the thirty thousand three hundred at the top of here. They did not make that request. No, they've split it up in that box below between what they will pay for the eight eight seven. Yeah, my what they're now asking CPA for. OK, Katie, the underlying part is if the cost of insulating the building is not part of CPA funding, how is how would that be determined? I'm my understanding from Jane Wald was that if you have a building that is not insulated and you are insulating it in order to preserve it, then it more directly falls under preservation. Whereas if it's already insulated and you're replacing the insulation, then you can't argue that it's a preservation cost. And they have removed it from their most recent revision. So the entirety of insulation is in there is in their bucket on this proposal. OK, OK, Andy, I think this is a great project. I will hardly support it. Anybody else want to speak in favor? I guess I'm also very much in favor of it. I'm I think about whether projects are urgent, whether they leverage other funds and whether they further our goal of equity beyond beyond all the standard criteria for CPA projects. And to me, this this certainly fits, fits those. I said, Diana, did you have a hand up? Well, only only to say I think this is a great project and it really should be done. It's a it's a very elegantly simple church. It definitely deserves our support. And it's good for the diversity of the town. Everything about it just is makes it something I want to support wholeheartedly. And I think that's why it came out with such a high score, because I think a lot of people feel the same way. Yes. All right. In that case, I will ask who would like to maybe Diana would like to make a motion. I move that we support the request from the Goodwin Memorial Church completely. In the amount of I don't see it now, but 21. Yeah, I'll go 21. What was it, Anthony, twenty one thousand four hundred twelve. Four hundred twelve. Is there a second second? David is seconding. All right. He gets he was quick. All right. Roll call. We need a buzzer. Yeah, right. Put him on jeopardy. All right. Sam McLeod. Hi. David Williams. Hi. Annie McDougal. Hi. Sarah Eisinger. Hi. Diana Stein. Hi. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Hi. Katie Allen-Zobel. Hi. Robin Fordham. Enthusiastic I. And Sarah Marshall, also enthusiastic I. Good. So again, and I may repeat this every time we put it into our proposed package of recommendations, we will, God willing, be able to, you know, have one final vote after we tweak anything that needs tweaking. All right. So so that one's done. Now our next we've got. North Library, North Amherst Library wall repair. Forty thousand dollars. Why don't we start? I think procedurally we're supposed to put a motion, make a make and second emotion and then have the discussion. So would anyone like to make a motion regarding this project? I move that we sorry. I move that we accept or that we recommend funding the North Amherst Library wall repair at $40,000. Second. Diana, thank you. Yeah, I did. Yes. All right. Any discussion? Andrew, you're muted. You're muted. Sorry to be dense on some of these intros that Sonya walked us through earlier, but just another point of clarity. So as we think of the pool of candidate sites that we have here right now and the allowable funds, we we could approve all of these projects today with no issue. Did I understand that correctly from her introduction? She's saying financially, we can swing it. We would recommend borrowing for the Jones library. Right. And then I think though she pulled out the Mill River. But again, we have we have we have a secret fund, not secret, but we have a 50,000 set aside. So that would it would be available. That could also be funded if it turns out to be. OK, so that so the reason to say no to any of these would be if we felt so passionately about not doing it or if we felt like that money could be better served in a future year and we wanted to set that money aside. And I understand that correctly. Yes, just because we can doesn't mean we have to. You know, we may not be. Wow, we might. It might be something we didn't think it was OK, but not really urgent and or maybe not well thought out or whatever any number of reasons. Robin, I think that covers it. Yeah. OK, Anna. Yeah, you have you've used the word urgent a couple of times and I just want to make sure is that that is that one of the key criteria? Sorry, my dog has decided to lose her mind all of a sudden. Is that one of the key criteria for for approving a project? Is it? No, no, no, no, this is just one of my it's just something I I think about. OK, thank you. At least with regard to certainly with regard to structural, I totally understand if it is urgent. It was more of like it's not like we're going to say no to something just because it isn't an urgent problem, right? Like things like the Mill River are like community. Yeah, versus like, you know, a wall falling down. Right. If sometimes committees anticipate that there'll be some large request in the next year or two. And I mean, I presumably they have good reason to think that would happen. They might want to just squirrel away some of the money and not just fund everything even though they can. So thank you. That was my new kid question of the hour. That's fine. That's fine. All right. So why don't we just call the question unless anybody. OK, so the motion on the table is to fund the North or recommend funding the North Amherst Library wall repair at four forty thousand dollars. Sam McLeod. Hi, Dave Williams. Hi, Katie Allen Zobel. Hi, Andrew MacDougall. Hi, Robin Fordham. Hi, Diana Stein. Hi, Anna Devon got here. Hi, Sarah Eisinger. Hi, and Sarah Marshall. I some people moved, I don't know, in a new order now. All right. Can we go back to the spreadsheet then, please? So also coming in at four point three, Mill River Pool Repair. I'm the LSSC rep. So indulge me and I will move that CPA recommend to council that it fund repairs to the Mill River Pool in the amount of sixty five thousand dollars. Is there a second, Sam? Thank you. All right. Any comments? Anyone want to speak speak up for it or any concerns? Can you just really quickly? Sorry, I just didn't catch it. Can I what repeat the amount just really quickly? Sorry, I couldn't look in two places. Yeah, forty five. I'm going to let Anthony say it. Sixty five thousand sixty five thousand. We lost the spreadsheet again, too. I so I want to go back to the full view when you're all talking to each other so that you can see. Oh, OK, OK. If you don't like that, I can leave it on the spreadsheet the whole time. I just it's up to the chair, I guess, whatever you want me to do. Well, I see at least part of the group to the right, I think, of the spreadsheet. OK, I can leave it. Then I will leave it up. One, two, I think I see one, two. Also, you can see everybody if you want to make the spreadsheet smaller. I'll just just just for my own sake, saying the numbers is really helpful because it's I need to see who says things. So if you can say the numbers, that's still really, really good for me. Try and oh, that's right. Kind of do minutes, but you can keep it up. I just yeah. Yeah. Why don't why don't we keep it up then? OK. Oh, Diana. Well, I'm just going to say having looked at the videos of the pool, it seems so clear to me this is necessary and will leave the pool in a much better shape if this funding is approved. So I'm four at 100 percent. It's a very popular summer recreation area. It seems to me it's it's money well spent. If we spend it. So I think I think I threw us off here and I apologize. Sarah, did you get a second on that motion? And it I'm seconded it. Yeah. And I'm speaking. Sam, you have one to say something. I'm certainly in favor of a worker pool project. The pools in town are widely utilized for number of reasons. My kids use them. It's certainly needed for a pair and anything that can keep our youth and families active. I can't imagine a better or a superior thing to put recreational money into. And I'll tell you, those pools, both pools were busy were just full time busy this past summer, when just about the only outdoor activity anybody could do that wasn't, you know, walking was swimming. Yeah, they're real assets for the town. So unless somebody very much wants to say something, why don't we vote on Project 13? Mill River Pool Repair, sixty five thousand dollars. Sam McLeod. Hi, Katie. I'm David. Hi, Anna. Hi, Diana. Hi, Andy. Hi, Robin. Hi, Sarah. Isinger. Hi, Sarah Marshall. I. Anthony, are you also recording the votes? No, I am not. OK, that's fine. No, he's done that, but it's just all yeses. If all then unanimous so far. So far, it's been pretty good. I was concerned about jumping around too much. Yeah, sure. No, I think that's fine. I just didn't know if it would be available to Anna if she needed it or wanted it. Especially especially since we have a recording. I figured it was. That's true. All right, so now we come to three items. Well, let's put the Jones aside for right now. ACC, Amherst Community Connections, supportive housing, phase three. Let's see, as I recall, there was a range of funding range. Anthony, this is the maximum, I assume. Yeah, that was that was the high end of her for the six vouchers. So again, this is to move chronically homeless people into stable housing. And this money supports the. The the the cost of the rental vouchers, the rental subsidy, I think, in some other administrative costs. Are you going to move Diana or do you have a comment? Well, I was going to make a comment. I voted low on this and only it was only because I thought maybe we needed to go from six vouchers to three because I didn't think we had as much money as it turns out we have. So in a sense, what I'm saying is my vote on this would have been higher if I would have had a better grasp of the financials at that time. Oh, well, we got an extra three hundred thousand dollars. And yeah, you know, when her total is two hundred and seven or twenty six thousand seven hundred and ten, another three hundred thousand makes a difference. So anyway, I just want to say my vote it really could have been much higher. I totally support this. It's a need that our town has. And I am totally for it. I just was trying to save us money somewhere. Well, that's always a good thing. Would anyone like to move regarding this project, Andrew? I will so move the recommended funding two hundred twenty six thousand seven hundred ten dollars for the ACC support of housing phase three project. Thank you. Is there a second? Second, Sam, Sam, beat you to it. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this project? Sam, I just want to praise the thoroughness of the proposal submittal. It was incredibly informative, aside from my being in favor of the project. That was just very impressed with the detailed information provided to us by Weiling and Community Connections. Thank you, Katie. I just had a question. And so, Sam, maybe you could answer it for me. Since I I found I couldn't tell if this was a one year. She they reference two years in the proposal. And I was not sure. And I meant to ask that the last meeting. Did anyone read it? I believe it's three years. Yeah, I've got the I've got the budget up. It's six vouchers. Three years is if I'm reading her grid correctly. Yeah, OK. So the amount of money just to get a new kid question. We're recommending this amount. And it would be made all at once or would be made over three years. Anthony can explain. Oh, it would essentially Miss Greenie will submit as these as these candidates are found and as their housing is secured as paid, she'll submit months to month and it'll be approved by by an art here. So it will not be all at once. It will be will be as they come up. So essentially projects bill against their accounts, right? Correct. Just to just to confirm, we don't give them the money. We keep the money in our books and they submit reimbursements as the costs come up as a municipality. We cannot enter into a contract for more than three years. So the three years is the maximum that this can stay on our on our books technically and she does monthly invoices and we pay them. And if there again is any residual because we did vote the max of her budget, any residual after the three years is up would be returned. Thank you. That's excellent. I'm fully in favor of it. I just wanted to understand it or no good questions. We should understand, Diana. One thing I wanted to say is how far advanced this whole thing has become since the initial phase one. A lot of the social services were unknown, dubious, whatever. And now they're there donated by other organizations. But right on site, I was so impressed with the physician and so forth. This is a big advance over the way they started. And it's one of the reasons that I felt that my vote was really strictly financial because I think they've come so far. So that's all I have. Yes, they have strong partnerships now with the service providers. Anybody else want to say something? Well, I am full of admiration for ACC. They they they work with the most challenging population. I mean, those who have had the, you know, the been out have had the most difficulty and they really just dedicate themselves to getting folks what they need and getting them into stable housing. So I think it's wonderful. So it looks like Dave Williams. Maybe he's an earshot. I don't see him, but I think we'll go ahead and call the question. So all in we're voting on Andrew's motion to support the ACC supportive housing phase three, Sam. In the amount of two hundred twenty six seven ten. Yes. Got it. Right. Katie. I. Dave. All right. Anna. I. Diana. I. Andrew. I. Robin. I. Sarah Isinger. I. Sarah Marshall. I. Holly, did you want to say something or you were just just adjust? OK. I'm sorry, my microphone is my view and I keep doing that. People keep think I'm raising my hand. No. OK, maybe come at it like it's all right. So now to while Andrew Anthony finish here. So now to the North Common Project. Again, this one is submitted in two categories in historic preservation and recreation. And we all we all heard the presentation. Let's see. Anna, do you want to move on this one? Just just I would love to. Let me just make it bigger. All right. I move. Oh, sorry. I lost him. Lost. There we go. I move that we recommend the North Common Project to submit it by the town of Amherst in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars to be set. Sorry. Sorry, just to be split between historic preservation and. Thank you. To be put between historic preservation and recreation. Thank you. Is there a second? Second, Sarah, Sarah E. Thank you. All right. Anybody want to speak to this, Sam? So this is an interesting project that I understand went through town meeting previously and funds have already been allocated for. It's certainly important to the center of town and the opinions of some of the economic development and town staff regarding their prioritization. This does have an influence on my thought processes. Overall, I would, you know, prefer to see some of the. Trees, the four that are being removed find a way for them to stay. I understand 10 of the 14 will be there. And I still have some concerns over the loss of parking, but I am pleased to see some of the attempts by the town in terms of recognizing the impact of those issues. And accordingly, my my opinions have been swayed in favor, even though I might have done a few things. Difference, I recognize the significance to the town of this. Thank you, Andy. I was only to say as like the planning planning member here, I was hoping I could have been the one to make. I'm sorry. You did the. But no, I think it's great. I mean, I have a background in landscape architecture as well. And I'm just really excited to see some some interest and some resource thrown into kind of crowning the school. Anybody else? Oh, just the full support of the Historical Commission. Good. Yeah, I watched I was on the the most recent task force or the ad hoc working group that worked with Weston and Samson on the designs, one of which we've seen and was presented to the select board at its final meeting. It's, you know, it's the cost keeps going up. That is true. I think part of that is because the scope has expanded. And again, we're not we're not done. You know, we're seeing kind of the interim. These things take a long time to design and there has to be the public process and everybody come to agreement, not to mention the town council has to to approve a plan. So so we are part of the funding package. You know, it isn't it isn't a final plan, but there is clearly great interest in in town council about this project. They heard a bit heard about it on their at their meeting this past Monday. I watched that on tape. So it's, you know, it's it's not a done deal yet. The plans are not final. But I think it's a wonderful thing to pursue. It's such a challenging site on a steep slope like that. It makes it really expensive to try to manage the runoff and keep the soil where it is and keep all the trees alive. So it's going to be costly, but I have high hopes for seeing a really fantastic public space in a few years. Anybody else? All right, then let's vote on this. Um, the motion is has been seconded. This is to find the North Common Project. $500,000 split between historic preservation and recreation. Sam McLeod. Hi, Katie, enthusiastic. Hi, Dave, David Williams. Was that an eye? Hi, thank you. Sorry, Anna. Hi, Diana. Hi, Andrew. Hi, Robin. Hi, Sarah E. Yes, I and Sarah and also I. OK, so Anthony's keeping us focused here. Town hall, front and side steps. And I believe that. Well, they they want them they want them combined, presumably. I think I would like to ask. Robin, to speak about the historical commission's view of this one. Is that why your hand is up? That is why my hand is up. OK, well, then. I know we don't have a motion on the floor yet, but let's let's hear from Robin first and then proceed. OK, so in the historical commission, a review of the proposals for both the town steps and the slate roofs, and we'll get to the roof later. We felt the need to see the project separately, given the very large ask that was being made of district preservation this year and in order to be able to rank things in order of priority and urgency. And then I would so so one of our one of the questions that we're struggling with is when something like steps and roofs exist on a historic building, I think we were a little bit surprised to see the full cost of these projects come to the historic and the CPA. And it's not clear to us what the impact of what should be the appropriate level of maintenance