 to call this meeting of the Community Preservation Act Committee to order at 6.02 p.m. on Thursday, December 3, 2020. Pursuant to the governor's emergency orders during the pandemic, we are not allowed to meet in person, so we are meeting remotely and this meeting is being recorded. So first, I'd like to take attendance, make sure everybody can hear and be heard. So let's see. Sam McLeod. Here. And you are representing. At large. You are at large. Thank you. Diana. Everyone. Diana Stein here. Representative at large. Thank you. David. Dave Williams from the Housing Authority. Anna. Hi, Anna, Devlin Gauthier, Conservation Commission. Thank you. Robin. Hi, Robin Fordham, Historical Commission. Andrew. Andrew McDougal, Planning. And I'm Sarah Marshall, representing the please LSSC, soon to be or maybe already Amherst Recreation. So we are missing Sarah. Sarah's in the audience. She just needs to be bumped in. Oh, okay. Thank you. Here she comes. Here we go. Great. Thanks for that. So give. Hi, Sarah. How are you? Good. I was, I didn't understand that. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's fine. So I'm here. I'm here. Sarah Isinger and with the yes. Plus one. Also at large. Very at large. Right. Micah. Micah. All right. So we hope we hope Katie Allen, Zobal will. Katie, I think I just got a message for her that says she's here too. Also in the waiting room. Sometimes if I'm accidentally still signed in with my work zoom, I have to like, it doesn't put. Yes. Maybe type in Q&A. If you are you community foundation of Western mass, or are you bruh? Because there's two people raising their hands. I would assume she's community foundation. I don't want to let both people in now. She doesn't. I don't know who is right. So she says CFW. Yeah. I'm here. Hi, Katie. So I clicked on your link, Anthony. I don't, this happens to me every single meeting. So I must be doing something wrong. I apologize. I keep, I'm in the waiting room. Katie, it's because you're, I think you're signed into zoom through your work account. And so at least that's what happens to me is, is I have to sign completely out of zoom and sign back in with, with the email that the agenda gets sent to. Got it. Yeah. It might be the same problem. I'm not sure. Okay. All right. Wonderful. Then everybody is here and we can proceed. The first order of business is to choose a minute taker. Hope this should not be too onerous meeting. I wonder, Sam, thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. We're back at the beginning. Yeah. Just about. Okay. Just about. All right. Do you want me, did you already do it? Do you want me to do it? I did it back once. I thought you did it recently. It'd be fine for you to do it if you wish. I did not do it. I'm not, I'm not, I feel like I need to do my duty. Yes. I would be glad for you to do it. Okay. Because I got lots of questions. This is good. Definitely get this over. Yeah. I have a lot of questions too. So we'll see how I can do. You can translate it too. All right. So Katie, do you want a, what do you call it? I have, I have the meeting framework. Okay. All right. Let me just note that. Okay. So if you're ready, we will proceed with public comment. If there is anyone present who wishes to speak for no more than three minutes. So someone just typed in Q and A that they wish to speak. And I said public comment is just about to come up, but they've now left the meeting. There are now no attendees in the meeting. Because you want an answered question, I guess. I don't know that bro one. Yeah, I just, yeah, I just answered it in text that public comment was coming up. But if they come back, perhaps we'll offer them the opportunity again. Okay. Can I ask if there are any other staff present besides Anthony? Holly and John are here. Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes. If any members of the public appear, we will make time for comment. Okay. So we do have one set of draft minutes to review from Andy. Thank you very much. These are the minutes of our meeting of November 12th. Did we ever approve the minutes that I did way back and people wanted to have more time to read them according to it? Yes, we did. I am confident that we did. I, because I've checked off, I've checked off on a calendar when, you know, that so I'm going by what Andy had in the minutes. Yeah. But there is a meeting subsequent to that. So I haven't gotten mine out yet. I'm sorry. This week kind of swallowed me whole. So I'm digging my way out. I'm sorry. I will get them out to everybody at some point. Anthony, do you know, did the minutes I did, I think October 22nd, did they ever really get approved? I, according to Andy's minutes, they were not, they were Andy's minutes are from two meetings ago. After that it was. Yes. I believe that's the case. I keep, I keep a checklist myself, but I don't keep it on my laptop. I keep it on my Well, I've got it. My understanding is the same as Sarah's that they were approved with possible minor edits to be communicated to Anthony. And I'm assuming that the minutes of November 19th will reflect that. Yes. All right. So if we can turn to the minutes of November 12th, I hope, I trust everyone's prepared to act on these. Again, looking for substantive comments, if you had, you know, formatting or other small changes spelling, please send those directly to Anthony. So I already have a few. Okay. So I, I wait, I will first move and second, and then we can talk about them. So I move that we accept the minutes of November 12th, 2020. Is there a second? I second it. Thank you, Diana. Okay. Does anyone wish to amend them or alter them in a substantive way? So many people, I don't see you. So I don't know how I'm going to know if you, I guess you just have to unmute yourself and speak up. There's a button in the top right that should all switch between speaker and gallery. All right. If you're on desktop. Yeah. No, I just mean in the past, people have raised their hands physically and I could see them, but some people have video off. Oh, I see. I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. Sorry. I only found one minor thing, which is somebody to second the adjournment motion at the end. I don't know, recall who did minor. If no one remembers right now, I'll just check the video and add it. I think there was a, I think there were many seconds. So pretty much pick one of us and no one will object. I'll have to consult my Robert's rules, but I don't even think I don't even think adjourning requires a motion. Yeah. I was, I was wondering that too. Really? Because we're, yeah, we certainly didn't do a roll call vote. I can say that Anthony tomorrow or later tonight, I will send you my minor, very minor corrections and these minutes. Okay. All right. So one more time. Does anybody have any substantive alteration? No. Yeah. All right. Then we do need to have a roll call vote. This will be to accept the minutes with the minor corrections that have been for or will shortly be forwarded to Anthony. Sam. Hi. Diana. Hi. David. Hi. Sarah Isinger. Hi. Katie. Hi. Robin. Hi. Anna. Hi. Andrew. Hi. And Sarah Marshall. I, so that is unanimous. Thank you. All right. Has anyone appeared for public comment? Nope. Still zero. Still just 12 of us. Okay. Anthony, or is there any financial update? Review. Nope. No changes that I'm aware of. Holly, you didn't find another $200,000 for us. Nope. We have not found any additional money. Not yet. No. See if you did such a good job. We're going to just keep counting on you. All right. In that case, we will go to the draft reports. There are two again, because they address decisions for two different fiscal years. So the first one is the special report to the town council for fiscal year 2021. The very short one pertaining to the recommendation that the town borrow $800,000 for this land purchase that Amherst housing trust, affordable housing trust, I guess, is still negotiating or hoping to land. All right. So Anthony, will we need a formal motion to approve these reports? I don't think so. Last year, Nate and I just kind of did them. But last year was a weird year. Well, this one's pretty weird. All right. So I think traditionally we have, but... Okay. Well, we might, I mean, we might as well. I mean, I guess we might as well. So starting with the very brief cover page, can I just throw out, I would reorder that these are addressed, this is addressed to the town manager and then to the town council and then to the town council finance committee, since it's a committee of the council. Any other comments on this cover letter? All right. Then turning to the report itself, would anyone like to, anyone have any comments? Text Diana. Yeah, I do. And I'm just trying to figure out how it's labeled. I am trying to pull it up. Give me a break. I could put it up on screen if you... No, it's all right. I've got it. No, that's something else. All right. I will get it. Just give me a minute. Because if I don't have it in front of me, I'm not going to know what I thought should be changed. I will reiterate my offer to throw it on screen. The problem, maybe someone else has something in the meantime and I'll find it. I had a question, Sarah, just I was wondering whether we'd heard anything back relative to the status of the project. I have not and Dave and John said they'd email us all if they knew anything. So I assume there's no... I will tell you that this week we did secure an appraiser for the property. So we have to appraise it. Okay. So I'm looking at a report to the town council, community preservation act committee report to the town council. That's what we're discussing, right? For 2021, right? Special report. 2021. Okay. I have for 2022. So go ahead and do the other. Okay. Does anyone else have... I have some suggestions, but anyone else? Please go ahead. No. All right. Then I'll just lay mine out. In the first paragraph, last sentence, it says it is clear that this valuable project, I would say may not be accomplished. Okay. And I would end that the town must act quickly, must act, excuse me, must be able to act quickly, period. Anybody else? Nope. Okay. This next pair... Sarah, sorry. I'm sorry. I have a point of clarification on the minutes. Do you feel that needs to be reflected all of the changes to the... Reports? To these reports. No. If we're going to vote on it. Okay. No. Okay. I just want to say, you know, the committee members, committee members suggested changes to the text. That should do. All right. So under... So this, I just... All right. Anthony, could you put up discussing because I'm a little confused as usual. I didn't see... Yeah. I didn't see this one somehow. They're in the same email. Really? Yeah. Okay. The same email as the one for FY22. Yep. I said them together. They're both together. Agenda or... All right. In the second... Under rationale, I would suggest altering the second sentence. I would strike the first half of it and write in order to... Let me just maybe read it first, but whatever, in order to enable the AMAHT to move rapidly to acquire property. That sentence is left over from last year. Yeah. Then go right on to the CPAC, considered this application. Yeah. Yeah. That was a good change. And that's all I had. So Diana, you didn't see this one. No. I confess. I did not. I somehow had two copies of 22, but not FY21. Don't ask me why. All right. Okay. Then Sam, yes. Just a question or comment. The community housing where it describes the proposal says this proposal seeks funding for the acquisition and development of land for affordable housing purposes. I don't recall that the actual proposal referenced that. And I know that they provided updated information. We, I wonder if we should include anything that says this, this proposal and subsequent updates seeks to, because if the council received initially submitted proposal applications, I don't think that it was to purchase land specifically. It was talking about East Street and things, general funding. I'm sure they'll understand the intent, but I'm wondering if we might add this proposal, this updated proposal. Yeah. Updated during a presentation. Yeah. Or this proposal as submitted and updates, something to that effect to reflect what we voted on. That's a good point. Anthony, I know the website gives all the proposals as submitted, but I think that any updates are only included in packets. And, and so nobody would know where to look. Is it, I can, I can add them back to the main page that probably makes the most sense or even a lot more divisions this year than previous years. You've been referencing that it was verbally updated and communicated during the meeting, just something that indicates such for their clarification. I'm sure they'll understand it nonetheless, but I think it would be more precise. Well, I think I would say, not say as submitted. I mean, as updated. And subsequent updates, I think. Subsequently updated. Yeah. That's, that's fine. Thank you for that. Okay. Any other comments on this one? All right. Would somebody move to accept this report then as amended? I so move. Thank you. Diana. Is there a second? We'll give it to Robin. Robin. Thank you. All right. Then we'll have a roll call vote. We are voting whether to approve the special report to the town council for FY 2021. Sam. Hi. Diana. Hi. Dave. Dave Williams. Hi. Thank you. Katie. Hi. Robin. Robin. Hi. We'll get the hang of this. Okay. Anna. Hi. Andrew. Hi. And Sarah Marshall. I miss Sarah. I think I'm sorry. Okay. And Sarah Marshall is I. Okay. I hope that was everybody. All right. Super. So now we can turn to the draft report to town council for fiscal 2020. Oh, it doesn't actually say in on the report title, but that's fine. 2022. Yeah. We formatted them differently. Maybe I should make that consistent. Well, I see it's in a subtitle there. Yeah. Okay. I updated the salutation here to match the last one. Actually, if I may. So I did get some comments during the week. So there's a couple of corrections to what was emailed to you. This balance here was incorrect. So that's been updated. This, this balance here was using last year's number in for FY 22. So that's been updated. And the administrative expense was wrong here. It was 20 said 20 instead of 25. So that has been updated. And am I right in thinking that the yellow are items we still need to finalize. Right. So maybe we should, should we take those up first? It's up to you, I think. That makes the most sense. Yeah. Well, so let's resolve this about 12 were submitted in this first 12 proposals were submitted. One was ineligible. One was withdrawn. And nine that makes 11. So there's one not accounted for. Right. So are we just calling mill river rejected? We tabled that motion at the last meeting. So okay. So let me, before we finish that, let me update then the committee. So the mill river history trail team wants to develop a revised proposal and bring it back in January. And I've said, I will try to call a meeting to make that happen. If they can first run it by the CPA coalition and the historic commission and anybody else and satisfy eligibility concerns. Okay, then, then we can take it up at a brief or at a meeting. I did say that even though we could, we could act on it, we, we don't control town councils, you know, agendas. So that's that part is out of our hands. So we can, so one option for us is just to not act on it yet because we believe it will be revised. Okay. But I would like it to add up to 12. And I, I, if I were on the council, that would be a question that would come immediately to my mind. Where is the 12? Well, I'm not going to leave it unaddressed. It's right. Right. The question is how, what do we want to do? Do we, we could reject it, but let them submit a new one, or we can just not act on it until we get it. Sarah, I understood all that. Yeah. Yeah. The question is, I thought that rejected as ineligible was referring to no river. No, that, that was a different proposal. Okay. Well, that's what