that goes into a budget for repairs like these and what should be targeted for the historic preservation aspect of the project. So as an example, when we were talking about the North Amherst School Slate Roof, I asked if it would be appropriate to see the cost of replacing the roof with contemporary materials versus the cost of restoring it with the full slate roof if the difference would be the appropriate ask for historic preservation funds. So with that in mind, we felt that the south steps, well, and it was our question was answered that the south steps were not as critical. So it could be put off for another year. So we took them off the slate. And then for the budget for the north steps, it seemed that the removal and the staging of those historic pieces was the most directly related to a preservation issue. And so we recommended then covering the $90,000 in historic preservation funds there. So that recommendation comes with these questions about how should the CPA going forward look at projects like this that come from the town in order to understand what amount of town funding should we expect to see going toward it? And how do you make the determination, not just based on the fact that it's a historic building and meets that requirement, but that there's something specific about it that maybe costs more in order to preserve the historic fabric or the integrity of the building. So you're interested in the incremental cost that's purely due to the need for historic materials. Right. And then we would expect the other portions of it would be just a normal maintenance cost for the town. Well, I wonder if Anthony or Holly or Dave Zomek still out there have anything to offer on that. I think that's not a way I've heard of thinking about these. But it's a good question. I have myself. So I am I don't know enough about capital projects in the town and sort of how maintenance is budgeted for. So I wondered that about the roofs, the steps, you know, sort of how that works. So it's a great question. And if we need, you know, more feedback, we can certainly table that for our next meeting. I mean, if people feel comfortable with that. But I am certainly not prepared to answer that, but it looks like Dave Zomek has a comment. So I'll defer to him. Is it OK, Sarah? Yes, please. No, these are these are great questions and a great discussion. It's it's one that has come up at CPA meetings in the past. So for new members, this is kind of a this is kind of a reoccurring theme. And what what is appropriate for for CPAC to fund and and what should be on the capital plan? And so I think as a community, we're certainly grappling with that. And one of the reasons that we front loaded or moved up in the sequencing, the CPAC schedule for consideration of of projects was so that in general, the town could sequence and and try to meld some of the discussions about capital and and CPA eligible projects together. I guess I would say this, you know, for all of us, and I'm a resident of Amherst and a taxpayer, all of this money is generated from the taxpayers of Amherst. So whether it's CPAC money or whether it's, you know, it's all town money. So as much as I think we sometimes like to separate this and say it's well, it's it's it's the CPAC funds. These are all tax tax funds that we all pay as residents of Amherst. And whether it goes to capital, whether it goes to see CPA, proposed CPA projects, it's all part of one big pot of money that pays for these types of projects or or maintenance of other buildings or parks or fields or conservation land or roads. So so I think it's important to keep it in that context that it is all part of the funds that we all pay as residents and property owners or homeowners, etc. I think it's a good ongoing discussion and one we want to keep having, which is what projects appropriately should be funded purely with capital funds or what projects should be should be funded with with CPA funds. I've never I can't recall hearing that's an interesting approach that the Historical Commission took is that differential. I kind of look at at these historic buildings like Town Hall and Munson and North Amherst Library and say, you know, is the feature that we're trying to maintain or restore historic to the building? I as far as I know, the front steps are are original to the building. The roof at North Amherst Library, I believe, is is the slate roof. Maybe it's been repaired or replaced, but it was always a slate roof. So I don't know. I'm not sure that helps, but I think it's an ongoing conversation we're having about how to pay for things. Thank you, Robin. I just had one question and one follow comment and one question. And the follow comment was just that the my understanding and our discussion in the discussion with Jane Waldo, the chair of the Historical Commission, is that we're that with historic preservation, there's an opportunity to fund outside projects that really don't have access to any other resources or in the same way that town projects do. And that's probably an oversimplification, but I'll leave it there. And then my other question was, does the town and I'm just beginning to learn about this, does the town seek historic preservation funding for things like, you know, the the town roof and the certainly the slate roof and North Amherst will be a large ticket item. I'm thinking of the is it the Historic Commission, the preservation projects fund? Have we ever gotten funded for things like that? And can that be something that the town looks to try to provide funding for to offset some of the CPI funding? We have in the past received a number of grants for historic reservation. And I I'm not in recent years, I can't think of any off the top of my head. I think one of my staff people, Nate Malloy, probably could. I am not aware that the kind of money that is needed for things like front steps or or slate roof repair. Certainly there might be funds that could come in in small amounts, but I'm I'm not aware of large state grants that have been awarded, you know, to take the place of CPA funds, if you will, or match for for large building projects. But but I know we've received them in the past. I think when the town renovated town hall inside, I believe that was back in the 1980s before I worked for the town or early 90s, we did receive some some historic funds for that. But I think it's a good idea if the funds are out there, we should try to match town funds that go towards the towards the projects. Dave, I'm guessing that was even before the town had elected the seat to participate in the CPA, right? You're you're still muted, you're muted. Started seat back. We we we voted as a term, I think in 2002. To for for the for the Community Preservation Act. So, yeah, that would have predated CPAC, right? But I think it's I think it's a good idea whenever we can bring matching funds to the table, we try to, whether it's affordable housing or open space. You know, the Castro Trust has been a great partner on open space, bringing literally probably some millions of dollars to the table on matching funds for open space. I said we take a break at 7 30 and that was 11 minutes ago. Do you want to take a break now or finish with this project and then have a break? Anybody have a preference? Finish with this project. Yeah. OK, Sam. So I had a question for Robin. And I'm curious as to how the Historical Commission chose the recommended number of 90,000. In other words, what did the Commission determine was and was not historic in nature? Or was that just a number put into race, the discussion to indicate it wasn't the full amount? It was a line item. It was a line item in the budget that had to do with the staging of the steps, I guess kind of how they're taken apart and numbered and treated. But I'm not. Yeah, I'm looking. I'm looking at it. That line was called permit permitting material storage and staging. But separately, there's the the preliminary cost estimate of making the repairs and then the architectural assessment. Oh, that was for the south steps. All right. So we felt that they, you know, this the staging of these large stone steps of, you know, their careful removal and their storage and their treatment and their replacement was seemed like a good line item to choose. And again, part of the reason was because we were concerned about the overall ask from historic preservation. So and the question for just general discussion that arises from me is were the project not funded to the amount requested? Would the town even proceed? And that kind of relates to your question, Robin. You know, do they have other sources of funds? I don't have the answer to that. My guess is that they would not. Well, Robin, is your is your concern about affordability? As acute now, as it was? I mean, that's a that's a I would say that's a harder question for me to answer. I mean, I think part of this is has to do with with the philosophical, the more physical philosophical question of not really understanding what if if and what the breakdown should be between CPA funds and and regular municipal funds. But are so there there's this philosophical issue, but separately are. Are you questioning whether the full amount is eligible as historic present? As a no, no, it's not an eligibility question. OK, I see that point. I mean, it really. CPA, in my view, was put into place to pick up the things that weren't going to be automatically used as capital projects by a municipality. It seemed to me that it was to pick up these other areas that were getting short, short shrift, so to speak. And so it it it bothers me a little that such a big bill would be coming to CPA if it were split with the town's capital project, even if Dave Zomek says, you know, it's all the same because it's town of Amherst money. Some or other, it seems against the spirit of what this act originally was set up for. So I think I see where the Historic Commission's questions are, and I somewhat feel akin to those sentiments myself. Sarah, I understand both of those comments from the Historic Commission and from Dana and. Might be more persuaded about it if we were not in a position where we could fund all the projects this year, but I'm pretty swayed by that. And also, I think if we came down on the the line where we didn't fund it because of this philosophical issue here, we would have done an unfunded project, which is a gem in the in the town. And so I don't really think that I don't really know what we gain by not funding this project. So we partially funding it. But I mean, we've done we did that last year with certain things. I mean, that we have done it. Yeah, no, I agree. I think the fact that we have more budget, you know, we're not having to make a budget some budgetary decisions. So I'm I'm in favor of funding the project as the town has. Put forward, Katie. I I wondered about. I mean, part of what you just said, Sarah, I agree totally with in terms of what we have funding for, but it's also. Determine what we have funding for in the future. Potentially by. Giving full funding to all projects, right? So that's one thing it seems that I'm trying to start to catch up on figuring. Well, it doesn't roll over. Is that what do you mean? Well, this the general. Reserve, if it goes into reserve, you mean, right, right? So I'm not I'm not a proponent. I'm just thinking this out loud or sort of bringing that up as what I am hearing and understanding a little bit more each time. But I I guess. Could we. Even if we were to approve this, could we say that the CPA committee wants better understanding or wants maybe to set some parameters or guidelines around that or something for the future so that we have as Dave says, you know, every time a new person comes on this committee, we're going to ask that same question. And maybe maybe trying to get get our hands around it a little bit in terms of guidelines, I'm not saying, you know, requirements or anything, but just to give us some guidance around it would be helpful. Yeah, I would agree. I mean, I think we need clarification on on that. I'd like to speak in favor of funding the entire project Town Hall and front steps. Because I it's my expectation that the town, in fact, is is hoping to take on a lot of borrowing over the next few years, maybe for a new or renovated elementary school, maybe for, you know, renovated Jones Library, maybe for DPW. I mean, there are a lot of capital projects. That cannot get any CPA funding at all. So my view is that CPA, it's entirely appropriate for CPA to step up and fund what it can. Rather than be what is it, you know, dog in the manger and make it and asking the town to dip into into a different borrowing pot, which is in fact limited. And we've got a lot of a lot on our capital wish list. And again, those if those projects are going to move forward, you know, I don't think we we want to make the town borrow for things that CPA could certainly find. Anna, oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Andy, first, just very quick. I agree with you, Sarah. That's all. OK, Anna, let me start typing for that, Andy. I'm just kidding. That was helpful. Thank you. So I just I feel like one of the things that that is coming through my mind is how are we showing our values as a town through the CPA funding? And so I think that, you know, when we think about things like the steps, realistically, the town could, you know, pour concrete there and be done with this for a lot cheaper. I'm not saying they would ever do that. But I think that when we have the funding to kind of stand behind the town's values of our historic, you know, of our history and of valuing that and demonstrating it, I think because we have the capacity, this feels like a project that we can support the town in doing. I'm also in favor of funding the entire thing. And I guess for me, like to go into that philosophical discussion, I agree that we should have that. And I like the idea of kind of setting something on record. But I do think that, like, it's important to remember that this isn't exactly the only option for those steps. And what we could do in this situation is to help say we are valuing and we believe in in preserving them. Thank you, Sam and then Robin. So a side or a separate question as well is the fact that there are two sets of steps, the front, the main and the side. And I do recall Guilford's comments or not Guilford, one of the presenters that there are some efficiencies in doing these side steps at the same time as the front. And I understand that having been a contractor in the past, that when you do things together, if you do them separately, there's that to be higher fees affiliated with it. Another point that comes into my mind is that when the town was presenting the North Common, they did reference that there's a major portion of it, which we saw, which is right in front of the town hall. And I'm curious if Andy has any comments from the planning board related to the sequencing of the town hall front steps in relation to the Common, because it seems to me, and from what I heard from the proposal for the Common, that they're right adjacent to each other and that it makes sense to do them in the same timeframe perhaps with the steps first and then thereafter, I don't mean to put you on the spot, Andy, but I'm curious if that discussion arose ever in the planning board you're on mute. Andy, I'm muted. Did you get that, Anna? No. It's a very good thing. Liberator, liberating, yeah. It's a very good question. Unfortunately, I don't have an update. It's not something that we discussed as a planning board. It's a thought that comes into my mind, the fact that two projects adjacent, sharing the same front sidewalk. And if we were to fund part of the stairs project, would it be not completed due to uncertainty of funding and would that impact the other project as well? It's just what's going through my mind as I consider these. So I'm in favor, if we do it of doing the whole front and side projects, because side stairs, because I see efficiencies there. It's a lot of money, but it's certainly a historic location and a historic set of stairs. And I think we have to assume that the town procurement department exercises and will exercise reasonable processes to try to put things out to appropriate funding methods. I think the law makes them do that. Yeah. Well, the law and their capacities and diligence as well. Sure. Of course. All right. Well, I don't think we had. Emotion. I just want to make one quick. I just want to say that, of course, the Historic Commission is absolutely in favor of preserving the historic nature of the steps. Whoever's mentioned some steps. That was that was key. So, yeah, but it is. The question is, what's the cost, the difference between the cement steps and the preserving the historic steps? But that's, of course, you know, that is, of course, our goal. And right. Right. Entirely in support of the project. All right. Thank you. So maybe Andy, since I didn't give you a chance earlier, do you want to? Oh, no, you did. You did. Anyway, I got one. I got one. Have another. I'll take it. Move to recommend moving forward with the Town Hall front and side step project at a cost of two hundred and sixty five thousand dollars. A second. Second. Thank you. All right. Any more discussion? I think we had the discussion first. All right. So we'll just have a roll call vote. Sam. Hi. Katie. Hi. Dave. Dave Williams. Hi. Hi. All right. Anna. Hi. Diana. Hi. Andy. Hi. Robin. Hi. Sarah E. Hi. And Sarah M. I. All right. Let's take a break. Sarah, Sarah. Yes. Before moving on, I guess, listening to the discussion there about this particular project and someone raised the question about capital projects versus historical restoration. And for me, there seem to be some questions here in terms of a clarification. I see the Town Hall as being historical. But but you're looking at major projects that and I'm looking at my two years of experience on the committee and looking at projects that we have funded over this period of time and just I miss raising the question now for clarification as we move forward. OK, thank you. I think that we should have that discussion once once we are through all of our recommendations to council. And this one just passed unanimously. So so we'll move on. We are going to have to come back to our revised CPA plan and maybe that is in that context. We could continue this discussion. OK, I would like to take a recess now. Anthony, do I have to? Do we need a motion to do that? I believe you do need a motion to recess. All right, maybe say how long you're going to recess. Right. Seven minutes. Yeah, well, it's seven fifty nine. I propose I move that we the CPA committee recess