wasn't clear to me. Right. But we still do need it to add up to 12. So the issue is what do we say about this 12th one that we've taken? Sam, what do you think? Well, if I hear you correctly, you're communicating that they have essentially withdrawn it with a request to resubmit it. Am I wrong? They're going to revise it. I mean, we've had lots of, lots of proposals that were revised without being formally withdrawn. So I would suggest then that we not reject it. And we simply indicate that we have not acted upon it at this time due to a request from the applicant. Yeah. We could say it's tabled pending revised proposal. I think that that is, I like that idea, Sam. Yes. Okay. Also, could you please tell me which one was rejected as ineligible? The Amherst Historical Society proposed a CPA funding their legal fees. We rejected that before I think it ever even made its way to the committee. Okay. Well, no, because I did it. Yeah, that's why I knew about it. It never got, it never got posted, but yeah. Okay. That's why I was confused. Right. So I thank you for that. All right. So I think we've dealt with that bit of yellow. Rejected by whom? It's a report from the committee. So I don't think we rejected it. Correct. No. Towns, no. It's Sonya. I mean, it's town staff. Sonya knows it's ineligible on its face. So we have a previous ruling from the CPA council from 2016. Hold on, Diana. Let the Anthony finish, We have a previous ruling from the CPA coalition from 2016 when they proposed essentially the same thing. And it's not an allowable expense. It was cut from the proposal in 2016. There was 2016, there were three pieces to it. And one of them was the legal costs. And it was cut and removed from that proposal in 2016 as being ineligible. I got it. My point really is I'm still trying to get how you add get 12, one of which, you know what I mean? It wasn't something we saw as a 12th proposal. But it had a number. And it was. Can we say it was, it was submitted, but not reviewed? I mean, this is submitted and reviewed. Well, it was reviewed by town staff. And so I guess I guess that's up to you guys. I mean, it was submitted. Anthony made them all available on like some FTP site before. I mean, I got it. So maybe it never made it, maybe it disappeared shortly thereafter, but it was submitted. All sentences in the passive voice. So it's not saying who did what really saying we reviewed it, which doesn't sound like I wasn't part of the committee at that time, but it doesn't sound like I'm hearing that we all reviewed it and voted. So yeah, can I say maybe to Sam's point? And I guess sort of everyone 12 proposals were submitted. One was rejected as ineligible by town staff. 11 were reviewed by the committee. Like we just sort of change the sequence there. And then also call out, I think it's a good point, Sam, to call out that the rejection was not by this committee. It was happened in advance. I like that. Okay. That's good. Thank you. Yeah, because we, we rendered no opinion on it, even though clearly we would, but we would have agreed, but still not even reviewed by the committee. Just Andy's comment plus folks, I think I need to ask everybody to be raising hands again. We're having more crosstalk tonight. So can we say nine are recommended because that's what we're doing in this report. We're recommending it right now. I mean, recommending them right now. Sam prior to our confirming that I have one other project in question before we get the numbers have approved and not approved, which is the North Amherst school roof. We tabled it at the time pending potential information from the town. Sonya subsequently referenced that she didn't think that it might be eligible, but we didn't actually discuss and vote on that further. So is that, you know, is that one of the proposals or what? Because we didn't, we left it in somewhat limbo and I'm not aware that it was withdrawn. Anthony, I would suggest if we want to go into detail about the roof proposal that we leave this header as it is and add some extra detail in the proposal section on the roof. Yes. And it was the town who withdrew the request for finding specifically for that North Amherst school roof or they're going to come back next year. So that was not our decision. Okay. All right. So now I think we need to, so we can, we don't, we need to fix this next yellow sentence. So Anthony, I don't know if you have the exact number. I'm sure it's not 600,000 even. So, so Sonya says it actually makes her life a little difficult if the vote is down to the scent. Oh, yeah. Left over left small amounts of leftover dollars will just get rolled over. But if we specify to the scent, I guess that's. So this, so this is in fact what we should vote to put in a general reserve. That is what she would like. Yes. Okay. And so can you one more time for the, for the all committee explain why we have to do this and what will happen if we don't? These are, this is the unspent money. I'm going to tag Holly in on here. Okay. So once we make an appropriation for FY 22, we're done for the year. We do not have to spend all of the money. We don't have to spend to the penny. We don't have to spend every dollar, whatever is unspent rolls over. If we don't put money into a general reserve, we can't reappropriate anything in FY 22. We would have to wait till FY 23. So if an additional project came up, the only way you could fund it would be like we did the municipal housing trust is through a borrowing article. If we have leftover additional money, we can put it into a reserve for a specific purpose or we can put it into a general reserve so that we can decide to use it at a later date during FY 22. Otherwise it's tied up till 23. Excellent reason. Thank you. Anybody have questions about that? So this gives us freedom to come back. For example, if the Mill River History Trail comes back and we want to fund it, you know, we could, we could do so. Any other questions? Uh-huh. Yeah, it's Andrew. Thanks, Sarah. Yeah, I've, I have like a really simple, stupid question here. Holly and Anthony of the 600,000 just, you know, we're, we're asking for a million to be bonded for the library is, is another option to like use more of this money towards that. So we have to bond less. And is that something that we, you know, is that something we've considered in the past? I know money's cheap, so like there's not a real pressing need to spend, spend it now, but I'd love to hear what you think. Holly. I'm not exactly certain how to respond to that. Yes, you could, I, I think that that would be up to the committee and you could decide to do that. But the thing is if we put this towards one of those borrowing articles, and then if something comes up in the next year, we don't have anything that we can do for it. We could also vote at a later time to pay down one of those bonds early if we don't use this. So there, it leaves us more options, I guess, is the point. Okay. So that, that helps a lot. And I was not advocating for that. I just wanted to understand better. Yeah, it was actually a sort of a suggestion that I had as well, because we had the 377 from the past fiscal year that we put into a general reserve in case we needed it. And I was sort of one of my thoughts was, why don't we use some of that? But because rates are low and because it gives us a lot more flexibility if something else were to come up. And I would add that if, if our borrowing recommendation, if those projects go forward, we're going to be, we're going to have more to pay in debt service, right? So if think of it as, you know, our mortgage squirreling away some of our, some of our mortgage payments. All right. Would somebody like to move that $600,000 be placed in a general reserve? I so move. Thank you, Diana. Anna, thank you. All right. Any more questions on this item, Sam? I just think we, oh, I'm sorry, on the report or on that item? No, on this particular vote, the motion on the table. The general reserve. Okay. All right. Then I'll have a roll call vote. Sam? I. Diana? I. David? I. Katie? I. Anna? I. Sarah Eisinger? I. Robin? I. Andrew? I. And Sarah Marshall? I. So that's unanimous. All right. So that's no longer yellow. Before we start tweaking language, Anthony, just, I see your hand, Diana, just a moment. Is there any more yellow, I guess that we? Sorry. No. No, wait, so the history trail, you want to say add that we are tabling or that we've taken no action on this? Yeah, I'm going to create, I'm going to create another section that says tabled. Put it there. All right. Diana. Yeah. So, so I was going to say, well, let me, can we now go to language or are we not worried about language? I want to, I want to get through the yellow parts first. No. Okay. I thought you were. Nothing, nothing else. Nothing else that requires action. So the general reserve we dealt with and, okay. All right. So now we can talk about the language. Diana, what would you like to? Well, in the underneath, we recommend placing the remaining 600,000 in a general reserve at yellow. About the funds that were returned to CPA, it says did not move forward due to some circumstances beyond the control of the CPA committee, I would say, or the proposers. I mean, it actually whether a project doesn't move forward is usually due to the people who proposed it and not to the committee anyway. You see my point? Well, I don't know that we have to explain. I mean, well, it doesn't seem to be part of our responsibility to explain why somebody else wasn't able to do what they wanted to do. I'm not trying to explain why. I'm just saying you can't just say a project doesn't move forward due to us. It isn't us that controls whether a project moves forward. It's the proposer, whether they get it done or not. Is that what it's saying? It's saying it's not because of us. Our control. Is that the piece? Yeah. It was beyond the control of the CPA committee or the proposers. There are things that can happen that a proposer did not anticipate. So that's my comment. You can reject it. That's fine. Anthony? Oh, never mind. Well, how about just ended after did not move forward? That's what I was just going to say. It doesn't matter whose fault it was. It just didn't happen. That's right. I can deal with that. Okay. I would like to back up. Just Katie, go ahead. Sorry. This is, I think, a minor point in that same paragraph. It says, please note that on the last page of this packet we've outlined, is that just the rejected and the table that will end up being there? Anthony? So no. I didn't include it in this draft, but at the end of this we will include the spreadsheet that working. Okay. That's what I was wondering, because I didn't see that. And then I wasn't sure if you were referring to this text last. There will actually be several spreadsheets added to the packet once it's completed. It'll have the working spreadsheet. It'll have the past few years of approved projects, the returned appropriations and current open balances. Okay. So it's referring to something that's not there yet and it's the spreadsheets. Got it. Thank you. Sam? Maybe instead of last page, you could just say at the end of this report, because it sounds like it's going to be several pages from what I heard, several spreadsheets. But it is true that the last one will be the returned appropriations. Okay. Then never mind. Anthony, those have previously been called appendices. Will they be referred to as such here? Well, then do you, is it like in appendix two or appendix three? All right. I have a comment about the first paragraph. The last sentence. It says many of these projects. I recognize this one. Many of these projects might never be accomplished with regular operating funds in the town budget. Now, I don't like that for two reasons. One, because some of the projects are not, I mean, they're by private entities, they would never get operating, never get town funds. So it doesn't seem to apply. But also I thought this construction, CPA funds are not supposed to be supplanting operating funds anyway. So isn't this always true? I mean, do we need the sentence? I agree. Okay. What was that? Strike it? Okay. Yeah, you can get rid of it or you could say, you could simply say many of these projects would never be accomplished without CPA funds. Yeah, which is more to the points, I think. Right. Without the town, but without. Yeah. Thank you. Adopting CPA. Yeah. Even better. Even better. Yes. All right. In this, in the second paragraph, the next paragraph, do we need to refer anywhere kind of in this body to the $50,000 that we took from the historical preservation reserve? Or is that just a detail? We don't need that. It does say estimated surplus and reserved funds. Okay. It does note it later in in the specific project. I saw that. Okay. Not the specific amount though. So it'll be in the append and one of the appendices. I actually did add it in here at your suggestion. Okay. All right. In that edition. Okay. Then in the third paragraph, I would say appendix D, we have, we have outlined the funds awarded in prior years just to be clear. No. Appendix D is all about the returned appropriation. Right. Outline the funds awarded in prior year. I mean, they were from past years projects. Yeah. Awarded outlined the funds from prior projects that have been returned. That's too much. Outline funds awarded in prior years that have been returned. Right. I see. Yeah. It works. Return to the CPA and you don't need fund even. I mean, well, you could. But. All right. Anything more on this introduction from anybody? Sarah, you just unmuted yourself. Yeah. I've raised my hands. I'm sorry. Questions about the rationale. Uh-huh. Go ahead. Are we on there? Yeah. It was a global question of like, I don't, is this our approved language? I just didn't recall that this is how we position ourselves, but I'm happy if I, that was a question. Is this, is this how we talk about ourselves? It's how it's been in the report for a few years running now. It is. Okay. That's fine. Not to say it's the best wording, I guess, but no, we shouldn't revisit it. So, uh-huh. It does, doesn't totally square with the plan that we, like we rewrote the plan. I mean, I think it's fine. It just, you know, I just, like this is not our evaluation criteria so much when we evaluate, but if this is the, I'm glad to hear that we didn't write it fully anew. I don't necessarily support rewriting it. I just had wanted to know where it came from. Okay. Well, it's good to flag that because at a future meeting, we will go back to the plan and then maybe we should have these documents side by side. Yeah. They should square. I don't think it's like needs to be totally rewritten this year, but I, it's like a good, good moment to just reflect on it maybe going forward. Good point. And then you got that, that number didn't tie in. Right. Okay. That was my other major comment. And then the, just a formatting issues is, sorry, under project details. I think all those Amherst housing authority, those should all just be bulleted. They were just a little hard to read. Down here. Moving right there. Here. Your list. I would just have bulleted those. Okay. It's a, it's a, it's actually formatted as a table, but I can, I can actually. No, up top. Oh, these. The Amherst housing authority project. Yeah. A dense service. Yeah. There. That's great. If I may, to me, that's really somewhat redundant and because we have it each one there and then we have it again down at the bottom with the years. So it seems like we could do away with one or the other of them possibly. I agree. Maybe we just add, add the dollar amount after each sentence. Right. Or just put 10 of 10 years, eight of 10 years, just put a little qualifier on the end of the table because it is fairly redundant. Although it does give a little you could then add in another column, which says for the existing affordable housing, it's an Amherst. I mean, you know what I, in the table down below, the table down below makes it easy to read. Yeah. It's easier to read. Yeah. I, I forget my grantee amount years in it also. Yes. Yeah. That parenthetical comment is the year. Right. It's okay. I'm sorry. I kind of like the redundancy. It helped me, but read it quick. If it helps us, it might help others who haven't been talking about it. There's more explanation in the text and it's easier to read. So I'd go with both. Although I would say just that parenthetical comment you may either want to put like the year in there or maybe you know, year 10 of 10, year eight of 10, year eight of 10, like write it out. The eight slash 10, that could also be a date for all of these. So Well, but it's spelled out exactly as you say in the Yeah. No, I know. But I'm saying, yeah, just what you're doing there. That's all. Maybe just the first one. Year 10 of 10. And like not the slash, but I mean, those are all dates otherwise. Like if someone saw that without context. Well, good luck with three slides. I guess March 5th now or yeah. Okay. You want you think for everyone or just the first one? Maybe just probably make it uniform. Might be easier to make it uniform, but yeah, I'm not just widen the column. I don't know when, can you move it over so it doesn't go to a second line? Yes. I'm trying to do the table was transparent. Don't waste the time here. And then also maybe just right justify the numbers. Just my mind too. Those decimal points. That's the accountant in me. I was going to take care of that. Yeah. Perfect. Trust me to fix this later. I will. I'm sure it can be fixed. I have no doubt. You can feel free to keep talking. Yes. Well, okay. Then if, can we move on to the project descriptions then? Well, I just a minor point on the debt service. Are we there? I, the Amherst, this seems to me to need an apostrophe. Yes. The Amherst housing authorities and Whalen apartment. It just, it was too many nouns together without any relationship between them in a way. And I would suggest that up in the first line too. I'm not sure. The very first bullet. Yeah. Yeah. I think that makes sense there too. I agree. Okay. All right. Moving forward. Actually. Yeah. Anthony. Okay. So we went right past this table. I get worried about this table every year. Does everyone understand what it's representing here? Yeah. I don't, maybe if I, I almost didn't want to go back to it because I'm afraid we're going to puzzle over it for too long, but is everyone. I do understand this, but I have to say I, my mind wants to see an additional table or at least statement. At least I would like to. So I'll run this by people because I think about the, the, like what we're doing with our cash, right? So I would say that we're recommending $1.246, $622 dollars, million dollars in new projects, $388,148 in debt service and $25,000 in administration. That's like for things we're doing this new things this year, right? And then on top of that, we have two borrowing articles. And that seems to me to focus on what are, what are the, what are the decisions we've made? It doesn't roll in the debt service into each category so much, but maybe that's just appeals to me. Can you clarify again what you're saying, Sarah? Are you suggesting adding a brief summary of the three categories in addition to? No, it wasn't, well, it wasn't even the like historic preservation versus community housing, just new project awards for new projects for debt service and for the administration administrative fee. Okay, so it will all add up to the same number, but it separate pulls out the total debt service to show what is being spent on new projects. It would be informative to those reading that if it was clear what it was referring to. I like that addition, Sarah. I do too. Yeah, I do too. Anthony, do you know what I mean or should I email to you? I think maybe simplest way is if you email me the change you'd like to make. It sounds like it's in addition, not a change. Yeah, it sounds like it has consensus. So I think that, and just to be clear that I think that what Anthony was asking in this was a question that I asked, because in my account in mind, percentages should add up to 100 and that third column does not add up to 100. And that's where I was like, where are these numbers coming from? How can you have 160 percent? Should we have the dollar figure along with the percent then? So I mean, if I, the way I understood this, maybe I'm wrong, but like for the first row, the 37 and a half percent is of the 25.1 percent of the 1.1 million dollars that's going to community housing, 37.5 percent of that relative to the 416. I'm sorry, like the share of the 1.1 is 37 percent of the 4.5. That's correct. And that's what confused me. Yeah. And I didn't, there is an asterisk down there at the bottom, which I did not see. And then once Anthony told me, I was like, okay, now I got it. It's not, I'm with you as well, Holly, that the percentages, I wonder if just a fourth column that just has the dollar figure in addition to the percentage might be a useful way of reconciling that. And actually, if you put the fraction in that you get the 37.5 percent, that would be helpful to people who are looking at this cold. So it is because we, we are required to spend a minimum of 10 percent in each of these categories. And so that is just showing that we clearly did spend a minimum of 10 percent of our new revenue of 1.11 million. Yeah. So it does make sense. It just took me a second to get there. Sam? If it took you a second, Holly, it took me 10 seconds, and that's why I just think sowing the fraction, but okay. Sam? It seems to me that the issue or the subject under discussion is the distinction between total appropriation percentage and percentage of new revenue. At the bottom, we referenced the new revenue was estimated to be 1.1 million. Perhaps where it says total appropriation and percent new revenue, we could either at the bottom with the asterisks or at the top reference those two numbers. I don't know if that would make it easier or not, but it seems to me the total appropriation percentage adds up to 100. The other one doesn't. And it's the distinction between total appropriation and new revenue that's the issue. Am I correct? Well, I have a question. I mean, yes, that is the, but, but if we do, we only have to tell the reader that have we satisfied the 10 percent requirement? Yes, you know, rather than put in a, you know, have we satisfied the minimum whatever, you know, yes, yes, yes, yes. Do we need to put in these specific percentages? No, maybe it's just confusing or just say somewhere in the text, you know, these recommendations fully satisfy the requirement to spend 10 percent of new revenue in each of the three categories, four categories. One, two, three categories. The new revenue percentage does not appear to add up to be 100. I think that's the source of the confusion. Your comment would involve that. Certainly. Well, that's why I was saying showing the fraction would make it clear that it works. But I'm wondering if anybody really needs this, as opposed to just, yes, we did it, you know? Yeah. Right. You could make that column say 10 percent minimum and met and then just put a check, check, check, check, because that is actually showing a figure that, and that's again, that's just my account in mind. Percentages are supposed to add up to 100. So I was wondering. I'm with you, Holly. I get it. I can make it work, but it didn't jump out at me how it worked. Anthony. So to me, if a column is going to go, it should be percent total appropriation, because this percentage doesn't, it's not a useful number. Why do we care about percent total appropriation? But isn't that the 10 percent? That's how we know whether we hit the 10 percent minimum. No, it's a 10 percent of new revenue that we care about. That's right. Is there a reason we don't have a column for new revenue for community housing and then debt service for community housing? Would that make it clearer? Those aren't really. But it still doesn't tie in with the new revenue estimate. All right. The 1.659 is not new revenues. That's our spending. Correct. So maybe we don't need either one of those. We just don't need those two columns, and we just replace it with meets the 10 percent minimum obligation. Yes. Or just say so. You've planned to get. I'm looking at the line above it. Something like that. I was trying to, trying to wrap my head around that line. Well, can I recommend a change? Because it took me a while to, for FY 2022, CPAC recommends an appropriation of blah. That includes new projects, debt service, and administrative costs. Just say that. Okay. And then that explains. All right. And then it's all in here. So, Anthony, the only thing. Sarah. Hold on, Holly. Cut. I was just going to say Anthony, get rid of that asterisk at the bottom. Now, FY 22 new revenue, because that's not pertinent here anymore. Okay. Dave, yes, go ahead. Yes. Why, why are we removing the percentages, percent of the expenditures in the various categories? Because they seem to create more confusion than value. At least, several of them. It's showing how it's allocated, showing how the resources, our resources will spend the percentage of money that's spending each of those categories. True. Well, I mean, it's, if somebody wants to know it, it's easy to calculate. I also believe, isn't it on, and correct me if I'm wrong, Anthony, isn't it on the spreadsheet? The spreadsheet that will be in the appendices anyways? It is. So, we just hit the highlights here. It's up to you guys, but I think it's clear. Sam. To Dave's point, if we did include the percentage of total appropriation and did not put back the percentage of new revenue, it would display how much we're appropriate spending for each category. And your added comment, Sarah, about these meeting the 10% obligations would, it would mirror the intent of the original display. So if there are others that agree with Dave's comment regarding the percentages, I don't think it would add confusion if we added the percentage of total appropriation back. I don't know. That's my thought. Who would like to, we don't need a formal vote. Who would like to see, I guess, the first column, removed column restored, which is just percentage of the total recommendation. Yeah, I'm happy. Just raise your hand if you would like to see that one back. One, two, three, four. Well, Dave presumably does. All right, Anthony, you can just put that one back. But I think we leave the new revenue part out of the table, just as written, believe it is written. Oh, no. Oh, yeah. No. Did it revert back to other changes? Yeah, it backed up through the changes. So take out new revenue, but leave total appropriation. Yes, and remove the footnote, but I would like to see the text that you had added go back, which is Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Why not? For the above recommendations or whatever. I'm sorry, I'm going to suggest one thing because unless people are in the weeds, they won't know the connection between those two sentences. I would say these recommendations satisfy the obligation to spend at least 10% of new revenue. Much clearer. To us, it's clearer. And even if it isn't as good a job as we can. Okay. I think that's, and people can look in the spreadsheets for the details. And I do think it's better than just having the other column. That was mind boggling. I remember going around. It's because it didn't add up to 100%. This is right and appropriate. I think it's better. Okay. All right. Let's move on then to the project description. I gotta see. All right. So we've got the apostrophe. So the donor is going to get moved to a different category. I'll do that now if that's all right. Okay. Sure. Which is tabled. I guess it's already, so we didn't end up rejecting any. Oh, right. Yeah. I could have just changed the title. Yeah. And that was 900. The vote. Did we actually vote on that? No, no. Sorry. I mean the general reserve. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. So we didn't. All right. I'm going to mute you. You can unmute yourself on that noise stops. Okay. So you can remove the blue on the admin scene. Okay. All right. Anybody have any comments or changes to suggest about these little descriptions? All the, all the dollar numbers are now correct. Okay. So I didn't check all the votes, but I gather Holly did. Okay. So now we're talking about community housing. Well, any of them. Okay. So am I allowed to do English or do you want me not to to bother you guys with that at this point or I in community housing, I didn't think the there was parallel construction in the last sentence. And I would change it to ACC will provide case management to assist beneficiaries in obtaining permanent housing, increasing their income and addressing their housing obstacles. That's parallel. Okay. That's good. All right. And then I'm going on to the library. There's an and a where that should be struck. Yeah. Okay. I can have a quick go back on the housing. Sorry to interrupt. I know I'm not on video. It's just the each works each, each worth up to $950. That's per month. Right. We may want to have just put that timing in there. So yeah. Sure. Significant. Yep. Actually, maybe per individual per month, really, I guess, right? It says each. It says each. Yeah. Six, each worth up to. Yeah. Okay. Any other tweaks? If I'm not seeing your hand, I, okay. You. All right. Go ahead. I'm, okay. I'm going to speak and you can tell me to be quiet for the town of Amherst North Library wall repair. It's repairs. No, alterations, not alternations. Well, that's a good one. But also repairs being planned for the library, not considered. I thought was better verbage or undertaken. I mean, if it's yeah, whatever, that's fine. Okay. Okay. Can I say in the steps, I don't think you need a hyphen between heavily and used. Okay. And then for the roof restoration town at town hall, it says to fund this from the historic preservation reserve. It wasn't totally funded from that. Right. So partly it's part, you know, well, yeah. I mean, it just to be accurate partly is good or whatever. Just fund this in part from the. Yeah. I don't have any other tweaks. Sam, they're going to have access to the initial application submittals, correct? Yep. Okay. Yeah, they stay. I think they stay forever. And there's a, and there's a link in the introduction to the page. Because they may on a couple of these want to look at them. Yeah. No doubt. All right. I have nothing, no other comments. So Anthony, I feel like there was something you were, oh, maybe not. You're just going to put updated proposals onto the web page, right? Subsequent information. Like I'll add the, I'll add the updates back to the page. Okay. All right. So are we ready to vote on this? Sam? I think we're back to Diana's original question or inquiry regarding the number of proposals submitted reviews and tabled. I think we need to fund those totals. It adds up to 12. 12. It now reads 12 proposals were submitted. One was rejected as an eligible by town staff. One was drawn by the proposer. One has been tabled and nine I recommended for support by the committee. That adds up to 12. I can confirm that they add up properly, everyone. The rejected was the historical society. The tabled was the Iski trail. The Dona trail. And the third one was drawn was the consulting services for the housing trust. Yeah. Very good. And initially we had also had the the trust proposal for the $800,000 trust proposal included in that number, but that is now taken out. It's now an FY 21. So it's not even mentioned here. What about the north the school? Yeah. That was submitted as part of one proposal. It was amended. Then it was. Yeah, I really would consider that an amendment. We reference in here the consulting services that was If they withdraw, we don't need to mention it. We don't consider it. Historically, the reports have not mentioned withdrawn proposals. We could if we wanted to I only bring it up because as I just did a quick count, I came up one short and it was that consulting services. And it's posted. So you might as well leave it in. Well, the thing is this is going to the count. This is a recommendation to the council. Right. It doesn't really feel germane to the council that there was a proposal. There was a proposal. They can't even consider it. It doesn't. I agree, Anthony. All right. As long as it adds up, I don't care. All right then. It adds up to 11. It adds up to. One plus one plus one plus nine. Say that again, Anthony. One plus one plus nine. I don't mean to be. Does that include the one withdrawn? Yes, which is not listed. Correct. Yes. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it adds up to 11 in the report, doesn't it? 12 proposals were submitted. One was rejected as ineligible by town staff. One has been tabled and nine are recommended. 12 11 11 or only 11 are detailed here. Okay. Because one was withdrawn. I'm sure they will understand it. If they count, they'll, you know, I doubt they would count to say, Hey, where's the missing one? But we could indicate one was drawn by the proposer and not referenced here to avoid the anyone that might be counting. Well, we also don't. I'm good either way. I just wanted to raise that subject that, that, you know, the names of 11 appear even though 12 were referenced. So I'm good either way. I mean, Sam, you could, if you, in that, that sentence where Anthony is 12 proposals were submitted, one was rejected as ineligible by town staff of the 11 remaining one was withdrawn from the proposed one has been tabled. I mean, if you wanted to do that, or the 11 remaining are listed, you know, whatever. I'm good either way. I just wanted to make sure everyone was understanding that one of them appears nowhere in the report, even though 12 are referenced. Why? So I'm fine. Yeah, I think putting in of the remaining 11, one was withdrawn by the proposal, one has been tabled and nine. It's easier math for people to follow. So I think that's fine. Let's do it. Is that okay, Anthony? I know you're pulling your hair out. Of the remaining 11 11. One was withdrawn by the proposer of the remaining 10. One was tables. This is fine because these are all on the website. Like the 12 days of Christmas, except with proposals. Which one's number five? All right. Are we ready to vote? Yes. I move that we accept the report as amended. Is there a second? Sarah Eisner, thank you. All right. So we'll have a roll call vote to approve this CPA report to town council for fiscal 2022. Sam. Hi, Diana. Hi, Dave. You were muted. Okay. He says thumbs up, right? Okay, Anna. Oh, we have to be audible. It's the governor's rule. You have to unmute Dave. You're still muted. Push the spacebar. Hold it. There you go. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Enthusiastically supported. Okay. Anna, sorry. I forgot if I called on. Okay, Robin. Hi. Sarah. Hi. Katie. Hi. Andrew. Hi. And Sarah Marshall, myself. I. Okay. Thank you. Nine zero. Approved. Thank you, everybody. All right. We do have a couple more things on the agenda, but I don't think this should take long because we don't really have any more business for tonight. And we've done the most important part of our work in really stellar time and fashion. So I think we should all give ourselves a pat on the back. These reports will go to council probably tomorrow. I think council meets on Monday and they will, if they do as happened in previous years, they will refer them immediately to the finance committee who will go over them and then make a recommendation back to 10 council. But I would like to put you on notice that I'm likely to want to have a meeting in January and I don't know. Anthony, you'll figure I don't know if you sent out doodle polls or how you make it happen. Hopefully Thursdays will still be convenient, but I'm not wedded to this day. So we'll find something that works, especially if the district one group brings back a revised proposal on the history trail. Because then we would I think want to act on that in short order because I think they also have another application. So time would be of the essence for them. So I'm hoping they can make it happen. But there are some other matters that we'll need to talk about. One is what changes we would recommend back to to Sean and others about the timeline for this process next year. I think we're all in agreement that it was very compressed. And while that was it worked okay for members of the committee, it was pretty hard on proposers and some things got a little short change. So we can discuss calendar. We can also discuss what kinds of support or information. We can offer to community members who are not who don't do this every year and don't know the ins and outs. Sarah, would it be helpful to come to that meeting with ideas a little bit more spelled out, or do you want to have us start that discussion from from zero? I would encourage you to bring your bring your ideas. I'm telling you now, and I guess I can summarize that also in an email. One thing though we could act on now is to to put another, see if we can get another one or two committee members onto the little subcommittee, a little task force on communication and publicity that Sam and I are on together. Nate Buddington was on it also, but he's departed. So we would welcome any one or two people who would like to, since it's less than a quorum, it's not open meeting, we can just confer about ideas for better publicizing and maybe supporting maybe some ideas that we bring back to the whole committee about. Outreach. Yeah, about outreach. So does that appeal to anybody would anyone like to be part of that it's not it's not onerous. There is an outreach before the fact or after the fact or both. It's meant to be before the fact. Okay. But I'm in. I'm also interested in that. Thank you. Katie, did you also have your hand up? Or were you waving we can't have I mean it's it's one hold on because we can't have. We don't want to have a quorum. So I wasn't I wasn't putting my hand up. I was scratching my head. Okay, thank you. So not more than four. So, so Dave, were you volunteering? Yes. Yes. Okay. So now. I can drop. It's not a problem. All right. So we have Sam and Dave. And Robin and me. Thank you. That's great. So maybe, maybe I'll let Sam send out an email or suggest a way forward for us. Holly. And this might be slightly premature. I am also a member of the participatory budgeting committee, which has to have a recommendation to the town council by July 1st, I believe. And I just wanted to sort of put you guys on notice that they will be talking. Or would like to at some point in the near future. Set up sometimes to talk to the CPA committee. About proposals and advertising and how people can participate and how we can make people participate. Better. So if there's going to be a subcommittee of. CPA that's going to be working on that. Just to kind of give you the heads up that they're going to want to hear your ideas. And they're going to maybe have some ideas for you as well. It is something that will be the participatory budgeting commission is looking to. Increase participation in all aspects of town budget. And this is one place where they think that we may be able to. Get on the same page, I guess. So letting you guys know that that is something that is going to be happening in the next few months, probably as well. Thank you is maybe it doesn't have to be now, but if you can tell me who's on that committee or who we might be in contact with. Yeah, they're going to be reaching out to like a few committees, the JCPC committee and the CPA committee. In the, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's a challenge. Right. I'm not really sure. We have all of the committee committee in the, in the CPA committee in the, you know, it's part of our timeline as well to get ideas from these other committees. Okay. Okay. So we'll let them. We've got some in my guesses. We'll accelerate here. Since we've been so busy. Since. September. Nate departed. And Sarah had to. We haven't had time for much. We have some ideas, but we're hoping to become more regular again. Right. Diana. Just wondering if the Mill River project would be something that could be done with participatory budgeting, which is a totally different animal and wouldn't have the same restrictions that the CPA coalition would have. I just throw that out there. There might be some money that way. I really have no idea. I really can't comment on that at the moment either because we're not sure that we're going to be able to have available funds and that's sort of something that is is we're working out as well. Yeah, I understand. Okay. And lastly, we do keep mentioning it. We got to finish the CPA plan, okay, which is a document that was in the works all last year, didn't quite get finished, and we haven't had a chance to finish it. So I'm hoping there are really only a few areas that we need to address, but of course we also have several sets of new eyes. So I will try to get or Anthony somehow will make it make it accessible to everybody and I don't know yet if we'll take that up at our immediate next meeting. But we will start to where we're going we're inching in that direction. Okay, I think Sarah the one issue in that plan that will be of, you know, the time issue affiliated with will be the actual schedule that you referenced. That's the one item that will be that won't be minor of it. Yes. Yeah, and it's a little bit tricky if if if our schedule is going to change every year we don't really want to have to have our plan immediately outdated. So does that if anybody else has any suggestions for topics that we should take up what now that we will have a little more time to breathe. You know, raise them now or send them to me. Okay, Robin, of course, I'm sorry. Okay, I have more than just the one no I have them, but, and I take your suggestions yeah I just had, I have a small suggestion about more effectively promoting the exemptions to the CPA surcharge, but I also wanted to add in a discussion around understanding what supplanting is right. And then whether or not we need a more formal matrix and guidelines on which to evaluate our proposals. Okay, and, and then harmonize those as Sarah, he pointed out earlier with with our other public statements about how we evaluate. Yep. Yeah, I thought it Katie. Since I'm new just want to understand Robin what you said right there at the end and what you were saying. The two saras, I, I don't think I've seen the CPA plan so maybe it will all become super clear. But are you talking about like a rubric Robin of that guy. Yeah, that's what I was hoping to say to move toward a rubric way of grading and reviewing proposals. I have talked about that previously. That I would be very much interested and happy to help with that if that is of interest to the group. Yes, definitely. So maybe that's I will also mention that in an email. Yeah, we really do I think need to have some time for reflecting on this whole process. You know, not just how the community engages with us, but then how we, how we tackle all the, all the proposals we get. Robin though, could you explain for, for everybody though the whole exemption thing I'm not sure everybody even is aware of that. Last, last year. I mean it came up for me personally that I, because of the nature of my job. I realized there was such a thing as an exemption from the CPA search for low income households there's different exemptions that communities can offer and it all depends on what your job is. But when I went to, because I suspected I might qualify when I went to investigate it I was told there wasn't and then I had to write back and say I think there is based on this information. And then they said yes, that there is and then the forum isn't clear. There's nothing on the website and I haven't checked my tax bills recently but I kind of recall, not even seeing the surcharge on the paper tax bill. I was thinking all this and then when I was poking around the CPA coalition website they had a fabulously sustained thing on. Oh, lots of communities want to promote the fact that there is this exemption. And they often do it with the flyer with your tax bill, which seems like the most obvious solution so we can talk about that next time but I'll and I can circulate those. I don't have a lot of specific information but that's, I felt that it was not transparent and it should be. So the idea being that perhaps this committee will make a formal request or recommend yes to the assessor's office or to whomever would need to make that happen. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for reminding me, Holly you look like you want to say something. Well I I've worked in the tax collector's office. Okay. One thing that I can say is there's two different types of tax bills that come out one is your preliminary tax bill, and it does not have the same detailed information as your actual tax bill. It is 100% clearly broken out on the actual tax bill. Okay. I believe it's the August and November bill which is your preliminary it is not broken out and it is not required to be so because it's a preliminary tax bill, but on the second bill it will be clearly listed for you. Okay, thank you. So if somebody requests and receives an exemption, is it basically just you take that certain amount off your next bill just all at once. And do you know, or is it. I would not know the answer to that question exemptions I'm not, I'm not up on that through the assessor's office I didn't. Anyway, that so but that would definitely be a. I'm sure much appreciated by parts of the community. There are towns that do that Robin as you indicated so it's an intriguing subject distinct from outreach for solicitations and applications as opposed to. I guess a perceived benefit to the community. At the expense, literally, I suppose. You're right to an exemption. Sure. It shouldn't be a secret. Yeah. Yeah, it shouldn't be hard. It shouldn't be hard to realize that that's my point. Okay. Anybody else have at right now think of anything that we should take up another Robin. Did I, did I say this already. Oh, no I didn't and I'm sorry. I was just trying to figure out how to articulate this and I'll probably stumble a little bit but I think this came up with the question of the slate ribs. I'd like more clarification on when it's okay for us, whether it's within our mission or to question. Whether the full amount of an award should go to the town. And I felt that this last round. It's, and I won't go into it seemed like it was. I wasn't sure if we have that latitude. Yeah, latitude and whether we're we're tasked with that essentially to. So I just like, I'd like to have a discussion around that that clarifies what our role is in terms of determining the amount of an award, and I can go into detail more of the next meeting. Robin and that was also around like, what is the capital improvement versus what is a CPA responsibility. Yeah, that's that's related to supplant. Yeah, yeah. All right. Well, if you if other things occur to you, email them to me. Otherwise, I believe we are done for the evening, Sam you waved I don't know. I was given the, the, and we're done. Okay, okay. No need no. Yeah, we have 25 minutes to kill everybody. Okay, who wants to go for a walk. So I think Can I move to close the meeting. Yes, you moved and somebody said we don't even really need to vote on it. So is that right. Anthony you're muted. I am honestly not sure if it requires a motion I suspect it doesn't but I would have to consult my Roberts well can I say does anyone object to adjourning the meeting raise your hand. Andrew if you're objecting I Yeah, you know I'm not. In that case. We're done. Thank you everybody. The meeting is adjourned at 736. Thank you. Hi. All sending. Thank you guys. Along with. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Anthony. Good evening.