until ten minutes past eight. Is there a second second Diana? All right, Sam. Yes. So we have to vote. I, David, I, Katie, I, Andy, I, Robin, I, Diana, I, Anna, I, Sarah, I, Sarah M. I either stay within earshot or set a timer, but as soon as the quorum's back at eight ten, we will proceed. We're doing really well, but we'll see you in ten minutes. Anthony, are you there? Hey, Sam. Yeah, everyone's here. I just muted everybody while we were away. OK, that's what I figured. Is it a requirement to be on camera for a meeting? Nope. Nope. OK. Because I'm still at work in Greenfield and I would love to talk in the car and get myself home. So if I don't need to be on camera, then I'm I'm just I'm not going to I won't lose my connection or anything. I'm just going to turn my camera off. OK, stay safe. Yeah. Hey, Anthony. Hello. No, I'm not calling us back yet, but we we voted on on the debt service last time, right? Yes, we did. We do it on the administration. Right. OK. So we're making good time here. All right, is eight ten. I would like to call the meeting back to order if you can hear me. I muted everyone while we were at recess. So you'll have. Yeah. OK. So if you would unmute yourself just so I know you're or or show your face. I'm here. OK, there's a question in the Q&A, Sarah. Oh, there was a there was a question about whether we were going to get to Jones tonight. I think we may well, I don't know that we'll finish, but we've all been in remarkable agreement so far. So we'll just we'll see. All right, so we are back in session. I'm not sure if Sarah Isinger is there. Can you speak up if you are Robin? I believe you are. I'm here. OK, thank you. All right, well, let's continue. So Groth Park. Lower Pavilion is next. Right, I'll I don't say David Diana. Diana's. She was walking around the car. She is OK. Well, we have a quorum. So Dave, David Williams, there he is. OK, thank you. All right, Robin is just she's turned off her video and there's Sarah. OK, so all the members are present. Thank you. I will move that CPA recommend to counsel funding the purchase and installation of the Lower Pavilion at Groth Park. Costing forty five thousand dollars. Is there a second, Sam? Thank you. Any discussion? Anybody want to be muted? Yeah, everybody's muted, I think. All right. You call me, Sarah? No, I called on Sam. Sam, you're muted. Sam, you're still muted. There you go. I don't know how that happened. So my opinions related to Groth Park and no river is that they're just so widely utilized. I've used them. I brought my kids there. I've had teams, I coach play there. Even when I was a kid, we use that lower pavilion for scouting outings. So I'm just in favor of anything we can do to meet the town's needs in those areas. They're just widely, widely utilized by so many people, even when it's not town organized events, it's a location where people can go. So I just speak in favor of it. Hardly. OK, thank you, Andy. Yeah, so maybe I'll be the one descent of the night. I, as I sort of think about this project and just try to be, you know, a good steward of these funds and accounting for future spending as well, I recognize it's not in great condition. I'm not I'm not convinced that it's limiting the ability of our residents to enjoy the park. It I don't I don't really get the sense of urgency. And I think that it's while it's not perfect, I think it's adequate. And I think we've done a lot of investment there already at the park. I I will be voting against. And it's it's it's also just again with that that sense of I'd like to make sure that we're we're being good stewards of of this for for future opportunities to. Thanks, Diana. I was of two minds about this. Because I do know that it gets a lot of use and it's not in good shape. But I also felt that was a pavilion not that far away that people could use. So I didn't feel as strongly about this as I do for some others. I still probably will vote for it because I do know it gets a lot of views. I think I recall that they that I don't know about both pavilions or just this lower one is rented. So makes a little bit of money. Excuse my interruption. Somebody else said was it Sarah? Yeah, sorry, I didn't raise my hand. I apologize. No, I was going to say I I don't know if you can rent the upper pavilion. I think it might just I could be wrong about that. But from having been there, the new upper pavilion is a shade pavilion next to the playground. So this is, I think it's just an important place for families and people to be able to rent and have a gatherings. And I think they made a very compelling case that it was 50 years old. I rated it lower also as well, because I was sort of hedging my bets. If we couldn't afford things, this would have been not my top priority. I was prioritizing other projects. But now that I have a better sense, I think this is well worth. Upgrading and renovating. And I think it's way past its useful life and they made that case. And you can see it from the photos. Anna, can someone remind me are both pavilions ADA accessible? The existing new one definitely is. The one new upper one is right. The lower one would be accessible. She said it was accessible. Sorry, I am the bar. The executive director said it it's it can be accessible only in that somebody could drive. They could drive a car down there. But the grade is so steep that they can. They're not proposing at this point to make a ramp or a sidewalk that would allow for, you know, a wheelchair or walk or anything like that. Thank you. But they do evidently that they will allow folks to drive right up to the building and the other comments. I I'm in favor of it. Yes, we could they could just leave, you know, live with the current old pavilion, but frankly, it's an eyesore. And I think we put so much money. The town has put so much money into this park and is so excited about it. Let's just finish the job. Let's just finish it, you know, it's it's beautiful. And we're moving forward with the playground at Kendrick Park. I think, you know, it shows it shows what we can do. We can do a nice job and have a really. Lovely playground and public space. Anybody else want to say something. About it. I could envision time periods where both pavilions would be in use at the same time, frequently. And it's too bad that it's down a hill and it's more expensive than the town put in for to make it ADA compliant, but I understood Dave's communication on that and the dilemma initially, although they indicated it's something they'd like to do down the road. So I'm in favor of it. All right, I have the feeling we've exhausted. People's comments. So why don't we call the question? I'll ask for your vote on funding the Groth River, excuse me, Groth Park Lower Pavilion at forty five thousand dollars. So, Sam McLeod. Hi. David Williams, you're muted. Dave Williams, you're muted. So I mean, I'll come back to you. Maybe you can get unmuted Diana. I. Andy. No. David. I. Anna. Sorry, I had to type two lines this time. I. Katie. I. Sarah E. I. Robin. Hi. And Sarah M. I. So that is eight to one, I believe. You get Dave Williams. Yeah. Yes, he was in favor. OK. Did I count? Did I count right? Either nine of us, right? Everybody's here. OK. All right. So that leaves us. With the Mill River Trail and the Jones Library special collections proposal. And I won't. Oh, I'm sorry. OK, good. So let's let's deal with that. Yes. Who would like to? Would anyone like to move this proposal so we can open discussion, Sam? I move that we approve the authorization and recommend to the town council for eighty three thousand five hundred for the roof restoration at the town hall and library. Is there a second? Andy, OK, thank you. I think I would like to offer is a friendly amendment. Anthony, you tell me if this is not a wise move that the fifty thousand dollars in the historic preservation reserve be applied to this project. That seems like a sensible move to me. OK, and again, that's because we did not fund the minimum last year for this category. So we had to escrow the balance and then we have to vote specifically to use it. So the effect will be that it leaves fifty thousand dollars more in our bottom line because I don't believe it's included in the sums we have available. You sorry? I second the amendment. OK. All right, so I will just say that is a wise move. It's a wise move. Thank you. OK. So do you want to vote on. Amending the motion. OK. So. All right. First, we need to vote on the friendly amendment. So all so if you are in favor of using the fifty thousand dollars in the reserve account for historic preservation, please say I when I call on you. Sam McLeod, David Williams. Every moment we stop. I didn't. Robin, you need to mute. I think David, what did you say? I thank you, Andy. Hi, Diana. Hi, sorry. This is just this is just where the money would come from. You know, at just point of order, though, like, did we have an open an open motion that we had to close first? No, it's a motion to it's this is a motion to amend the previous existing mode. All right. OK, thank you for clarifying. All right. And Diana, you said I, yes, Anna. Hi, Katie. Hi, Sarah E. Hi, Robin. Hi. And Sarah M. I. All right. So the motion is to to recommend to counsel that the restoration roof restoration of Town Hall and Munson at eighty three thousand five hundred with fifty thousand dollars coming from the historic preservation reserve. OK. All right. So that was seconded, right? I forget who. OK, Anna, got it. I'm sure. All right. So any discussion? I wanted to just give my input from the historical commission, was which was that we voted to recommend the Munson Library and again, did not recommend the town roof or the the Town Hall roof or the North Amherst Roof, which is not in the slate anymore. For the same reasons that I discussed before, and I was reminded that the word that I was trying to think of before is supplanting, which I think in our future philosophical discussion, we need to get a better understanding of, I know I do. Thank you. So again, not an eligibility bill. Well, maybe it is not. No, no, no, not an eligibility. OK, OK, where where the money is coming from. But the the Historical Commission is in support of Munson. And in support, generally, it was really the funding questions and where the funding pots are. Yeah. OK. All right. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment on this project? I will remind you, if you're looking back to the original proposals, this is this amount equals the sum of those two individual projects plus ten thousand dollars to compensate for some lost efficiencies for delaying the North Amherst School Repair. OK, I don't see anybody else want. Andy, I was just wondering the loss of efficiency. I know that these were these roofs were using different materials. I can't keep track of which one was which. I'm just wondering if that ten thousand dollars is an awfully high allowance. I have no way of knowing. I'm sure they'd rather give rather give money back than not quite be quite be able to fund it. I don't I don't know what. No, that's one calculation of anything. OK, I don't see anyone else wanting to speak. So let's take our roll call vote. If you are in favor of repair or storing roofs of Town Hall and Munson, please say aye. I'm just going to mix it up here, Robin Fordham. Aye, Sarah Eisinger. Aye, Katie, Alan Zobo. Aye, Anna Devlin, Gauthier. Aye, Diana Stein. Aye, Andy McDougal. Aye, David Williams. Aye, Sam McLeod. Aye, and Sarah Marshall. Aye, so that's unanimous. OK, so now all right. Now we have only the Jones and the Mill River Trail. And as I was saying at the beginning, the current the current verdict on the Mill River Trail is that it is not eligible for CPA funding. So we could just reject it or we could not take a vote on it tonight in case the applicant wants to revise it or get another, you know, get a legal opinion or wants to somehow make it work out, whether it's in a different category or whatever. But what we can't do, or at least there's no point in doing, is voting to fund it because we've been told it's not permitted. So I would just propose we leave it till next meeting on December 3rd and see I'll try to find out what the applicant would like to do in the mean. I can. And I wanted to speak to that. I would also like to wait and see. I know that they were intending to apply for funding from. I believe it's the Mass Historical Commission and they were working on an application for that. And that might result in a better, more defined proposal that would have clearer eligibility. Plus, I want to discuss the eligibility question overall. You mean. Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with the CPA coalition statement or whether that I need clarification of whether that is someone who has final say. Right. OK, thank you. Anna, yeah, I second what Robin says about kind of continuing that conversation about whether that say is final or not. But I also I think that one of the things to add to our philosophical discussion agenda is how we're supporting our community in writing these proposals. I think that it's something that's really, really important. And, you know, the proposals that come from the town, they this is what they do day in and day out. They understand how to do it and how to kind of make sure that they're hitting the mark. And I think that one of the things I'd like to to discuss further is how we can better, better support our community in in pursuing these funds. I completely agree. They've worked so hard and such a creative idea. Yeah, part partly it's due to the very compressed schedule this year. And so, yes, we're definitely coming back to that whole issue and maybe what kind of education or resources we can put out there. Early, early, much earlier than is happening. And I just wanted to add that I think it's also important for particularly for proposals like this one to understand that a rejection one year doesn't mean a rejection the following year. And I think people have a, you know, all or not can sometimes have an all or nothing attitude. And I think we should add that to the philosophical discussion. All right. Thank you, Sam. And following up with your comments, Sarah, I also have questions as to whether or not it's something that is not potentially qualified. There's the historic aspect, but I did and I did check what I read to be the requirements for recreation. And I found parts of them that to me seem to align such as integrated, active and passive recreational opportunities, adapt existing parks, fields and areas to serve multiple purposes of the meat, changing recreational trends of the community. I'm bringing this up. I understand there's a desire to discuss it later, but I think the committee does not need to be restricted necessarily to the store. I understand what you were saying, Sarah, the opinion of the state CPA, CPA commit committee was regarding recreation as well. But I think it's something that the committee here could discuss when we get to the point of determining the viability and voting. Right. Okay. Questions on that. Okay. Sure. All right. Well, in that case, I would say we take no further action on this proposal tonight. What's Anthony doing? Okay. All right. So now we come to the Jones library, special projects. Proposal. Or just adding. Table somewhere. Where did you put it? I made it a comment on the cell. Just. Oh, I see. Okay. Just for my own sake. Okay. Okay. Somebody's Mike is. All right. So let's see. Robin, do you want to. Move on this. Make a motion so we can open discussion on, on the Jones library. Sure. This would be borrowing. Right. So do you want me to, I mean, there are some new people on the committee who weren't present for. The previous round of this proposal. I mean, I could give a very brief recap. What I know what I want. What I want first is just a motion in a second. And then we'll go ahead and have the discussion. I have a motion that we vote to recommend $1 million for the Jones library special collections bonded. Do I give a period of years or. No, just for bonding. Is that sufficient? For motion. Yes. Second. I second that motion. Okay. I think Sarah, I think Sarah Eisner got this. Oh, that was Katie. I'm sorry. Katie. All right. Okay. Robin, if you are comfortable doing it right now, why don't you give a, a brief history? Yep. I think I'm going to, I think I've got it. So the Jones library, a special collections proposal came to us last year with an ask of 1.5 million. The friends met with Jane Wilde, the chair of the historical commission and myself to talk about how to prepare the proposal. And we had. Suggested that special collections was a good, a really good. Good. Good. Good. Good. Good. Good. Eligible activity and clearly defined. And when the proposal came before the committee. There was not a detailed line on a budget. And therefore the. The Jones library presented a square footage proposal, which rubbed people the wrong way. In terms of not being clear about what was being covered. And I think that was a good idea. And I think that was a good idea. And recommended my recommendation to the committee was that. They fund up to $1 million for specific systems HVAC climate control of fire suppression and security. And then there became the question of whether it was eligible under the CPA and the coalition weighed in and the town's council weighed in. And there was a lot of discussion around that. And I think that's where we are now. And so the commission. Support. Stands by its recommendation. One million dollars. Okay. Great. All right. Would anybody like to. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. And I think that's where we are now. And so the commission. Support. Stands by its recommendation. One million dollars. Okay. Good. And I think that's where we're now. I think that's where we're now. I think that's where everybody like to say something regarding this. Diana. You're, you're. Yeah. You're muted. I know. I know. I'm muting. I might recollection slightly different from Robins or at least my intent originally was. Which was that. was coming forward. Well, first let me say that special collections is a jewel. It needs to be preserved and it breaks my heart that it has had rainwater leakage onto important historical documents. So I'm totally for supporting special collections. But the original problem that I had, and perhaps some others as well, was that they were creating a wing of a building in which to house the special collections. And my understanding was that they were going to go back and come forward with a proposal not only with the budget, but that it was going to be things that we could totally support like HVAC and so forth. And indeed the first four items out of five on the budget are for just the kinds of things that we all agree are needed to protect special collections. The fifth item is for walls. And the wall may disturb the outside mortar somewhat. And I'm just not as comfortable with the fifth item because I listened because I wrote the minutes of the October 22nd meeting. I listened to that take over and over again to hear what Trustee Serrat was saying. And it's not clear. Okay. So for me, I would support 800,000 completely. The last 200,000 for me is dubious. I'm not 100% sure how those walls will be constructed in such a way that they could disturb the outside of the building. And I'm just not 100% comfortable with the fifth provision. That's my statement. Sorry. Can I add just because you raised one of the problems with the original proposal was that it was creating a new wing. But this proposal has the special collections entirely within the original building, within the existing footprint. Except that it can push the modify the outside, which is a little, I'm not clear. Okay. Can I can speak to that as well? So first of all, in terms of the fact that there are walls as part of the construction and the new revised proposal, which I looked more closely at today, there's the proposal addresses preservation as well as rehabilitation. And I think there's a, I don't have it in front of me, unfortunately, but there's a pretty clear definition cut from the law that you can rehabilitate a building to a historic building for to make to make it useful for more modern purposes. So that would be the first thing I would direct us towards. And the second thing is that the historic preservation of this building is going to be foremost in the mind of everyone on the project. So I would be concerned about damage to the historic fabric that Massachusetts Historical Commission has to sign off on the project notification form. They have to they have to prove all the designs. There's there are some things that I don't quite understand around a preservation restriction, but it it those eyes will be very much on the project. So I don't think that's necessarily, well, I would not necessarily, I don't think it's something that we need to concern ourselves with. Thank you. Anyone else? One point. I just went and looked at the proposal because I wasn't I wasn't remembering it just being about walls. It does talk about the cost of creating the space, floors, walls, ceiling, lighting, doors, windows. So it's not unless I'm missing something, it's not relegated to moving walls, specifically only that. Does that help at all? I guess I have to go back and look at that part again, Katie. I I in the shorthand version, it's just walls. Okay, where he is by things in summary, the fifth one is walls. He doesn't say interior and mentioned more than walls. Okay, I was just looking at this. Maybe I'm looking at a different I'm looking at the proposal that's on that. It's the only one I read. So and it says number five, which is what I think you're, you know, the first one is HVAC, then fire suppression, then compact shelving, then number five is the cost of creating the space for the department, floor walls, ceilings, lighting, doors, windows. Well, you've got a more complete version. I'm going to have to go back and look at it again. So that's making the interior, building the interior space. That's what I check it out, but yeah, and I would just say, I mean, I would just, oh, so sorry. No, go ahead. And then actually, Sarah, you had her hand up earlier. So go ahead, Robin. Oh, yeah, I just wanted to reiterate this point about the things like a lighting and that they would be part of this rehabilitation definition, which is within their proposal, which I think stands up to the eligibility test. Sarah. Yeah. Yeah. Similar to where I was in the summer, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of this project at the full amount. And as I had made the case, I think it's a critical vote of confidence for this committee to support it. I think there have been very vocal naysayers. We got one today who make some potential legitimate points that would be interesting to hear about. I would argue that this isn't a vanity project of a select few. I think was one of the critiques of it. And so I continue to be enthusiastic about this. I think we should support it. I think they've come back with a detailed cost estimate. People should be super clear that this is not in written in stone at the cost estimate for a project that hasn't been designed yet or bid out. And they say the construction is several years out. But they're really just putting together the whole project and the funding and the financing. And so this slice of the funding is a critical piece to get the project moving forward. So I'm a big proponent of it and excited to move it forward. Sam, you had a hand up earlier? I was following up with Katie's comment referencing or questioning or clarifying the number five. One portion of the referenced expenses is the, and it appears to me to be significant, is the replacement of the concrete floors so that it's appropriate to house the vault and other information. So that is an additional, it's not just the floor. It's the removal of a fair amount of the cement there and the replacement with flooring that would be viable for a vault. So I was just clarifying related to your comment, Katie. Meaning that it could withstand the load? It'd be a heavier. My assumption is that it's certain sections, if there's a vault, require a particular type of flooring according to the submittal. And we have to take the submittal according to the architects design that it would be something that would be needed for that space. So I was adding simply the clarification that it's not just walls, but there's also a significant portion of the work that is for the removal of the concrete and installation pouring of a new floor. That's my understanding. Thank you. Anybody else? Andy? Yeah, this is one that I've had a little bit of a harder time with. I appreciate the letters we've gotten because there have been quite a few. This seems to be one of the ones that has the most interest from folks. I recognize the need to preserve these documents. And I'm leaning towards voting yes just because of the fact that there isn't really a clear plan B, as was shared as part of the presentation. But it does, to me, have a feeling of throwing good money after bad. And that is the best solution to renovate this building for this purpose or is really the optimal solution to have some type of offsite storage. And so, again, I will probably lean towards voting yes, but I do want to recognize and thank the folks who've written in with some of their concerns. I agree with some of them. But ultimately, given the nature of the failures that have happened in the building, we need to make sure that we're protecting those assets as best we can. Thanks. Thank you. And I want to reiterate, I think the committee understands it, but for anybody else who might be watching, that if we recommend this to council, this expenditure, this $1 million, is entirely dependent on town council voting to pursue the larger renovation. If they don't go forward with it after vigorous public input and debate, and there'll be a big discussion about it, then this money will not be borrowed, and we won't have to pay for it. Some commenters said it's premature for us to act because town council hasn't acted. I don't think we make the town council wait for us. I mean, we go first, and then they go, right? We don't have them decide before. We decide if we want to chip in. And I do very much support this project. And like I said earlier, I forget when, maybe, about the front town hall steps. This is CPA's moment. I think this is what we're here to do to put money into projects, should they go forward, that are going to make an amazing difference to the town and just be spectacular and be something that people will enjoy for decades. So I favor it very much. Diana? Well, I was just going to say I went back and I looked at what Katie was referring to, and I do see the walls and the ceiling and all that, but it says creating space, and that's somewhat ambiguous. I'm struggling with this vote because special collections is really an important part of a library and really rather unique to Amherst, and it's just telling me that the collection has been damaged and is under tarps. That just makes me sick. But I'm still not 100% sure about creating space. I'm not sanguine about the verbiage there. That's all. I think it's entirely legitimate to put up interior walls to carve up space in a historic building for different functions. I don't think, and I think that is commonly done. Sure. If it's dead creating space within the historic building, I would say absolutely, but it doesn't. It just says creating space, and then there's this piece about the outside wall having some displacement. It's not as clean as I would have liked it, but I'm done. Sam and then Andy? I read all the submittals previously from the last go-round in March as well as June. I read all the back and forth endorsements and comments from the CPA coalition as well as the town legal staff and comments from all the presenters. I think we are all in favor of the need to preserve special collections. What I see here, though, is distinct from that, that this is a proposal that's tied to a very large project. It's seeking a million dollars of funding for a special collection that is tied to a $35 million town project, which gets involved with lots of other aspects of construction related to the library. The special collections portion is, of course, three or four percent of the overall project, which is one of significant discussion in town. People are in favor. People are against. Perhaps the majority is in favor, but it's certainly something that is under discussion. When we talked about the initial vote, which Nate called the straw vote, which I thought was a real vote, the question arose that, well, this is a ringing endorsement of the overall library proposal, meaning the grander $35 million project. I didn't see it at the time that way. I thought that there is and should be a distinction between special collections versus the overall library project. If there was a proposal that said, here's a box, you can save our special collections, and nothing else has to get done, I think there would be no discussion. Everybody would say absolutely. Part of the proposal references that this would be a launching point for the grander project. I'm in favor of preserving special collections, but it's my opinion. I don't share the same opinion you do, Sarah M. It's my opinion that this is, in fact, something that the town council should discuss and vote upon first. I see the project as a much greater project than what's before us. I understand what our focus is, and I'm certainly in favor of special collections. But I think that the ordering of the process should go through the town council first prior to coming to CPA thereafter to fill in the funding that's needed. That's how I see it. Whether or not the vote for this is an endorsement of the grander project is not something that I see as the decision that I have here. I see it as one of would we or would we not support something that's going on with special collections, and to me it should go through the town council first and then come back to us. That's my opinion. Andy, did you have your hand up? Yeah, it was actually super fast. Could someone remind me over what time period would we be capitalizing this? That's not up to us. Well, in terms of us understanding the impact to future years and future CPAC. Well, then I'll ask Anthony or Holly to say what you think is likely, what would be likely. I think 10 years is a lot more likely than five. Okay. Yes. So I would agree. It is all up to the treasurer and the accountant and the town manager as they work through bonding issues. But in our projection, we have projected it as 10 years based on the dollar amount. It doesn't make sense to do anything less than that. But that will ultimately be somebody else's choice. Thanks for clarifying. And again on the worksheet that was sent out to you all, we are projecting that that was started in 23. Again, based on the project, it could start in 24. It depends on when the project starts, when the money gets spent, that's just a guesstimate at this point. All right. Does anybody want to say anything more before we vote? I think not. All right. So we have a motion seconded to recommend borrowing a million dollars for the special collections section of a renovated library. And of course, contingent, not just contingent on town councils, moving ahead with that larger project. So take a roll call. Start with Robin. I. Sarah E. I. Katie. I. Anna. I. Diana. Muted. Oh, yeah. I was muted. I, I'm voting I, but with reluctance and not in support of the overall project, but in support of special collections. That that is all that's before us. Yes. Right. Andy. I. David. I. Sam. I'm going to abstain. I'd rather vote on this at a later point in time. And Sarah M. I. So I think that's eight in favor, none opposed, and one abstention. Well, good work, everybody. I, so we have made what I would still like to call a draft slate. We can sleep on it for two weeks. We should meet on December 3rd. I think that won't, I don't think we'll need a three hour meeting. We'll schedule a two hour meeting and maybe it won't even be that. Okay. Everybody has that on the calendar. Right. Okay. Super. Anthony, is there anything we need to do before we adjourn? I don't believe so. I'll, I'll try to even have a draft report ready for you guys in two weeks. And are you you have to have the FY, the one for the land purchase ready sooner or yeah, we should probably work on that tomorrow. And is that are we going to have to vote on it? And can they wait two weeks? I'm sorry, you've already voted to approve. That one is a definite. Yes. That one is a definite final. Yes. So we would prepare basically a one page report to the town council with our recommendation on that. So it doesn't have to come back to us. I don't believe so. I think last year, I think last year the chair and I just did it over email. The one, sorry, you're talking the special one for Kendrick. Kendrick Park, that one, that one off. Yes. Yeah. Okay. But we will all see the draft of this FY 22 package. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So maybe can I ask a clarification? Yes. You said you're still considering this a draft slate, but I feel like last year we had this problem where the staff thought we had voted and that they were votes. Like, can we just clarify that we have we that we voted or what you think we've done? Well, we've tabled, we've tabled one project. I mean, we could, if I guess if everybody's I was under the impression we were voting. So I'm sorry. I, no, no, it's fine. It's fine. We just typically then step back and just have a look and see what our balance is going to be. And, you know, but if, you know, we're, we're having a question that we were voting to. So, but you just said, I just wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding on anyone's part. Yes. I consider that we do have one more chance to rethink this. I'm going to, I'm going to point out that all of these motions were to recommend X project to the council for money. They were like pretty explicitly stated as such. I don't think that we can say they were drafts. I don't even know what a draft vote would be. All right. So we tried that. We tried to do that a couple of years. We thought we were doing it. Fine. Fine. We clearly can afford it. Can we see. So Anthony, it looks like we have an estimated surplus of $190,407. Is that right? That is what it's showing me. And if we don't fund anything else, we will need to move to put that into a reserve. Yeah. So we will need to have a vote next time on how much we're reserving. All right. All right. Then this, yes, this is our final package, our final set of recommendations. And so next meeting we'll just go over the report, I guess, and deal with this surplus and maybe do something with the Mill River Trail. Yeah. Okay. Sam. We, you know, down the road, follow up to your comments, Sarah. And, you know, we could consider in the future voting on what we think we're going to put up as a slate and draft, but I agree with Sarah that we, you know, we voted on it. That was my understanding as well. So I'm just, yeah, confirming that from my perspective. Yeah, that's kind of what I remember from last year. It seemed like we discussed things and put up amounts for them and then voted on them. It seems like it went in a slightly different manner, but. Well, so Andy. Yeah. I'm sorry. I was just trying to find the 190,000 you mentioned from the schedule. Where is that? Right. Bottom of column S. Oh, all right. It was behind my pictures. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, so our recommendations are these are our final recommendations. Anthony will draft a report. And yeah. I would just, and I'm not 100% certain. Yes. But my thought is that you also have the 377,000 from this current year's reserve that if it doesn't get spent would be added back to that 190 as well. Well, yeah, I can never tell if it's already in or not. And I can't either some days. So I think it's not, but I'm, and then that's why I said I'm not certain. All right. While we don't want to leave any money on, I mean, that would be terrible. Can you imagine? We lost 377. Well, no, it's certainly won't be lost, but I believe it will be added back. Okay. If it's not spent, if nothing else comes up before the end of FY 21. Okay. All right. Then all right, Andy, one more thing. I'm just going to say, I've just been watching Anna throughout and thank you for taking minutes. This is like, this has got to be the toughest one to do this for. I agree. And she's still got the thumbs up at the smile at her face. We're at page 11. We'll see how things. It will be that when I'm done. I'm just, you know, okay. All right. So wonderful, wonderful work, everybody. I think I'll just wish everyone happy Thanksgiving and we'll see you on December 3rd. But we need a motion to adjourn. All right. So Diana moved it and somebody second Katie second. All right. All right. Sam. Hi. Hi. Hi. David. Hi. Diana want to keep going? Hi. Andy. Hi. Sarah. Hi. Katie. Hi. Anna. Hi. Robin. Hi. And Sarah. Marshall. Hi. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Everybody. Wonderful. Thank you. Good night. Thank you, Stephanie and Holly. Everybody, please stay safe. Okay. Thank you. Take care. Thanks, everyone. Yes. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye.