 Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Community Preservation Act committee on December 22. 2022 I am calling the meeting to order at 604 p.m. and pursuant to the decision of the town of Amherst as permitted by the state we are meeting remotely. This meeting is recorded. I'm just going to call on members to make sure we can hear everyone and that they can be heard. I'm Sam. Tim. Present. Katie. Present. Michelle. Present. Robin. Present. Matt. Present. Okay, so everyone's here except for Dave Williams and Sonya indicated you send an email. We do need to have someone take minutes for the meeting. Is there a volunteer? I think it's my turn. I see a hand from Michelle. Thank you, Michelle. There is the recording and you can also, you know, just copy your previous templates to make it a bit easier. I will be first item on our agenda. Approve any outstanding minutes. I don't believe there are any. I have not pulled the minutes together. I'll have them for our next meeting. Yeah, no worries. And the next item on the agenda is public comment. I don't see anyone in the attendees list. I don't see anyone in the audience list. I don't see anyone in the audience list. I don't see anyone in the audience list. I just want to make a public comment. They may do so. By either raising their hand or typing in a question. I see a. Nobody from the public with a comment. So I will. Close the public comment because there are none. There's no one saying anything. Robin, I saw your hand up. Is there anything to say? We've got everyone here. Andy is absent. Of this meeting, but he did send communications around to all, or at least he sent it to Sonia and I and Sonia. He sent it to all of you in terms of his thoughts on these. I'm going to take one second here. Sonia, could you put up the spreadsheet from last week that you emailed as a part of the. Agenda agenda. And I'm going to try and make a phone call while you're. Doing that to see if I can. Contact David. Can you see it? No, yes. So let's all just look at this for a minute or so. Sam. Yes. It's Katie. Just wondering if. Just for my, I'm sorry for this, my benefit if Sony, if you could just. For the eight millionth time I know just walk me through and for and the sake of anybody else who might be listening. The, the bottom line basically of what's available for. Yes, thank you. I. Oops. Oh, great. So right here we have 1.9 million. Oh, sorry, keep going. But if we really see reserve, which is 533, it would add to that and we would have 2.4 2.444 million. Got it. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Hi, David, this is Sam McLeod. I'm just calling to let you know that we are meeting now with the CPA committee. This is the meeting where we're slated to vote on projects probably. So, Sonia, the deficit of 551. Could be covered if we elect to allocate all of that of the 533 remaining reserves, right? I believe so, yes. Yeah, so that's not that we want to, but that's a possibility. Okay. So, Tim, you said 551. Did you mean it's 351? Yeah. What? It's 351. That's the estimated syrup. That's the deficit. Yeah. Include the reserves. Can you spell up a little bit so we can see and think anything in this, that 351 reflects nothing. For the Zion reserve for the Zion church. I just want to make that. Didn't catch that. I've lost the bottom of the spreadsheet on mine. I don't know about other people, but. What Robin is saying is if we put Zion church back in there. Yeah, uses up most of the remaining reserves. Okay, the reserves are 533 though. Yeah. And the spreadsheet that we're looking at right now, right? Yes. You're correct. 3315. And the spreadsheet you were just looking at was reflective of the. Budgeted amounts, the tentative budget budget amounts that are in column K. And go ahead. The available funds did not include the reserve. So if you, I can't see the bottom on the screen now. I can't see the bottom on the screen. I can't see the bottom on the screen. I can't see the bottom on the screen. I can't see the bottom on the screen. And then the 5. 533, I believe a reserve for a total of 2.4. Okay. So that 2.354 includes reserves. The 2.4 includes. Yes. The 2.354 777 includes reserves. Yes. That's what I thought. That's before subtracting debt, but it doesn't include the reserves. Thanks, Sean. Right. This is the working template and you're referencing the fact that we do have 533 of reserves of all in this template. It's down to 275. Correct. Right. That deficit number that you see at the, if Sonya scrolls down a little bit is what would have to come from reserves. That 351 843 is roughly how much would have to come out of there. Right. So it's kind of hard to see. We keep going up and down. Yeah. Yeah. I've lost the bottom. Can you scroll up so we can see the bottom? Sonya. Just one. Right there. Yeah. Okay. Sean, you're referencing line number 39 underneath column K, the recommended budget. Yeah. In the gold column, the 351. That's, that's what would have to come out of reserves of the five, whatever that we have. Right. So, Sean, just to clarify. Go back to this budget sheet. The total we have available using the reserves is 2.444. I know, but the way the spreadsheet is doing it is. You're subtracting. If you put the debt back into that number. Sonya. So this column, it's looking at it differently than what you're looking on the other spreadsheet because you're subtracting the debt out again. So that 2444 is after you subtract the debt out. Right. Someone's been playing with my spreadsheet. That was confusing to me. Okay. We'll blame Holly because she's not here. It doesn't really do anything to the bottom. It just sort of the debt. So. Can I ask. So I understand this. We have available. 2 million 35477. Without reserves. And we have 2 million 706 619. Project. Requests. So if we approved all the projects. We would be at a deficit of 351. 843. However. We have a 553. In reserves. So we could cover that if we wanted to. Yeah, that's a good way. That's a good description. Does not include the Zion church. It's not in there yet. Right. So. To. Can we confirm what. Tim. Can you keep that scrolling down? So we can see the bottom place. There you go. So. Would it help if we had a cell. In there below the negative 351. Which is. Adding in the reserves. Yeah. I mean. So. I don't know if we need to focus on the negative 351. My understanding. Does this great spreadsheet, Sean. Populate with line 34. Column E that is. Excuse me. Column. Where does the 271 show. Where's the amount of cash reserves that we've used. Is that no longer on this spreadsheet? Yeah, this is a different version. I see it's changed. Okay. My recommendation would be. Yeah. I think you should guys narrow it down to four or five issues that you want to discuss. Yep. That's right. We can kind of keep running tally up where you're at in terms of funding. So. Can I ask a question? Yes. Robin. Okay. So I'm seeing a total of 2000. Two point. Sorry. 2.7 million. Yeah. And preliminary awards, which doesn't include the Zion church. And the previous spreadsheet showed. After debt service. Including reserves. 2.444 million to spend. Am I wrong? No, you're right. And I will. This is the amount that we would need. To use a reserve to cover everything that's up there right now. But that's what I'm not understanding. The previous spreadsheet said. 1.9 million. After debt service. Reserves. Equals 2.444 million to spend. And this ask total is 2.7. Million to spend, which seems like 351. Would be an overage. It is an overage. Right. So that would have to come from reserves. But that I've just said that the 2.444 includes reserves. So it can't come from reserves. There's no more reserves anymore. That's why I'm confused. Some of the numbers include debt and some of them don't. Right. Right. So, Sonya. This is a different spreadsheet than the one we had at the end of the last meeting, correct? No, this is the exact same one. Because I'm not seeing the 70,000 under. Go to the budget projection sheet real quick. Yep. So. You could, you'll see the two, three, five, four there. The available for appropriations. So if you add in. Add that number, Sonya, to the 533105 that we have. So they, they can see the total amount. That's available. But it still needs to be used to cover debt. So. Roughly 2.9 is the maximum you have. You had the available plus you use all the reserve. I think the, um, I think the change. I don't remember what number that is, but my guess is the 2.4 was probably taking the 1.9, which was the net available after subtracting the debt. Right. Adding in the full reserve. Which is about 500,000. So I would focus on this number. This 2.9 roughly, which is the maximum you have available. Just remember that has to also include debt. So can we shot? Can we go. So if I just delete this line right here. Then you have 2.887. We have to pay the debt. And here we are at the 2.444. Okay. And the 2.7 million. Includes debt. That's, I guess, where I'm confused with the other spreadsheet. Yes. The debt. Yeah. Is there a way to get a total of just. Projects. Not the debt. That would be helpful. Yep. Right here. 2.263. Right. Okay. So when we left off the last meeting. Sean, you had a projected. A listed way. Which is in column K here. That indicated how we might consider approaching this. And with that formula. I had thought that there was a net balance of 271. Thousand in cash reserves. And before the Zion church. Yeah, it was 271. And there was a 70,000 component from. Surplus from the Kendrick park. Yeah. I haven't added in yet as the. Repurposing the Kendrick park funds. Correct. So what I was operating under was the, looking at the current spreadsheet plus 271 cash reserves would. Be available to potential. But what you're showing here. If we can scroll to bottom is that. With what we're looking at right now. There's a 351. Shortage that would need to come from cash reserves. Is that correct? And that 351. The cash reserves that would be available. To apply. And offset this 351. Is currently 533. Is that right? And again, we would add in the 70. We would add in the 70,000 to, to make that a little bit better. So it would be 603. Something like, yeah, it's not technically reserved, but that would reduce the amount that had to come from reserves. Right. So what I'm trying to get to is. As we look at the spreadsheet right now with the column K. Current recommendations. Granted, it's just for discussion. If we. Considered the existing. Column K amounts. The current. Available unused to offset those projects. Cash reserves. Would be the net of those cash reserves plus 70,000 minus 351. Can we get an indication to confirm what that amount is? In other words, what with this column K. Spreadsheet. What would be the current. Unused cash reserves. 252. Is that correct, Sean? I was about right. Yeah. Okay. So. It seems to me. That for the purposes of our discussion. If we look back at column K. If 252 is wrong, Sean, could you let, let us know. You know, in a few minutes or whenever. But if we look at this column K with all these varying project amounts as they currently sit. If we understand that we have approximately 252 of unused cash, that gives us what we need to talk about things. Does that make sense? I see that's not an early song. So I think that's what we should do. We should look at the column K. We see you column J. What the project requests are. We see the current slate for discussion. And we can understand that there's about 252 of unused cash. Reserves and separate from that. There's the capacity to bond. For example, the Fort River school is not in here. So let's, let's go from that. I, I think we should proceed at a minimum. We've got six. Committee members here. We're missing two. Andy is absent. And I'm not certain of David's status. But we do have enough to proceed. And I'd like for us to do so. And we'll see how it goes. I had. Thought. That there were two things that made sense to go in order. And the first was. I see a few hands up. I'm about to have us starting to talk about how we might allocate some of these funds for. The administrative fees for the HP. Restrictions. And then starting with. Zion church. Does somebody have something that needs to be said at this time? Robin, go ahead. Just like right now, I'm looking at that surface on the screen. I'd like to see the actual projects. Can we scroll up? So. There we go. Okay. Thank you. Tim. I see. I've lost the top half of the spreadsheet. Okay. Now I have it. So I have the white. And then the blue box. Okay. So I have the white and then the blue box, which is the debt. I mean the reserves. The debt. Right. Yes. Okay. Got it. So all the projects are now on columns. Three to 50 or to 18 are the 24 requests. And columns 20 to 28. Or the blue reserves. That's what we need to check. Okay. So if we could, if we could lower our hands, if we aren't seeking to still. Communicate. Robin, your hand is up. Is there something you wish to say? No. Okay. So. There are a lot of projects that we have agreement on. And I think it makes sense for us to do a couple of things first. We had talked about the concept of having the historic preservation restrictions. In column I, there are three projects with 5,000 each. A number of members talked about having those come out of the administrative funds. That is to say, we have about 50,000, 54,000 administrative funds prior to this 25,000. And if we wish to reduce it to $10,000. In this tentative slate, that would cover those. Three $5,000 restrictions. Offset them. And I, it seems to me that that makes sense to do for starting point to reduce the administrative fees. The administrative recommended amount on column. K to offset those. Tim, yes. I don't think that's what we agreed to. I thought we agreed. That those three $5,000 amounts would come out of the 20,000. Column 11, the preparation of preservation restrictions for the CPA funded projects. So that's why they're showing zero. From the crest of 20,000. That's why it's showing zero. Maintaining it in the administration of 25. That's what I understand. What I'm indicating is that the slate that's in front of us has zero as a starting point for our conversations and the preservation restrictions. Right. And then. After, given that this was the slate subsequent to that, we started talking about the HP restrictions. That is to say it started to zero. We don't need to do that. We can probably fund it as is retaining the 25,000. But a number of members discuss the desire to. Fund the HP restrictions. From the administrative fees. Yes, I'm the balance. The historic preservation is the way they were the 20,000 under it. It was not allowable under CPA. You couldn't do this. You have to have the 5,000 within the project. You can't spend on legal fees. So that's why we took the 20,000. Okay. I understand that. Sonya, what I'm indicating is we've added in this hypothetical column K $5,000 to three items. Prior to our adding that a number of members said, it would be great to offset that 5,000 somewhere else in this slate of projects. We don't need to, but we could do it from the 25,000. We don't have to do it right now. Yeah. You can't spend on legal fees. So that's why we took the 20,000. I understand that Sonia what I'm indicating is we've added in this hypothetical column K $5,000. We don't have to do it right now. We have enough funds to cover what we're doing regardless. And if members don't wish to. Consider the administrative fund as a source to offset those 3,000. I'm three $5,000. I'm perfectly comfortable with us just going. Project by project down the list. Okay. So the first is the Zion church. So that's my inkling, but I see a few hands up since folks don't really have a mindset on the administrative fees. I'm going to call on the hands that are up, but my intent is that we'll start talking about the Zion church. Yes, Michelle. Your hand is up. Yeah. Thanks. So my memory of our discussion is exactly what you said, Sam. And I had asked last meeting. I just wanted to know what the actual inclusions were in the admin fee before we start reducing it. Did that information get distributed? I just. Before we diminish it to like $10,000. I just wanted to know what the most basic fees and signage, et cetera, was that we were dipping into things. Sonia had provided some information verbally the other day. We do have a 54th somewhat thousand dollar balance in the administrative fees. So there are uncertain signage expenses in the future, but Sonia, what's the typical amount that we must spend from admin fees towards. CPA dues and advertisements about 10,000 a year. Is that correct? Yeah, a little bit under 10,000. And I did send out a report of the admin phase last week. Okay. And so believe it was some the day after our meeting. Yeah. So I'm at the same understanding you are Michelle KDS here. Hands up. Thanks, Sam. I, I did. Appreciate Sonia that information because when I, when I saw that there was over 50,000, I thought maybe we don't need to add 25 this year as I think you even recommended. Right. And so. My recommendation to the committee is to just reduce that 25 to zero for this year. And continue to add into, you know, add into the projects, the cost of historic preservation in the future. That's a perfectly reasonable way of going about it as well. Matt, I see your hands up. Yeah, I was going to make exactly the same point as Katie. So on your set around the budget. 25,000 has been put into the budget for the last couple of years. Only 5,000 has been spent each year. There is a standing unspent balance of 55,000. I don't think we need to add any more money into that budget. And secondly, if it's possible to fix the CPA. Restrictions out of the existing administration, station budget. That would, that would be good if that's not possible. Then I think we should add them into the projects. I believe we have to add them into the projects, Matt, according to our communications from the coalition, which is why we added that in the column. I think your and Katie's recommendation makes a lot of sense. Let me ask this, is there anyone on the committee who would be opposed to reducing the admin fees to zero from 25,000 scrolling. I'm not seeing any hands up. Sean, can we remove that? Make that zero. And Sean, I have a question for you or Sonya in this spreadsheet, since I don't have it on my desktop. Is there any column that reflects. The pending cash available balance based upon the changes that are made in column K. I don't know about this spreadsheet, but I did confirm your 251. Oh, there it is right there. The 276. Yeah. Okay. The thought would be, would that 276 change as we're making changes to. Yeah, that just adjusted. Could you do a favor, Sonya and highlight that. Line 47 column K there in whatever color we wish green or whatever. So when we're scrolling, we'll see the current cash balance that reflects. Okay. Very good. Thank you. So if we did in the currents, what we're looking at right now, we're looking at the current cash balance. So that's 276. It seems to me that there are three projects that have. Uncertainties related to the level of support. Primary uncertainties. Those were the Zion church. Those were the. Rental subsidy and it was a Fort River. Fields for bonding. I'd like for us to begin discussing. The Zion church. Yes, Matt. So the column K doesn't reflect the 5,000 in column I yet. Yes, it does. Oh, it does. Okay. It does. I'm sorry. I was looking at the wrong place. Okay. So that's already reflected. Good to double check on that. Thanks for raising it. Robin. Are we discussing with our church now? We're about to let me know when you're ready. Okay. You wish to make a comment before we commence. I wish to commence. Okay. So before we commence, I'm going to just try to. You know, confirm where we were at the end of the day and then calling individuals. The Zion church has provided us their proposal. We've had a few meetings. They did come back with a lower request in the amount of one. 58 seven, I believe, and that was from the historic preservation associates. They during their presentation or right where after the next day, they sent that around. That was for the. That request was for the Eves on the north and the south side, going four feet up. That is to say taking care of the worst. That is to say taking care of the worst. And most immediate. Problems affiliated with the roof. That was a singular estimate and it was reduced amount from their initial application, which included all kinds of other things. The tune of 580,000 or something like that. But it's 158 seven plus the 5,000 here. That they had asked for after they changed it. I think that was a question last week where there was a lot of questions about whether or not we wanted to have. More immediate action on the most damaging areas. My recollection and having watched the video again was that Chris from Coon Riddle indicated that with this project, there were a few items that he said. Were more urgent than others that would need to be quote unquote and those were some of the leaking areas on the two Eves, but he also thought there was a short term project option, not project short term maintenance that would be warranted for that project. Members expressed a, an interest in finding a way to meet the needs of this. Church's request sooner rather than later for the problems and talked about whether or not we wanted to get. Further estimates. In the meantime, the church has emailed the committee, indicating they're going to meet with the GC on January 7th. One question that comes to my mind, Sonia having read what you sent regarding cash reserves is this. Is there a deadline for the committee when they can make a decision on a project and still have it. Be a part of the fiscal year. Is there a deadline for a budget that is to say if the committee were to consider this project in February, hypothetically, could we vote on it at that time and still have it be a component of fiscal year 24 and the budget that we're looking at right here. Is there anything that would prevent that. Only if the reserves were completely depleted. Okay. So the reserve would have to have a balance in there in order to make that decision. But if it took longer, and it goes away July, June 30th. So that's. That's an issue if it, if this project could take longer. And not have not come to the committee until after June 30th. I would suggest you do a historic preservation reserve. For the exact amount. And then that way it's available. And it doesn't close out. For any historical project. But. In the future. What I was asking is if we wanted to include it in the fiscal year 24 project list, that is to say what we're voting on now. That would be funded commencing. July 1st. That's in other words, is there anything preventing any of these projects from us considering them in February, hypothetically. Okay. They would have to be tabled because we have to have a report out for the council and everything. So like we did last year with some of the projects, table that and came back to them. Okay. So we must come with a report in January. I assume by January for their meeting. But we could conceivably consider a project to add to the fiscal year 24. Based on the particular situation where there's not enough information. So, um, I'm not saying that we're not taking out a reserves. I'm just saying in the standard fiscal year 24. Approvals and I'm hearing that. Yes, we do have to have a budget. You have to have a reserve. You have to have a balance in the reserve. In order to do it. Cause the tax rates already been set. Or 23. So we can't base it on. So you have to have a budget. You have to have a funding source. So that budget to reserve has to have money left in it. So I'm just saying that. The line of demarcation for budgeting in it is not July, June 30th and September, July 1st. No, I'm saying you can come back and listen and bring this back up in February, but you have to leave money in that budgeted reserve. Yes. Okay. So. Thanks for staying with me on that one. So. We can, if we wish. If we wish. If we wish. We don't have to. A separate question affiliated with this is the urgency of the immediate needs to which we don't have a specific proposal in front of us. I'll communicate what my thoughts are on it, but then let's open it up for discussion. This is one of the projects that's going to take us the longer time period. That's why I'm doing it first. My thoughts on it are as follows. It seems they have some urgent needs that might be able to be addressed. But I think it would be reasonable. To prevent water coming in with a short-term tarp or otherwise by the church. And if it is February before they'd be getting any funding. Anyway. It seems to me that if we considered it for the fiscal year 24. It would make it would be reasonable from my perspective. That is to say to not take it from the immediate cash reserves, which has some concerns affiliated with it. That would be reasonable. But rather to consider it as a standard proposal, like we are right now. And if the committee decides that they want more information to delay and table that until we get that additional information. That would be my belief that doing it as part of the standard where they get the money. Assuming we approve it. July 1st. Based on the fact that it's already going to be February. If what happens. But let's open this up to conversation. Robin, your hand was up first. Okay. Okay. I'll go ahead. I'll give my preamble. I'll go ahead. Okay. I will confess that I am not in a complete understanding of how the reserves work. I'm just going to go forward as simply as I possibly can. I would recommend we table it. I would like if it's possible to see that 158 seven. And FY 23 reserves. So that if they could access it sooner due to the nature of it, that would be possible. And putting it in an FY 24 reserves. Would be fine, but that we table it. It not be included in the slate because we don't have a full enough proposal. From the applicant. And I already emailed a little bit with. Sonya about. Connecting again with the applicant. I'm going to have. Just sent. I'm going to send an email to Nate Malloy. I'm now the chair of the historic commission. I'm going to send an email to Nate Malloy. Just outlining what specifically. We're looking for in terms of a final product. For their application and what they get from the general contractor that we can consider. But for this immediate project, 158 seven, I think is the ask. Either reserved in 23. If that makes funds available sooner, because a lot can happen between February and July to a leaking roof. So I'm going to send an email to Nate Malloy. I see your hand, Tim, before I call on you. So Robin, are you indicating is the reason that you're considering that it makes reference that it makes sense to table it. Because you feel that there's more information that could be provided to us. Or is there a different reason that you're thinking. I think that we would. We on the historical commission would like. A proposal, which. We would like to see it as rushed in terms of what the final. Material for the roof is. And to potentially have more than one quote. You compare costs and just have a better sense. Instead of just rushing. $158,000. Into the project. Have more time to kind of vet it. And understand what the potential cost savings might be. Thank you. Tim. Yes. I agree 100% with the previous discussion on tabling. I would support tabling. And I think we need more information. But I think what we just, at least my math showed. We, before we talked about the Zion church, we concluded that if we approve all the projects in column K, including. Reserves, we would leave. Some from the reserve, the 351 from the reserves, that would leave. 276 in reserves. And then if we take the 163 700 from Zion out of those reserves, that would leave us only with 112. 300 left in reserves. And I'm a little concerned about that being perhaps a bit. And Sean, you might want to, or it's on you. You might want to check my math on that, but that's what my understanding would be. One 12. Yes. Right. Cause I took the 276,000 reserves, less the 163 C 700, which gives you one 12, 300. And is it okay? Or Sam is okay if I respond real quick. Tim, you're done. Oh yes, sure. I mean, I just want someone else. Yeah, I just wanted. So I know, Tim, you come from a finance background. So reserves, you know, for you, I get like, it's a, it's a key number. For CPA, you know, we start the reserves, we haven't always had a reserve. It's somewhat of a newer thing. We put it in place a couple of years ago. Because the CPA timeline has changed a little bit. We feel less strong about the need to have a reserve. So I just not saying don't have one, but I'm saying, I wouldn't say that, you know, looking at the reserve balance and trying to maintain a healthy reserve balance. I don't think that's something that's necessary for CPA. It's really your choice, whether you want to have something in case the project pops up. But I wouldn't say projects are popping up all over the place where you need to have a reserve balance, especially given the new timeline that we have where you start considering projects pretty early in the year. There's not a really big window for, for that reserve to even be used. So I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that's going to happen at all. She sent out yesterday. So again, I'm not saying don't have a reserve, but I wouldn't get stuck on the reserve as being sort of a deciding factor for the projects that you approve. Does anyone, I see a few hands. Are there any hands that are related to the Zion. Church. Project. I see. Okay. So. I'm going to call. Katie, your hand was up and it's down now. Okay. I see David Zomac is in the audience. And we're in the panelists and was nodding and said, David, do you have any comment related to this? Yeah. Can everybody hear me? Yes. So yeah, I wanted to jump in here and I want to. Be careful how I make these comments. So. First of all, just. Just so, so CPA members are aware that it's actually my staff. That work directly with the applicant. On kind of, you know, we work with, with Sonya and her staff, but the nuts and bolts of these, what's going to happen working with the architects. As Robin indicated, will really be one of my, my planning staff. So we're intimately involved in, in the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the things move forward. And I think. You know, we are supportive of. Of something happening with design and church, but what I'm hearing from all of you, and I think I would echo. Is that it's, it's still kind of unclear as to what it is we're funding. So I think we're supportive, but cautiously supportive. And we, I think you all, and, and from a staff standpoint, we're supportive of this, as you mentioned, this is a very important part of that issue. And we're in the conversation with you. With that said, I am a little concerned about references to leaky roofs. So it's the end of almost the end of December. Right. So if there's a leaky roof and there's structural issues with the roof, you know, that really needs to be addressed right now. That's CPA dollars addressing that I mean that's something that I think the Zion church really that's an emergency right if you're if the roof is leaking on your on on this structure. So I'm a little concerned that we're trying to kind of plug holes here as winter is approaching. And I'm just, I'm expressing my concern there. My second concern is that throughout the application process. And I think some of you have mentioned this from a staff standpoint I think from the town standpoint I am concerned about where we go from here. Yeah, is this a sustainable plan what is the plan for the Zion church. If, if, if you and the town council support 160,000 for, you know the following important structural historic maintenance and or I'm sorry restoration pieces. It's fine, but I really think the CPA and the council is going to need to ask the Zion church for a plan, because I'm concerned that next year in the year after in the year after they may come back I think the expectation needs to be clear that CPA funding is not an every year and we just don't have a sense of what is the scope and scale of what needs to be done on on the old North Church. So, I hope that's clear we're supportive from a staff standpoint, it is a very historic structure. There's there's many reasons to fund it but I, I think the lack of information here. You know, is is is troubling and we need more information from the architects in the team. Thank you David. I do see and I was referring to the historic preservation associates estimate that was provided on the October 9 one with the 1587. I haven't agreed with you Dave in terms of the emergency versus regular planning. I think the 1587 was sort of a regular planning estimate, but Michelle, go ahead. Yeah, so it's my understanding that the initial estimate they had was for more work, painting the roof, so they came to us with that plan, the CPA in a bundled proposal, and then the CPA sort of pushed back about the amount and they came to us with these strict emergency repairs which obviously they're going to have to come back again to ask for more so I mean I guess I'm saying that just because they do have some idea of the amount and extent of work that needs to be done and that was their initial ask. I guess also just my position on this is that it is an emergency repair and I like to see it funded as soon as possible through the reserves. I think that I'm curious about obviously the parish parish is English as their second language they might not be navigating the CPA proposal as well as other people and do they have resources to help them do that that's a question I have. And second like I just want to point out because I didn't get to do this fly the flu. This entire area is seen by so many people and yet though the land around it is affordable housing student housing. There's no long term landowners and so I don't think there's ever going to be outpouring of support or donations for this church. So that was just a comment that I sort of had on my back burner, but my position on this is that I'd like to help them get their roof up as soon as possible with the FY 23 funding. Thank you Michelle Katie I see your hand is up. Yes, thanks Sam. I said I think I'm, I'm going to just echo what Michelle has said and I'm in favor of, I think Robin's recommendation of tabling it to get more information is answers Dave's concerns about getting more information and I think Michelle made a good comment that they had, they do have a sense of like the overall scope but they still need a little more detail and it. This seems like the kind of project that CPA funding should be going toward. And if we have to table it and consider it when we have more information that seems to make sense to me. Thank you Katie Robin I see that your hand is up. Yeah, I just wanted to just to answer Dave's comments that I share this. I have this tremendous challenge around this project and other projects that have come before us that are our applicants in my mind and I'm new to the field but they really need a historic preservation consultant who can look at the big picture it's a lot for the property to be able to grasp everything that needs to be done and then in historic preservation, it has to be done it's required to be done in a very specific way. So I'm, I'm struggling with that and I'm trying to aim toward the next year to develop a process where we're able to effectively refer people to consultants, because it seems to me like in this particular project. There's no contractors and funeral nobody's really kind of holding hands or talking to each other. And I don't think it's anyone's fault and I don't fault the project that the challenge, one of the challenges that with with projects like this that are privately held is that the visual presence and the physical presence of the structure is the town's asset right that's essentially what we're funding. So, if we back off on funding appropriate repairs because the client isn't able to take the proper level of ownership what you end up is what we would call demolition by neglect and I, I echo that it's, it's something. It's part of the reason that I'd like to see a better fleshed out big, big proposal that's phased that can, we can get a sense of like what sort of things can wait what sort of things, you know, shouldn't be funded under CPI because they don't really put the building at risk. Probably the painting might fall into that. And what other things might be addressed to keep that historic resource in a state where it is preserved for the town it's not only hugely publicly visible it's part of the National Historic Register District. So, I just wanted to respond to Dave in that regard and to the committee that ideally my hope is then a few years. These sort of issues will be an issue because we can find the right kind of kind of person and pieces so that when people come to us they really, there's really somebody at the center who can kind of project manage in a way that that makes it beneficial for everybody involved. Thank you Robin if I understand correctly though you referenced previously, aside from your recommendations right now is that you believe that more information would be helpful and you would like to wait to see that whatever information that might be. Yeah, actually, I mean what I what I just stated now is sort of even more reason for waiting for more information to get a fuller fleshed out project maybe broken phases. Matt I see that your hand is up Matt. Yeah. With respect to the immediate question. It seems like people are leaning toward not voting. Yes, but maintaining in the financial year 23 reserve and amount that we could allocate to this project. And that's going to be a new year after we have more information and I'm agreeing with that. Going back to Dave's IMEC and Robin's point about more of a long term plan. I think about it. I don't think it's like Dave's IMEC, but also like Robin. There does need to be a big picture. And if you compare, say South church, which is a well researched well resourced organization and their annual maintenance budget for a similar building is $50,000. And the entire budget for the entire North church congregation is $15,000. Now, my concern is it doesn't seem like they currently have the resources to maintain such a large building. Now, some members of the committee have sort of expressed that that's more of a reason to fund them that they don't have the resources. I don't think the CPA committee has the resources to entirely fund, you know, the maintenance going forward on that building, you know, we have a lot of historic buildings in town. I think we should be using CPA funds in a targeted way in a way that sort of extends them. We should be looking towards spending, you know, $50,000 out of our historic preservation budget year after year after year on the North church to keep it going. So that's where I'm coming from. I'd like to, I think that's sort of what David IMEC was saying. What's the plan to keep this building going beyond this immediate emergency and to keep it maintained. Yes. So, so Dave, excuse me, Matt, thank you. So, do you believe you need additional information for the immediate proposal request that was in front of us for 158 seven. I'm, I'm, as I said at the start, I'm, I'm pretty easy with whatever it seems like the best way forward right now. As to what I can agree to different things, but what the committee seems to be suggesting is to not vote yes now, but to maintain that amount basically in a reserve that we can allocate in the new year. So I have, thank you, Matt, I have two things one is everyone received Andy's Andy's comments via email and not sure if you'll have a chance to read them I did tell him I'd communicate to the committee what he indicated on these he put together a nice summary of his thoughts so this one he indicated he's comfortable with the request for 163700 he feels it's a local landmark deserving of CPA funding urgent need for a few resources, but he thought we had agreed to remove it from the initial pool at the last meeting. He wants to be very clear for his support for the project. But he'd like to make sure we have adequate reserves to fund this project for the full 163700 and the 5000 HP within the 2024 cycle, the 2024 cycle commences July 1. So, I have a question for you Sonia and or Sean, and that is this. Hypothetically, if we table that at this point, under what scenario, could the CPA have funds available for this project before June 30 of next year. Because you had referenced the fiscal year 24, which commences July 1. That's what the cycle is we're discussing a cycle that commences July 1. You had sent a communication out regarding our current reserves. So, is there a scenario where the committee can access our fiscal year 23 reserves of which we have a certain amount of grant at least a portion in fiscal year 23. Because we have a budget reserve in fiscal year 23 we can appropriate for fiscal we can appropriate that per fiscal year 23. However, to maintain fear and quality through all these proposals. Do we want to start a precedent where we start funding things. We start a budget year for 24 we're doing. Proposals for fiscal year 24, not for fiscal year 23. We started a president of moving these back into 23 how is that fair and equitable to all proposers. I mean, I'm sure there's a reason most of them would want the money upfront or sooner. We're setting up precedent here that we don't want to go to and like I said in my in my summary the other day is, we don't have the staff. Time to have more than one proposal session the reserves were set up for the examples that I had put forth in that. To access grant funding and stuff like that quickly to add Sonia, Sam, you don't have to decide that now. Again, if you're going to table this. You can have that conversation when the project comes back up, whether you want to fund it in 23 or just use those funds as a funding source for 24. So it's not a decision you have to make right now with the group is is going to table this project. I wanted to make I wanted the committee to be aware. If that was in fact a possibility, because what I'm hearing from committee members is they have concerns about the quote unquote urgency of it separate from an informational standpoint. And I think our response is it's possible but we should as a group you should talk more about whether you want to set that precedent. And there should be a policy in place to redo it going forward. So I'm going to call on other members in a moment. I'll really reiterate my own thought, which is I share. I happen to align with Dave's own max comment about the immediacy of it versus the general CPA project my advocacy. I'm just supporting doing something for them my advocacy would be that we consider the 15087 plus 5000 that we consider that as presented as a fiscal year 24 project where the funds would become available to do the work on July 1 distinct from the immediate that's just that's just my opinion, one out of six here today. And I don't more information might be helpful, although they did present a an estimate for us from a contractor, we're fixing both sets of beads that would resolve the issue that is most in need, which is the two sets of these and four feet up that's my thought on it. I do not go have to decide if we wish to table this I realize, but I wanted the committee to be aware that the implications of that Sonya is raising regarding accessing cat reverse in fiscal year 23. We can do it but understand that the concerns she's raising. And if we did not do that it would be a fiscal year 24 project. Anyway, that we could consider in February for fiscal year 24. Yes, Robin. I was just going to ask that we add a discussion about reserves into our agendas post grant cycle, whatever meetings we have post this grand cycle, so that we can have a, we don't need to discuss it now but have a everybody have a better understanding of how that works. So my understanding right now from this discussion is that essentially the purpose of the reserves is to roll it over into the next year's funding it's not really necessarily to use it except in exceptional circumstances for the fiscal year. Ideally, it's been communicated that it's ideal for bonding or things that are, you know, something that comes to us such as the Kendrick Park where, if we didn't approve it by the date that we did we the town would last $400,000, or the track where a more information was needed we got more information than we dealt with it in a bonding situation in June of last year, but I think we could access it. If we desire to, but the recognition is that there might be implications that we would want to factor in given that this is not they've submitted a request for fiscal year 24. Got it. And then I just was going to offer to make a motion if it's appropriate to table it. Well, if you're making a motion it's motion I do see a handout but I kind of like to hear what Dave said but you've made a motion so discussion. Okay, Dave's own act you have a quick comment. Sure, I just, I just wanted to make sure I was clear in how I was speaking about the project before I, you know, I and my staff are very supportive of the project we 100% believe this is is a critical contributing historic structure to the village center of the dammer so I just wanted to make sure that that came through loud and clear, and I agree with with everything that Robin and Michelle and others have said on the call about, you know, that that design church there. My staff member who has now left Ben Breger was working with them for some time before he, he departed town service, but I do think, you know, there certainly may have been been parts of our, our application process and and other things that, you know, may have contributed to to some of the stops and starts in the application process but absolutely a good project. I just want to make sure that we have the full picture so that we know what is what is potentially needs to be done on that structure. And I, I'm also thinking what will the town council ask when this comes before the town council, right because if you recommend X, whatever that X is the town council is going to ask all the same questions that you're asking, and the council will ask about this proposal but absolutely it's a it's an important historic structure and, and I hope we can figure out a way to support it. It's maintenance and, you know, future. So thanks. Thank you. Rob's just going to second Robbins request for tabling. Okay, and by doing that I just wanted to understand that we would maintain a place holder of 163 700. So that we know that should the time come, and we table and discuss it and then approve it, we would leave only 112,000 in reserves assuming we approve everything else is submitted so I don't know, I don't know if that's possible when you table it but we have a, we have a motion that has been made and we have a second. So we're able to discuss it. So, I'd like to open it up for discussion and perhaps Tim you're commencing with the discussion. You're on mute right now. Tim we cannot hear you. Right. My discussion is that basically what I just said, like to maintain, make sure we leave that place holder because it gives us an understanding of leaving what I say quote only 112,000 and reserve so Matt. Yeah. So is tabling is that a specific technical term. Can you explain exactly what we're voting on. Tabling is to remove it from discussion essentially for a later point in time it's really a postponing it might be a better way to amend the motion postpone it to a further date and my incorrect. I've got the. No, you're right Sam it's just to it's just saying we're not going to you're not going to vote up or down on it with this group of projects. We're putting it off in other words. Okay, that's what I that's what I thought it was I just wanted to make sure. So Tim point real quick. If you table it you're not going to reserve any money, you're not reserving it that you know that's the whole point. You want to make sure you have enough in your reserves to cover it when you do come back up for discussion. There won't be any place holder for it it'll just, it'll be, you have to make sure you have enough for it. Okay, Katie. Well that was actually my question based on Sonya's. My email earlier is that might we vote to move 163. Whatever that is to historic preservation reserve, so that if we do discuss and decide to approve it it's there for us and if we decide not to approve it it's there for a future project. Without that change, we would need to but I'd like to add a comment as well, Katie could you're talking about something that I think is important as well. And that's the question of at what point in time, and what actions would be necessary to make funds available for the repair. It's important that the committee recognize the distinction between funds that would be available for spending, let's say in the spring of fiscal year 23 versus fiscal year 24, which is after July 1. And Sonya correct me if I miss misconstruing what you wrote but you indicated the suggestion that we set aside funding in a historical preservation cash reserve. But that that cash reserve if we do allocated as such, we're allocating it as a part of the fiscal year 24 budgeting process which means that if we allocate 163. to a historic preservation reserve that will not become available until after July 1. Is that correct correct. So the question that I'm the clarity I'm hoping to bring out is that the committee needs to consider the distinction between having funds that become available after July 1 of next year. And that happens to be the same thing as a fiscal year 24 proposal that we're looking at versus the discussion that revolves around accessing funds somehow for the first half of fiscal year of next year fiscal year 23. Now, the only way we could provide funds for the fiscal year 23 that is to say to give funds for some form of urgency of repair, regardless of what information we have later now is that we tap in lack of a better term to our current fiscal year 23 reserves. Well, I think that Tanya is referencing it that that might not be the best thing to do in terms of general practice and recognizing that applications that we have received. We have received as part of a standardized process for fiscal year 24. July 1. And that is why I asked the question, under what scenario, could we fund a project such as this in the first half of next year. And the answer to that question was we could do so. If we access the current this the current reserves that we have. But it would be setting a, it would be an unusual process for us. So that's my comment. So Sam and thank you I really appreciate getting that clarity and I would then recommend that we don't have this discussion about precedent and policy and all that until we, you know, to table this to know as Sean said that we have an amount in the reserve for this, potentially, but not vote on whether we do fiscal year 23 or 24 whatever until later. And if for that to occur, if we wanted to retain the option of fix of allocating funds through fiscal year 23 we would need to in our process right now, not recommend. We need to have a balance of 163 remaining. So yes, yes, Katie, thank you. Thank you. Maybe you got there quicker than I had hoped for more succinct but that's what I was trying to allude to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Robyn. Yep. Just returning to. If we have more discussion or if we can move to a vote to table this and have further discussion about our funding with. Yeah. Does anyone else have a comment. At present related to the motion that's been made and seconded to table it. We will or will not reserve the FY 23 in the case that we want to put that on the table for our table discussion. I don't think we can actually we already have the existing reserve it's already there as a reserve. We just need to be cognizant that we don't spend just proceed with the intention of keeping it on the faith that everybody is on the same page. It seems to me that would be what's required because if we wish to make a motion that allocated reserves we'd be allocating it to either fiscal year 24 or to historic preservation and fiscal year 24 right now it already is a reserve. So we need to be aware that if we. So we have a motion and we have a second. Anyone else have any comments. The motion is to. Table. That is to say to not. I don't know if I answered it but I believe we already have it in reserve so we don't need to do so. So we have a motion and we have a second. Anyone else have any comments. To not discuss it at this point in time. The funding or discussion of the historic, the historic preservation project, preserving the Zion church. Can I just make one more comment Sam sorry. I just want to respond to the sort of topic about need being a priority for CPA funding and I'm not in support of that being a criteria for allocation of funding but in this particular case. The stewards of this church like I don't know they kind of made clear that there isn't pots of funding coming to this church and back to it Robin saying like things like this can become a demolition project. So what is the future for the emergency repairs. I mean what what is the future as Dave said what is the future of this church and in this case is a CPA providing some kind of emergency roof repair that at least keeps this building intact for for future plans and I guess I just don't see other avenues and I just wanted to make that comment about Zion and relation to the church. So we have a motion and we have a second and it's to table the Zion. I'd like to proceed with a roll call vote. I will commence with Robin. Hi. Matt. Hi, Tim. Hi to table and I would like after we conclude this vote to have Dave, Zion Mac maybe explain to me what is the official title of that church. Is it the Zion church or is it the North church in which the Zion congregation is currently housed. And I think that's important. So. So my, if that's okay. Okay. I. Michelle. I am fine with it. And I'll say I as well. So the vote passes six in favor. And David Williams is in the room. Just so you know, David Williams is here now. Oh, thank you. I did not know that. But David Williams, can you hear us? I will not be voting. Okay. Thank you. So the vote on this is. Six in favor, one abstention and one absent. So the measure passes. We can get the exact name of the. Building Tim and we can reference that in our report to the council, if that's okay by you. Yeah, I just think that's important in that my understanding this project is not that we are. We are trying to preserve the building. And not the Zion church. Now, if it was the XYZ, whatever, I just need clarity from my own personal point of view, I'd like to feel that I'm preserving the building. As opposed to the current occupant. That's a very good point. Yeah. If I could make a little comment about that. I think that that's the point of putting the historical preservation restriction on the title of the structure. Is that the town is basically saying. We're giving you money. Because we believe that is a historic structure. And putting the historic preservation restriction on the title, you know, the land. And the structure. For all future owners. It's basically. The point, right? Okay. Thank you, Matt. Certainly historic preservation restricted would accomplish that. Robin, I see your hand up. Yep, just quickly from the preservation field. Historic resources have a historic name. The historic date back to the earliest identifiable name. So if it's a house that's, you know, the John Smith house. Or the north congregational church. I believe is the historic name for this property, which is how it's known in the state inventory of historic resources. And it is on the national register places and on the state register. Thank you, Robin. And we'll be sure when we send report to the town council that we reference the project name, which has submitted. And it will be clear that it's for the historic preservation. So there's another most of the other projects we had reasonable agreement on there's one, there's two that we were uncertain. And I want to proceed to the next one that was uncertain, which is the. I'm trying to see this on the screen. Can you scroll up please? I've not seen it. It's above that. No, the other way, son. There we go. The rental subsidy phase two program. The request was for 205,200. In the current budgeting template of column K, there's 68,400. I believe about five, five committee members expressed. A desire to fund it at a higher level at the last meeting, most of them for three years. One other comment came in from. And I'm looking for his comment. He basically indicated. Well, let me read it directly. Rental subsidy. I'd like to propose that we allocate 136,800. Two years. And take that from the reserves. I imagine there'll be some economies of scale here and certainly of funding. May allow them to manage the program more effectively. If nothing else, it will prevent them from having to go through the application again next year, which is time consuming task. I believe this program is one of the best ways to help residents with the greatest housing insecurity. So we're talking about the ACC. Rental program. Subsidy phase two. My own information is that we fund it for the whole three years. I'd like to open this project up for discussion of committee members. Robin, go ahead. Is it possible to have just a quick show of hands or do we need to go into full discussion over who is in favor of. Your funding or to your funding. It is possible to do so. If. I think that this question at this point is two years or three years. And we can, we can do that before we do that. I see Sean has his hand up. Go ahead, Sean. Yeah, this is part of your discussion. If you do the full three years, I don't think you'll have enough in the reserve. Unless you take it from somewhere else. So you'll have to, if you do go full, full three, you'll have to either reduce another project. We're short, but we would be short by one dollar amount. Sony, do you want to pop it in and see what it looks like? I think it's around 30,000. Yep. 45. Okay. Thank you, Sean. Um, can I see that your hand is up? Yeah, I was just going to mention the same thing. Two years we could do it with that 112 and still leave some reserves assuming we have the hundred and 12 300. We would have 136,800 left. So, um, I'd caution the three years we would cut into those reserves that have no reserves left. I was, by the way, I'd support more than one year. I would support a two year because we can do it within the reserves. Michelle. Um, my thought is to pull one year from ball lane, which we haven't really touched yet and one year from reserves. Um, this assumes we're taking some from reserves, Michelle. So when you say one year from reserves, you're meaning. 68,000 from reserves. Are we taking that? Well, so we're on one year is on the, and then can you scroll up? So we can see the bottom of the catch amount, please. I see it. I see 207,883. That's well, that's. You only have two years in there right now. So if you have two years in there, then you're fine. If you want to make it a third year, let's put a third year in and see what the implications are. Sorry, Michelle. Okay. So two years is already included in that. Let's make it three years so we can see what you're referring to. Michelle, it'll give us a number. Uh, this takes it from cash reserves and what the net balance remaining is. It's a. 139,463. And yet that does not count the 163,7 that we're talking about with the Zion church. So the distinction there is call it 25,000. Uh, if we want three years and we wanted to have no money in cat reserves and we wanted to make sure we had enough for the Zion church doing so would be $25,000 short. Michelle, but please proceed. Uh, with any further comments you might have Michelle. Yeah. Well, so instead of taking three years all out, or the extra two years all of reserve, what if we take one year out of ball lane? Uh, you're suggesting that we reduce ball lane by what dollar amount? The one, whatever, what is it? 68. What is the one year? 68,000 68 for, okay. Uh, Do other individuals have comments on the committee have comments on this. Um, Katie. Um, I was fine with doing two years, but now that I'm seeing the numbers and the possibility of three years. Um, I, I would like to push for that. And my recommendation instead of ball lane is to reduce. Potentially the design of more Memorial. Um, because that's fully funded right now. Maybe there's a place we could, we could take from there and from, um, The conservation area improvements, I think. As well. Um, we had talked about reducing it. We did that to 70. Maybe we could bring it to 50 and find it with those two places. Thank you, Katie. Uh, Robin. I was fine with two years to, um, if we could do three years and maybe just get a show of fans to see if we're comfortable with that moving on, knowing that we'll. Talk about where that money comes from as we go through the projects. Um, In a moment. Um, Tim, did you add your hand up? It's back down. Yeah, I was, um, So just so I understand we could do three years and we would have enough reserves left in less. The Zion church came by the North congregational north church came back at. Uh, less than this. If it came back as the number we have right now, we would. Would not be able to do it. If we had three years deficit. If we had three years, we'd need to make up 25,000 from somewhere. It's another project or this. Okay, I'll make a comment on this since I don't see too many members hands up. I'm in favor of the full three years and finding the funds somewhere. My own personal belief for finding the funds would be to take 20,000 from the conservation program and to take additional funding from either the war memorial pool of design. A number of members expressed a desire previously to have the three years deficit. I don't have a little bit in there or from the ball lane. But I see the utility in this program three years. There's efficiencies and ongoing. It allows them to not have to apply each year. So my advocacy in terms of this would be for a three year proposal. And finding the funds from some of those other sources. David Zomac, your hand is up. Sure. Thanks again. Again, you know, how the committee. Boats on this. Obviously staff will be supportive of whatever direction you and the council decide to go. A couple of quick comments. I will say that from a staff standpoint. My staff and I strongly favor building. Units permanent units, either rental or home ownership. While this program provides a. A short-term bridge. We have been funding it for a number of years. I don't have off the top of my head how many years we've been funding it, but certainly many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars. So. I would just say our, our bias in all of this is to put money toward bricks and mortar and build new units, whether they be rental or home ownership. That's one of the reasons I would say that. It's a really important home ownership. Project that is linked to home equity. And it's. We have not had a project like that in 30 years. So I just, I just want to express my support for the. The valley CDC's project where they're going to have 30 units and 20 of those would be affordable where people can actually get. Equity in those units. The other thing I would say, and you know, I would be happy to reach out to the housing trust. But, um, you know, the housing trust, their current balance is about $600,000. So I, I struggle a little listening to you all. Rappel with these, these amounts when, you know, the housing trust could choose to fund part or all of this proposal. Um, on their own if they wanted to, or, or if, if that was a request that came from you to staff to the trust. So I'm just putting it out there that there are other resources. And as you know, um, you know, Sean Sonia and I are looking at other, other available resources for the, um, the street Belcher town road project. So just putting it out there. Um, the other thing I think I would like to look at in the future, is the long term success of finding clients in that program. Permanent. Uh, supportive housing. I just don't know what those numbers are. And, um, it's, it's not been clear to us what those are. So that's something for the future that we'll be looking, looking at with, uh, with the director of that program. Thank you. Quick thoughts. Thank you. Um, Matt. Yeah. Um, sort of, I agree with you. Um, I think I've made clear my general view on the regent, rental subsidy program that I believe. Vouchers like that should be something funded through the state. Voucher program. I'm not sure. Um, Evander mesh community connections has tried to. Uh, access those funds or not being able to access those funds. Or have got money from us instead. Um, in terms of taking the money out of ball lane, I think it probably makes more sense to take the 50,000 or 60,000 out of the line item. Um, for number one, the Amherst municipal affording full housing trust. Um, because that 250,000 is actually. Basically ball lane. And, um, as Dave said, the, the. Amherst affordable housing trust does have a. Um, five or $600,000 balance. Thank you, Matt. Katie. So I was. Maybe Sean, your presentation last week, I. I, my understanding was the housing trust with that 600 that they have needed this. To, to support ball lane. So I'm confused. I'm confused because if we could reduce it, great. Ball lane. Um, and their proposal. It was 750 from CPA and 250 from. Uh, the housing trust that doesn't dip into their current reserve though of 600 that they have now. Okay. So what you're, so you're saying. You're agreeing, Sean, that the 250 might be more than once. So the, the housing trust maintains a reserve generally so that they can. See these opportunities in May. So the 600,000 is what they have before this product. Some reason we're not hearing you right now. Sean. So, um, I'm going to assume you've finished Sean. So we've heard a few different things and Katie, my understanding is that if we wanted to, uh, that there is a large balance in the affordable housing trust, although there are lots of future needs that that might be allocated for, uh, it seems to me that we have differing, uh, thoughts. Some folks are in favor of two years. Some folks are in favor of three years. Uh, everyone's in favor of shifting from. From one year to, uh, either two or three. I think Robin's concept, except not. Excuse me. I think Robin's concept of, um, Raising. Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, I think Robin's concept of, um, Raising hands to see who may or may not be in favor. Of either, uh, A two or a three year proposal to give us an idea before we do a motion makes sense. So I'm going to, this, this is not a motion, but can we see a show of hands of those in the committee who would be interested in finding a way to fund a three year program. Um, One hand up. I bear with me. I've got to sort through this. I'm not seeing everybody on my screen at the same time. Please keep your hands raised. I'm seeing one. I'm seeing two. Uh, and Michelle, your hand was up, that would be three and mine would be four. Uh, who would be in favor of supporting this for a two year. Time period. If you would be in favor of a two year time period. I'm seeing a six, eight thousand, four hundred less than what's now. Please raise your hand. I'm seeing one hand. Michelle, which were you two years or three years? I mean, I'm both. It sort of depends on the rest of the discussion. So both. Okay. Uh, so I'm seeing one. I'm seeing. Stay with me folks. Keep your hands raised. Please. I've got to find you in the, in my screen. I'm seeing two. Uh, plus Michelle and in the other one, I'm seeing three plus Michelle. Uh, David Williams, we didn't hear from you on this. Do you have a preference on this of one year, two year or three year? I did do two year. Two year. So it's basically three folks are in favor of a two year. Three folks are in favor of a three year. Uh, one person is uncertain. And Andy is not present. Who had a preference for a two year. Um, there we are. Does anyone have a strong preference? If you had to lean one way or another, Michelle, which would you go? I mean, it totally depends on what we're taking money out of. So I'm not seeing dominant support for a three year funding of this. Uh, I'm seeing a dominant funding for, for a two year program and uncertainty for a three year program. Um, I guess we've talked about this. Uh, and it seems to me that, uh, We can have a motion on this for either a three year or a two year, depending on who wishes to make a motion. Robin, I see your hand is up. Your hand is down now or sit up. Excuse me. Um, can we drop it to two years? Go through the other projects and. Um, As we hit them, we can see what kind of support there is for moving that third year in. Since we have kind of somewhat unit, unit, unanimity on the year. You're suggesting we don't go on at this time. I'm suggesting we drop that number in the spreadsheet from two or five, which is three years down to the two year number. Okay. And then as we go through the other projects where people have suggested taking money out to fund that third year. Uh, can we do so? Uh, Sonia, can we bring it back to a two year program? Okay. Uh, There was only one other program where there was uncertainty as to how we might proceed. The rest is just a funding mechanism. So I'm not sure that's going to change Robin when we get to it because we're still going to have to make the determination of where we might grab it from. But it's okay for us to talk about one more project than then I suggest we start voting on them as we go through. Uh, and that would include where we could, we could commence conceivably with the rental subsidy. Uh, the other project of which there were multiple opinions was the. Um, the project that we're going to be talking about. Uh, is the, uh, uh, Fort River School. Fields funding. It's no dollar amount on our budget. The thought process in the presentation from John, and really from most of the committee members was that if we were to fund it, we would be funding it in a bonding methodology. We would bond it. Um, I'll read. Prior to receiving that, we also received Andy's comments. His comments on the Fort River project after our last meeting were the following. I'm a yes to this project. I'm a no to this project getting funds from fiscal year 24 given the pool we have and the fact that this is to supplement a potential budget override. I'm not in favor of debt service of the full amount as this will pull based on rough historic numbers between 10% and 50% of the total CPA budget for the next 10 years. For the sake of compromise, I'd say yes to a much smaller debt service. I do want to make my support for this field project clear, given that it was referenced in a community letter, but that his support is for the smaller debt service as a compromise. He'd love the idea of getting those fields up and running with a service station, frankly, given the town's position on the fields and athletics as evidenced by the high school track discussions, this citizen group may want to redirect their efforts toward private fundraising. So long and short of it, Andy would consider a compromise for a much lower funding amount on this and a bond basis. I do want to again indicate that the regional, the Amherst School Committee had a vote on November 17th. Anyone who wants to look at it in the video recording can find it around the four minute mark. They voted four to zero in favor of endorsing both this project and the Rockefarm playground separately in that meeting. Superintendent Mike Morris came out as being in favor of this program and supporting the field project. So that's my background information on this. The request is for, my understanding, the revised requested for $2.2 million. Last meeting we had about four members who supported a considering a lower dollar amount on a bond basis and I believe we had three members, Andy, being one of them, who were not in favor of supporting it. So my recommendation myself would be that we fund this in a lower dollar amount, but I'd like to open up this to discussion. Hands up, Robin. I'm just going to jump right in and say, how about we fund it, fund it for $500,000? I mean, it seems like we need a number to start the discussion moving one direction or another. So I'm coming out on what I think is a lower end and I would suggest bonding at $500,000. Tim Neal. I was pretty strong in my last couple meetings. First of all, I definitely support doing something with those fields. I do not support using CPA funds for that. Number one, let me give my reasons. Number one, I still feel this was an improper process for the application to come from a group of private citizens as opposed to the school committee and the school building committee and the town. I understand that you had a vote in support of the fields. Well, of course they'd have a vote in support of the fields, but that's not the same thing as being an active applicant, in my opinion. Secondly, I have real concern that if we bond it, and that's the only way we can do that, Sean's previous spreadsheet would commit us to a $300-ish thousand dollar debt every year. We currently have $433,000 in debt. We would add another $300,000, and that's going to mortgage our ability to fund other CPA projects. Thirdly, I do feel the project can be done if the voters approve an override. It's in the school budget, it's in the school project totals, and I feel the taxpayers need to fund it with an override vote and not rely on the CPA, and their primary reason was to take out $2.2 million, thinking that their $100 million project would be a little less, and therefore it might get better support from the community. So for us to just give a small amount, I think totally defeats that purpose, I just don't think that's a proper purpose anyway of the use of CPA funds, and I guess those are my summary comments for saying we should not fund it at all in this cycle. Thank you, Tim. Matt? Yeah, so I agree with what Angie McDougall wrote. I think what Robin proposed is a realistic proposal. Let me talk about how I'm thinking about this project. Aside from the process or whatever, if this came to us as a proposal like the track proposal came in the last round, the track proposal came I think a $4.5 or something million dollar project. In June, the CPA committee agreed to contribute $800,000 toward that project. This is also a large field in the Amherst school system. It's a very important field, as we've heard. Hundreds and hundreds, probably over a thousand individual people use those fields each year for different sports. They are in a bad condition. They haven't been maintained. They do need to be upgraded. So if this were to come to us as a project to renovate the Fort River fields, I believe that it would be appropriate for the CPA to make a contribution toward that. In terms of the proposal as given, the objectives are to express that the CPA supports the project and supports especially the fields being upgraded. I think the CPA should support the fields being upgraded and that we want to ensure that when the school project goes ahead, the field's part doesn't get dropped. Now I believe that we don't have to fund 100% of the cost in order to ensure it doesn't get dropped. If we were to fund 50%, then they're not going to drop it because it's already 50% is covered. So they could take 100% of the cost out, but they only get 50% back if you understand that. So I believe if we funding it 50%, say to the tune of 1.1 million would be appropriate. Funding at 500,000 may or may not have quite the desired effect. My preference would be larger than 500,000, perhaps 800,000 or 1.1 million. But I do believe that the fields at Fort River are an important town resource and do need to get upgraded and that the CPA should support that happening. Thank you, Matt. I do want to make a point, which is that the field's project is a part of what will be presented to the town for the override. That is to say there will not be an approval of the override that does not include the field's project. Yeah, I understand that. I understand that, but I do believe it's appropriate. So even if it is an existing project, I do believe it is appropriate for the CPA to make a contribution to order. Okay. My thoughts on this are that certainly there's a lot of community support. I have coached for many years played on the field. There's certainly a need improvement. I agree with Tim's comment that this is coming for an override where the community is going to make a decision and that the impact of whatever we vote will not be that significant for the individual taxpayers. I think I also recognize that the school committee and the superintendent have come out in support of it. Why wouldn't they? But they have. They've made a public statement and a public vote to that effect. That is to say the school committee. The two arguments that make sense for me in terms of supporting it to some dollar amount are one, a similar to what Matt just said, a recognition from the committee that we consider the field to be an important town resource in a recreational standpoint. And second, the potential given the project, no matter what is voted by the town from an override, they're not going to, there will not be sufficient MBSA funds to support the fields. That is to say a component of the field's project, even if approved, is going to have to come out of the other sources in the town. That is to say that the argument of value engineering for lack of a better term has a better precedence with me in that there might be some portions of the fields that would be included that might not otherwise be included if we included this money, maybe a softball field, maybe not. All of that being said, I'm not in favor of supporting anywhere near the full amount of this request. I share Tim's thoughts that it's a very large dollar amount, we have a very large long term debt basis. The 300,000 that Tim references, it's 300 plus is actually in relation to the 2.2 million as opposed to a lower amount, but it would be proportional. My own bot, which I referenced at the other meeting was 150 to 200 thousand to indicate support from the CPA for this project. And perhaps there's some aspects that would not normally be included such as fencing or softball field that could be supported. Long and short of it is that I want to support it in some form, but a significantly reduced amount. That's my comments. Comments from many other committee members. I see Sean Mangano has his hand up. Sean, I'd like to call on you. Yeah, I just wanted to say based on Robin's proposal 500,000, the annual debt service would be between 60 and 70,000 per year. And again, that would start an FY26 or FY27. If you went with Matt's proposal, it would be roughly double that amount. Okay. Thank you, Sean. That's certainly quite helpful. Michelle. Michelle. Yeah, sorry. I'm typing. Yeah, I agree with both Matt and Sean, and I'm in favor of funding a reduced amount, probably more than 500,000, maybe 750 to a million. But David Williams. Yes. I support the project, the Fort River School, and with the superintendent of schools and maybe the school committee with the support was given on November 17th, I would endorse it at a lower level of funding. Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on what lower level that might be? No. Okay. So we're hearing a wide range. We've heard interest in supporting it from a great many of the committee members to some degree. When I say great many, really, I believe it's five. Different dollar amounts. We had one individual reference of 500,000, another reference of million. I referenced 150 to 200,000 or thereabouts. I see a number of hands up for second time. If there's anyone who has yet to speak on this who wishes, please raise your hands. I'm going to go ahead and call on Tim. Yeah, I would be fine with others speaking first, because I just want other point to my points. And that is someone earlier referenced the fact of the track project. Well, in my opinion, the track project had no other source of funds. And therefore, I felt the track project was an appropriate use of CPA funds. That's not the case with this project. This project does have the source of funds through the override. And if the citizens approve it, the fields will be done. So I think those two are not the same in terms of request for CPA funding. And I think people should keep that in mind too. Thank you, Tim. I'm going to call on Katie. She hasn't spoken yet on this. Thank you, Sam. Tim, I'm not sure I totally agree or maybe I misunderstood what you were just saying, but the track project had lots of other funding, including a requirement for private fundraising. So they did, you know, we weren't the only funding intent, you know, that it was a, you know, a recipe of a lot of different types of funding for that. Well, that's true, except the applicant here did not say there were any other sources of funds. They wanted 100% coming from CPA. Secondly, so I misunderstood you that you're saying that this app, the applicant for Fort River, it was saying they only had one source of funding. That's right. And I think the track project, yeah, I mean, I misunderstood. I thought you're saying the track had only one source of funding, and that's why you voted for it. No, no, no, no, no. Okay. I misunderstood. Thank you. No problem. Thanks for the clarity. I haven't spoken yet. I am in favor of this project. I am definitely in favor of a lower amount for all the reasons already stated. I do agree with Tim that it seems like an unusual approach. I don't necessarily think it's, I don't agree that it then, you know, makes them unable to get funding for this. And I do think that as the CPA, this is an appropriate use of CPA dollars and it, at a lower amount, it requires additional sources of revenue to add to it to make it work. And I think that that's appropriate as well. Might there be any dollar amount that you would be inclined towards? Well, I was going to say 750 to cut to the middle. But I actually had written down, you know, one third of the requested amount, which is a little less than 750. But I do think in order for it to be of use, I think it does need to be significant. You know, it needs to be more than the 150 to 200 to be useful. You know, sort of, I mean, it's all useful, but I mean, to really make a dent in it. So I would suggest 700 to 750. I've heard everyone has spoken. Certainly the majority of the committee has indicated that they're in favor of supporting the project for some reduced amount. Some folks are on the lower end, some are in the middle. Robin commenced with 500. I heard a couple of 750, 800, 250 that's all over the place. What makes sense? I don't know. I think we can have motions, but perhaps we can arrive at a figure that the committee might agree to. I kind of like, well, my bias would be towards Robbins or Katie's comments of either the 500,000 or one third, that would be me. I shared Tim's concerns about the volume modes, long term debt affiliated with the CPA program in terms of where we may be reducing funds for future years. That biases into my equation significantly. That's my thoughts. Robin. I was going to suggest as maybe a way to grapple with this, that we do another show of hands. You started the lower amount, Sam, and you kind of raise your hand and then you drop your hand when you get to the point where you're not. So that you could sort of visually get a sense of where the... We could try that. Who would be... We could go back to the full screen, maybe, just for this... Can you say the full screen? Well, get out of the share screen mode so we could see everybody all at once and we could show... That would be fine. Can we do that? Can we do that, Sonia? So I only saw two individuals, or I'm only aware of two individuals who would have supported the amount that I referenced. So my suggestion would be that we start slightly higher than that. Who would be in support, and we're going along with Robin's thought process here where we can creep up. Who would support $400,000 on a bonded basis? I'm assuming 10 years for this proposal as submitted. Raise your hands. Let me say this. It does not mean that you won't support a higher amount, but would you support that amount? David, would you not support? You would not want to give... If it was $400,000 or $0,000, would you rather get $400,000? Do you hear what I'm saying? I'm not sure if everyone's understanding what I'm communicating here. I saw four hands. Yes, Tim. Can I suggest that, Sean, I don't know if he can do this quickly, but for every time you come up with a number, Sean tells us what the applicable debt number would be. That's reasonable, if he's able. Can you hear us, Sean? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. So we saw four people who were willing at the $400,000. I left my hand uncertain. If it were $500,000, how many people would be in favor of supporting it? I'm seeing four hands. I'm not seeing your hand anywhere, David. Does that mean you'd rather give $0,000 than $500,000? Well, it's difficult. A project of this nature and given what was asked for, and then we're suggesting a dollar amount, recommending a dollar amount. Now, are we helping or hurting the $500,000? Are we going to be able to get the project off the ground and moving to get things done? Well, this is in support of the fields projects, which will only occur if the town perhaps has an override to do the fields. So it's a contribution. So I don't think it could be construed. I don't think it could be construed to be hurting it in that regard, in that it's a contribution towards the fields, component, and improvements, and those aspects that might not be done. Sean, I saw that you had your hand up. I don't want to derail your process, but so you're going to be voting a number that's lower than what they requested. There's not really a basis for a specific number, sort of what feels right. You may be better off looking at your debt schedule and coming at it for what do you feel comfortable with with overall debt, looking at your existing projects and then what would be added and looking at it that way. I feel like now you're kind of thrown darts a little bit seeing what number sounds good, but I would look at your debt schedule first and say how much, how high are you comfortable with that debt schedule going, and then we can back into what the number is that would reflect. Because ultimately that's what you care about, right, is how much of your funds are going to be used up in future years. Well, I think that's what Tim was referencing and if you could indicate what the additional amount would be for each of these numbers. We can, but unless you look at it within the scope of your full debt schedule, it doesn't really equate to the full hit. Can we look at that spreadsheet that we had last time? Would that be helpful with the debt schedule? Sonia, do you have that in your... I don't know if that's helpful. That's just kind of what I was looking at. Tim, do you have a comment? Yeah, and I just also my understanding here is if the town approves any money for this project through the override, we cannot use any CPA funds. So because that's what the CPA coalition is saying, that's my understanding. So say we approved a million, they would have to take out a million from their project. They couldn't go to the taxpayers and ask for the full project costs within their total cost because some monies would be coming from... That's my understanding. I think what you're referring to, Tim, is the CPA money has to be voted first. If this vote can't happen after the school vote, because if the school vote happens and appropriates the full amount for the project, then we included this in CPA, it would be supplanting. So CPA votes would happen first before the school vote. Got it. So say the town right now is 100 million, including the total field project. If the CPA votes 1 million, the town would then reduce the total by a million to be 99 million. Yeah, we'll have to look at the language. Sometimes the language says to be reduced by other money sources. Okay, I just... Fair enough. Okay. Matt, I don't have your sheet, Son. Matt? Yeah. So just for David and possibly for Tim, my understanding is the school building project includes the field renovation. And if the override passes, that will happen. If we approve funding now, it doesn't change what's in the project, but it makes a contribution of funding. So if we vote 500,000, then that 500,000 will be part of the funding for the school building project that won't have to go to a debt exclusion override. But that 500,000 is contingent on what we want to be done getting done. So the difference it makes is that it makes it less likely that that part of the project gets dropped. Excuse me. I understand that. I do think... Maybe I'm not sure if David was understanding that. I understand what you're saying and I'm going to move forward. Okay. Because my understanding is the sole reason for the applicant asking for CPNs right now was a political one. They felt that if any CPA funds would reduce the total project costs that would go to the voters in the override and therefore increase the probability that the override would pass. I think that is totally incorrect and the fields can be funded if the citizens approve the project with the fields in the project. And I just think that is an improper use of CPA funding and an improper use of the request to the CPA committee. It should not be a political one. And anyway, I'm starting to repeat myself so I will get off. Thanks. Thank you, Tim. Michelle. I can't hear you. Sorry, my hand was still up. As far as the spreadsheet, if nobody else finds that useful, don't worry about it. If you're looking for it, John. Katie? Yeah, I appreciated, Sean, what you said. And I actually, the reason why I had 726,000 as my initial recommendation was because of it kept us under 100. For the debt servicing going forward, which felt to me manageable based on what I looked at on that schedule. It didn't put us over the top. And I think your suggestion, Sean, of looking at the debt and sort of seeing as a committee, and I think this is a really important topic for an agenda in the future, what are we comfortable carrying forward? Because we're not all going to be here when that debt is being serviced in the future. And so what do we feel comfortable? What is the extent I think is a great conversation, discussion to have to decide on that? I'm not sure we could do it here tonight, but I just felt like that was manageable. But once you got to a million and more, it felt like it was really creeping up to a larger amount than I was comfortable with. So that was why I made that suggestion. Thank you, Katie. Robin? Yeah, just in regard to Tim's comment, I started looking at this the way I similarly viewed the Jones Library Project where there was a CPA ask and that CPA amount of a million dollars could have been borrowed by the town. And yet it seems like a good fit and part of a multi-pronged funding for the project. I think the main difference is just that this ask has come to us much earlier in the process where we're not seeing all those other pieces. But if we vote for an amount that we feel like is an appropriate funding, the way I similarly supported the special collections portion of the Jones Library Project, that was how I came to my conclusion. So I just wanted to thank you. Thank you, Robin. Sean, is there a way that you could indicate to the committee what the debt service balance would be approximately on an annual basis, or at least in the first year, or a $500,000 borrowing and or a $600,000 borrowing? I can show you what a million dollar looks like. And then we can extrapolate from there. That'll be fine. Yeah, that'd be fine. I'm going to share my screen. And my internet's a little shaky. But I think this will be helpful to committee members. All right. Does everybody see the PDF on the screen? Can you enlarge it? Yes. So these are the currently bonded projects. Projects that are currently bond anticipation notes. And then the projects in this third bin down at the bottom are authorized, but we haven't borrowed for them yet because the projects aren't far enough along. So going over, you see the fiscal years at the top. Right now projecting this for FY26, again, as I said before, it could be FY27 a year later. So just keep that in mind. There's two options here, four river fields at a million and four river fields at the 2.2 million. Okay. So at a million, it would add about $140,000 in debt per year. That would bring your debt total for the year up to $565,000 in FY26. If we did the 2.2, it brings up to the larger number. And FY27, it would be... Yeah, this is a declining debt, so it drops down a little bit each year as more principal's paid off. So if the question that I had asked regarding $500,000, is it reasonable to assume it'd be about half? Yeah, so your total debt service in FY26 would be a little south of $500,000. And the contribution debt service from a $500,000 award would be about $70,000. Right. Okay. And it would be about $140,000 for a million. So if we split that in half, $140,000, $70,000 divided by $5,000, that'd be $14,000. So it'd be an extra... $84,000 for $600,000. It'd be $98,000 for $700,000 approximately. It'd be like $112,000 for $800,000. Okay. So hopefully that gives committee members just a general idea. If it were $500,000, we're talking an extra $70,000 a year just of debt service. If it were a million, it would be about $140,000 a year. If it was $2.2 million, I don't have that in front of me anymore, Sean. Like $300,000. But it's about $300,000. So that's the scope of what the long-term cost, for lack of a better term, of the debt service would be affiliated with this. Let me go back to the committee members. So I'm seeing a lot of different things here. I see the committee falling somewhere near Robin's comments or somewhere Robin's and or Katie's. I don't know. Let me ask the question this way. Who would be in favor of funding the project as requested to some amount, that is to say not zero, some amount? I'm seeing 60 outs out of seven. So let's try this again. Who would be in favor of funding the project to a minimum, a minimum of $400,000? Meaning you might like to go more. Okay. Who would be willing to spend? I can't see your hand, Michelle. Are you not willing to go? Okay. So that would still be six. Who would be willing to fund the proposal to a minimum of $500,000? I'm seeing five hands. My hand has dropped off. Who would be willing to fund the proposal to the tune of $600,000? That's about $84,000 a year in debt service. I'm seeing four hands. Andy's not here. Andy would fall within the category, I would assume similar to me, which would, if he were here, would be a four to four. Who would be in favor of funding the program to the tune of $700,000? I'm seeing three. So that would not be a majority. We seem to have a dollar amount that's somewhere between $500,000 and $700,000. We have seven of our eight members here. One is missing. We do need five members to have a majority regardless of whether or not we have someone here or not. I saw five hands for $500,000. Let me ask you again, second auctioneer, who would be willing to support the project to a minimum of $600,000? I'm seeing five hands, which is a majority. We did not have a majority at $700,000. We did at $600,000. Yes, Robin? I'm willing to go up to $700,000. Who on the committee would be willing to support the project to the tune of $700,000? David? No. I'm seeing four. So my recommendation is that someone make a motion to support the project to the tune of $600,000. Dave Williams, are you at five? He's at six, I believe. Not going higher than six, Dave. I said, are you not in favor of going higher than six? No. I thought I went as four as seven. Oh, okay. Let's ask again, who would be in favor of supporting the project to the tune of $600,000? I'm seeing five. Who would like the figure that gets voted on to be $700,000? All right. So it seems to me that there is a majority of the committee who would like to support this project as presented in the amount of $700,000, which I think we've talked about it. So my recommendation is that somebody make a motion to support the project to the tune of $700,000. Robin, your hand is up. We have a motion to support the Fort River project that was presented in the amount of $700,000 to be bonded, not in the current cycle. Do we have a second? Second. I see a second from Matt and Katie. I think Matt's hand went up first, Katie, forgive me. So can we go back to that other screen, please, where I could see the committee members, Sonia? I've lost the committee members. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to support the project in the amount of $700,000 before the committee. Is there any discussion on this? Any members feel free to make a statement and or comment? Would anyone like to add a comment? It could be something they've already said doesn't need to be. I'll make a comment. My process here was to find out where there was a majority of support and thank you, Robin, for the suggestion. I'm in favor of bonding the project. It's not something that I wish to vote against, but I wanted to influence, based on my opinion of the financing, as to where it would go. I would ideally prefer a lower amount. However, I recognize immunity members of which there are seven and eight, including Andy, who are weighing in on their thoughts after having reviewed the information in front of them. We have a motion in front of us for $700,000 for this project, which will support the field's aspect of the school proposal, which needs to be approved by the town as an override in order for this funding to be awarded. So the assumption with our award and maybe maybe we make an amendment to it to indicate that that $700,000 is awarded on the is this on the assumption that the school override passes? Or is this I've seen a yes from that? Or is this regardless? Did we discuss that? That is to say what happens if the school override doesn't pass? Does everybody hear me? I think it's contingent. It doesn't make sense. There's no other funding to complete the project unless the override passes. Okay, so I'd like to have an amendment to the motion that we include the word contingent upon the override, the town override passing for funding. Is there a second? I'm not seeing any seconds. Second. I see a second from Michelle. Is there any discussion on the amendment I made? I'm not seeing a discussion on the amendment I made. So what we're voting on at the moment is an amendment to the motion, including the word contingent upon the town override passing, school override, vote passing for funding. I'm going to go through the list in favor. I'll say yes. Any attempt? Do you have a voting on the amendment? No. No, okay. Katie. Hi. David. Hi. Matt. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Robin. Hi. The amended motion passes six to one. Now we can proceed to vote on the amended motion, which is, Robin, can you state your motion again? Motion to approve bonded funding for the fields project at $700,000 with your amendment that it's contingent upon approval of the tax override, I guess. What was that last sentence? Approval of the tax override. The amendment is that it's contingent upon the tax override. Approval. Okay. So we have a motion before the floor. I'd like to have a roll call vote. Robin, you made the motion. I'll commence with you. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Matt. Hi. David. Hi. Katie. Hi. Tim. I'd like to request when we make the recommendation to the town council that I'm able to submit a dissenting viewpoint. Okay. And I will be an I. So that is six in favor and one against and one absent. Okay. You know, that was one of the more impactful items on the list. Can we go back to the spreadsheet piece? We're not able to see it at the moment. Okay. Can we enlarge this slightly? Can we scroll down to the cash balance amount, which was further down highlighted? Cash reserve on. Okay. It's listed at 207.863. We recognized as a committee that we wanted to set aside 163,800, which means that the balance in the cash reserves at present, if we change nothing on the projects above, would be 44,000 approximately. Can we scroll back up? Of the projects that were under discussion that were two year versus three year, the rental subsidy program has 136,000 in it. If we wanted to fund it for three years, it would require an additional 68,000. And we only have in our cash reserves 44,000 approximately. We're about $25,000 short. So the question is, is there another place where we could find 25,000 and would the committee wish to support the full three year program if we could? So I'd like to pull the committee without a vote of who would like to try and find another $25,000 to support three years as opposed to two years in the subsidy program. Can we show the full committee sign you so I can see them? Raise your hand if you wish to try and support the three years as opposed to two years on the rental subsidy program by finding additional $25,000 minimum. We have four. We have five. Okay. So let's go back to the spreadsheet then. And the thing to bear in mind for all of us here is that right now, if we find another 25,000, we are not going to have any reserves other than the amount we're setting aside for consideration of Zion North Amherst Church. My suggestion would be that we look in one of a few areas for a minimum of $25,000. I would consider $20,000 from the conservation area improvements. I would consider $50,000 from any one of three sources that would be the War Memorial preliminary design. It would be the Ball Lane and it would be the AMAH, the American, excuse me, Amherst Affordable Housing Trust, Municipal Affordable Housing Trust. I say that because that program has $600,000 of CPA money currently on balance. Does anyone else have an opinion as to where it might come from? Or rather a preference as to where it might come from? For those five people who were in favor of finding the additional $25,000. Does anyone want to make a suggestion? Michelle? My suggestion would be that comes out of the trust. Okay. Any other suggestions? Tim? I was swayed by Dave Zomac's comments earlier that the town strongly feels it should be giving preference to bricks and mortar and such. And if the trust felt a need for a third year of this project, they could use some of their $600,000. So I'm a little reluctant to take money out of the affordable housing. But having said that, if the group feels we should do three years rather than two years, I prefer two. But if the group decides on three, I would support taking it out of the trust. Okay. We have two people who indicated taking it out of the trust as a possible source. I referenced a few different projects perhaps that we might grab the funding from that. Yeah. As I don't support the project, but if we are going to take them somewhere, I think it's appropriate. Take it from the trust. Okay. Thank you. Robin? Robin? Can you hear me? Katie? I just want clarification. You had mentioned 50, but what you're saying is we really need 25. Is that right? Or you were suggesting maybe we needed more? If we scroll down, Sonia, can you put in the $205,200 in row eight column K? And if we scroll down to the bottom, we see a balance of how much? $139. $139. And we wanted to set aside $163,700 for the Zion Church and cash reserves. If that's $139, that means we are $25,000 short of that reserve. Okay. That's helpful. I mean, obviously, I'll go with the will of the group. I do have a preference for three years. And I think taking $25,000 from the preliminary design and keeping it for the housing trust because affordable housing is a high priority for me. Okay. Robin? Yeah, I guess I have no issue with either the housing trust or the preliminary design. I think I'd go out on a limb to say I'd take it from the full repair just because I see the liner as a maintenance issue, but I'm sure I don't have company in that regard. Okay. Well, does anyone else have comments related to where we might locate another $25,000, assuming we bring in the cash balance down to zero on all the projects? Would anyone be in favor of taking anything from the conservation area improvements? I would. Anyone else? I can't see all the members, Sonia. Can you show the committee members? Raise your hand if you would wish to use that as an additional source as opposed to just the trust. Okay. So are you suggesting, sorry, Sam, I mean, I'd be willing to do that if you're doing like 10, 10 and 10 from three to five places to make it to minimize it. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to see what sources of funds exist. I'm trying to get a feel for the committee. This is one of the last ones. It's an uncertainty and I'm trying to open it up for the committee to have their input in terms of where they think these funds might come from. So would 10,000 from the trust, from the more memorial design and the conservation, would people be in agreement with 10 from each of those or something along those lines? I would. Robin. I just have a question about the $70,000, and it just has to do with the discussion there was before about money's being, that's $70,000 being money's repurposed from somewhere else and whether we could actually take money out of there if it needs to go into. That's other $70,000 is distinct from this, so that's a separate issue. Okay. So Katie suggested that we take $10,000 each from three different projects. So Tim, I can't hear you, Tim. Sorry. I am going to amend my suggestion. I agree with Katie that the affordable housing and the housing is a top priority, so I would recommend taking the amount out of the war memorial amount, because if I recall, there were two figures there. One was the design of the area and was the other was the design of something else. I forget what it was, so I think we could take the 25 out of that and leave it in the affordable housing and show support for a top-pound priority. I would not take it out of the trails. I think they made a convincing argument that they need more money and I would not reduce that. Thank you, Tim. Matt. Yeah, I just wanted to make the point. I don't think you can take it out of the conservation area, because that $70,000 is actually the repurpose from a previous grant in the conservation area. I don't believe that's... You remember, we put the $70,000 in at the bottom from an old CPA grant. From a borrowing that hadn't been... Oh, it was extra money that had been borrowed or something. Right. It has to be used for a like purpose. Sonia, are you indicating that there must be a minimum of $70,000 in conservation trails funded? To use up to $70,000, yes. So if we're going to have that as a part of this category, we can't. Thank you, Matt. That's very astute. I just remembered that. Good for you, Katie. I appreciate Tim's proposal and second that. I mean, no, it's not a motion yet. Can you clarify what that proposal is again? It was $25,000 from the warm oil design. Okay. Let me ask you this. Who would be amenable to removing $25,000 from the warm oil pool design in order to meet the balance for the third year of the rental subsidy program? Matt, do you have an opinion on this? I don't like the idea because that's basically... I think the $200,000 is an amount. If we fund it less, the town has to make up the difference from somewhere, which they may or may not do. Okay. Sean? Yeah. I mean, this may sound biased because staff, but I would urge you to be careful when reducing projects if there's not necessarily a basis for the reduction. Again, with the case of the rental subsidy, there were multiple years. With the case of the War Memorial or the pool design or the pool repair itself, I don't know if we have a basis for what a reduction would mean for the project and you wouldn't necessarily want to reduce a project and then not knowing what the impact is and then that project not be able to proceed. You're going to lock in money and then this is going to sit there. When I went through the first time, any project I reduced, I tried to think through is a reduction rational in this case. Not saying that you can't reduce it, but I would just say think through whether there's what it would mean for the project if you reduce it by that amount. Okay. So there were a number of folks. Thank you, Sean. There were a number of folks in favor arriving at a $25,000 amount from the preliminary design study of the pool. Previously, there were a few folks who are in favor of finding $25,000 from the municipal trust. Let me ask it again. Given what Sean has just said, who would still be in favor of taking $25,000 from the preliminary memorial pool design and awarding $175,000 over as opposed to $200,000? I don't see any hands. So if folks do not wish to come up with funding via that avenue, an alternate source that folks had indicated they did not necessarily want to use but there was some support was the municipal affordable housing trust because there is no specific project affiliated with that. It is a pure funding source for future programs of which there's currently $600,000 in CPA funding in their reserves right now. So I'm going to ask two questions. I'm going to ask it again. Would anyone be in favor of arriving at a $25,000 amount from the war memorial preliminary design program? And now I'm going to ask second question. Would anyone be amenable to arriving at a $25,000 amount from the municipal affordable housing trust? I'm seeing $506,000. Okay. So can we do this, Sonia? Can we reduce the affordable housing trust by $25,000 on the spreadsheet and then show the spreadsheet? And enlarge it if possible. Is this large enough for everyone to see? Okay. And can we scroll to the bottom figure? Okay, $164,000. So that's sufficient for if we wish to set it aside and that's a future debate. It seems to me that the items of uncertainty that were under discussion were the rental subsidy program. They were the Fort River School. It was the administrative budget and it was the North Amherst Church. I believe we've discussed and come to a reasonable path forward on all four of those. I don't believe there was uncertainty on the remaining projects. I think what makes sense and I believe we have adequate time is that we go project by project down the list and consider a motion for each of these projects funding them in the amount of column K. I say that because we do need to approve each individual project for our recommendations to the town council. Having said that, would anyone wish to make a motion relating the funding the project one of the affordable housing development of the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust and the amount of 225,000? I can't see the members. Raise your hand if you'd like to make a motion to fund the affordable housing trust dollar amount as listed. I'm seeing Robin's hand up. Is there a second? I can't see the screen with all the members. Now I can. Is there a second to this motion? David Williams. We have a motion and we have a second. Is there any discussion? I just have a question, Sam. Yes, Katie. You're saying we have to vote on every single one of these projects not as a city. Yes, that's correct. That's my understanding. That's my third year and I didn't remember that. Thank you. We did it last year and every year I've been on the committee. I believe it's some unique requirement affiliated with it. So is there further discussion? Okay. I'd like to commence with a roll call. Vote. I will start with David Williams. Wishes to, the motion is to approve 225,000. Recommended funding for the affordable housing trust. David? Hi. Matt? Hi. Michelle? Hi. Katie? Hi. Tim? Hi. Robin? Hi. I will say I as well. The vote is 7-0 with one abstained. The next project on our list here is trying to see it. I can't read the screen. Forgive me. Slightly small for me. I've enlarged it. Here's the Ball Lane community homes. The requested amount is $750,000. I have one comment before we proceed to a vote and I'd like to see if the any committee members have a similar thought to me. I would suggest or I would have an interest in our having a approving the $750,000 but also recommending that a percentage of the units be set aside for local priority. It can be done in an amount less than 70%. To do so requires a zoning board of approval to initiate a process that then has to go to the state and also be approved by the applicant. My suggestion would be to consider an amount between 33%, 40% or 50% of the units be set aside for Amherst local preference. Still meeting the requirements of the program. I wanted to bring this up. I don't know that committee members would be in favor or agree with what I've said. I guess we're I see hands up so rather than doing a polling of who might think similarly, I'm going to go ahead and call on the people whose hands are up, Tim. I don't first of all, I don't approve of that. But secondly, going back to the previous vote, you said one abstained isn't Andy. I would say absent rather than abstain. You're absolutely correct. Okay. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you. Katie. Sorry, I thought Robin was there first. In regard to your question, Sam, about preference, I would prefer not to include that in the vote. Any further comment? Well, I just I think that's a town, you know, I think the town council could suggest that to the zoning board. I just based on what I heard from from the applicant. I have concerns about doing so and having it be up to, you know, I'd rather have experts focusing in on that with data than for us to try to make, you know, to show out where that might be. Very good. Robin, cannot hear you, Robin. Do you have a comment? No, I got it. Yep, echoing Katie on that. It doesn't feel like it's appropriate within our committee. Okay. Very good. So just to show of hands, there anyone who would be of a similar mindset to me in that regard of recommending a local offset, if you do raise your hand, if not, keep your hand down, no problem. So there's certainly not a similar mindset to me on that. And that's why we have many members on the committee. So the second proposal for Ball Lane is for the proposal request is for 750,000. It appears that the committee members are have previously supported that dollar amount as listed. Would anyone like to make a motion? If you'd like to make a motion, can you raise your hand? So moved. So moved. This is to provide 750 for the Ball Lane community home for us. Is there a second? Second. Second by Katie. Any further discussion? No further discussion. I'd like to proceed to a roll call vote commencing with Tim. Yes, I, Katie, I couldn't get David Williams. All right. Michelle, you're muted. Hi. Robin. Hi. Matt. Hi. I'm having a hard time with this screen here. Bear with me. I believe I've missed somebody and I will call on you as soon as I can see you on my screen yourself. You missed yourself. Only me. Did everyone else have a chance to vote? I will vote I as well. If anyone did not have a chance to raise your hand. So the vote, the motion passes by a vote of seven in favor and one absent. Tim, the next project as listed is the East street school in Belchtown road affordable housing development in the amount of $400,000. Is there any discussion? I do not have a discussion. I just had a procedural point that you might want to call the roll call vote. If you can see it and the, I'm just speaking as I can see it on the screen. I'm jumping between the faces and the screen because some folks raise their hands and I can't see them when the spreadsheet is up. I can't see them. But yeah, we can do it verbally. And that's a very good suggestion. So we have the East street school in Belchtown road affordable housing development in the amount of $400,000. Any discussion? Raise your hand on the screen if you have a discussion by clicking on me. I see one hand up, Tim Neal. Excuse me. But can someone quickly remind me? I remember this was a good idea, but I frankly don't exactly remember why it was reduced from 1.8 to 400. Dave Zomac and Sean spoke up in our last meeting, communicating they have spoken with the applicants and that they came to the understanding that the town would support this project in the amount of $1 million. But there is an additional $600,000 that the town has available from previously usable housing funds. And so instead of the $1 million coming from CPA funding, $600,000 would come from other town funds and the CPA would chip in $400,000 for lack of a better term. Thank you. You're welcome. So was there a motion on this? I don't recall. I got distracted. Tim, did you make a motion on this? I can. I so move. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. So I'm going to go on a roll call vote. This is to recommend and approve the $400,000. I'll start with Michelle. Hey, Robin. Hi. I will say aye. Matt. Aye. Tim. Aye. David. Aye. Katie. Aye. So the motion passes seven ayes in favor and one absent. Next item we have is the rental subsidy program phase two in the amount of $205,200. Would anyone wish to make a motion on this project? Raise your hand. I'm not seeing any hands. I see Robin's hand up. I'm motion that we approve the rental subsidy program phase two in the amount of $205,200. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. That was Katie. I couldn't see who seconded it. Yes. Yep. Thank you. We have a motion and we have a second. Is there any discussion? Robin, your hand is up. Do you wish to say something? Yeah, I'm all set. Okay. I'm not seeing any discussion, so I'm going to proceed to a roll call vote. We will start with you, Robin. Aye. I will say aye. Matt. No. No. Tim. Aye. David. Aye. Katie. Aye. Michelle. Aye. So the vote passes or the motion passes with six in favor, one against and one absent. Next item on the project list is the conservation of five paintings by Mabel Lewis Loomis Todd in the amount of $16,450. I'll make a motion to approve this dollar amount of $16,450 for this project. Is there a second? Robin, second. Robin, second. Is there any further discussion? I'm not seeing any hands up. So we have a motion and we have a second. I will vote in favor. Aye. Starting. Matt. Aye. Tim. Aye. David. Aye. Katie. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Robin. Aye. So the vote is seven in favor and one absent. Next project on the list is Dickinson farmhouse roof renovation inclusive of the $5,000 of historical preservation restriction. So a motion that we make I believe should reference the fact that there would be $500,000 specifically to be used only for historic preservation restriction generation I guess would be over for the completion. Would anyone like to make a motion on this? I will make a motion. So moved. And that motion would be to approve $102,020 for the Dickinson farmhouse roof renovation recognizing that 5,000 of that award is specific and exclusive for the generation of historic preservation restrictions. I will second it. Is there any further discussion? I will start with Tim. Aye. David. Aye. Katie. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Robin. Aye. I will say aye. Matt. Aye. Okay. The historic barn and outbuilding assessment program we have listed an amount of $10,000. Tim, I know you wanted to reference that this was a pilot program. Would anyone like to make a motion on this? I'll make a motion that the 10,000 be approved as a pilot program. Is there a second? Robin seconds. Is there any discussion? I will start with David Williams. Aye. Katie. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Robin. Aye. I will say aye. Matt. Aye. Tim. Aye. The vote is seven in favor and one absent. The next item is the preparation preservation restrictions for CPA funded projects. I don't know if we have to vote on this one or not. No. We do not. Okay. So we'll say that this proposal has been withdrawn. No need for action. The next proposal we have already voted to table the preserving Zion Church, North Amherst Church, whatever the proper name is, so we don't need further action on that. The next program is the South Congregational Church and Steeple Restoration and Preservation Program. I'd like to make a motion that the committee approve an award of $238,289 for the South Congregational Church Steeple Restoration and Preservation Program with the recognition that $5,000 of that award is specific and exclusive for the generation of historic preservation restriction. Is there a second? Second, Robin. Second for Robin. We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any further discussion? Raise your hand if you have any discussion on this. We will commence the vote with Katie. I. Michelle. I. Robin. I. I will say I, Matt. I. Tim. I. David. I. Thank you. The motion passes with a seven in favor and one absent on this lineup above us. Sonia line number 11, the restrict the Zion Church restrictions. Did we have an extension? We did. Okay. I'm forgiving. That was our original vote previously, not the barn program. Okay. Next project on our slate here is the conservation area improvements in the amount of $70,000. Would anyone wish to make a motion? So moved. And who was that Katie? Katie has made a motion. Is there a second? I'm sorry. Second. Second. That's David Williams. Second. Is there any further discussion? So we will convince vote vote on the motion, which is to award or to recommend awarding $70,000 for the conservation area improvements. We will start with Michelle. I. Robin. I. I will say I. Matt. I. Tim. I. David. I. Katie. I. The motion passes with a vote of seven in favor and one absent. We have already have we voted on the, we have already voted on the Fort River schools. We do not need to vote on the cracker farm. I don't believe because the applicants said they would consider it next year. Is that correct? Sonia, to your understanding. Right. Yes. Okay. The next vote will be the war memorial bathhouse preliminary design. The requested amount is $200,000. And that's the recommended amount. Would anyone wish to make a motion? I'll make an emotion to for the full 200,000. I assume. Yes. Okay. Is there a second? I second it. David Williams. We have a motion and we have a second. And that is to recommend an award to $100,000 for the war memorial bathhouse and preliminary design. Is there any further discussion? Okay. We will commence with a roll call vote. Matt. Sorry, Sam. And I suggest we change the title of that to say the war memorial bathhouse and area because that's what they. Maybe that's really being picky. That would be fine. Would you like to make a do we even need to make an amendment to that? Sonia can just change the spreadsheet. Project number 17. Thank you, Tim. Your recognition of some editing issues is appreciated and necessary. So, Matt, we're voting on this. I. Tim. I. David. I. Katie. I. Michelle. I. Robin. I. I will vote I as well. The vote is seven in favor and one absent. The last program in front of us project is the war memorial. Rule improvements. Forgive me. The requested amount is $133,000, which is the amount on our recommended slate for like a better term. Would anyone wish to make a motion on this program? This proposal. I'll make a motion. Okay. Motion to approve $133,000 for war memorial pool improvements. Is there a second? I will second it. We have a motion and we have a second. We'll proceed with a roll call vote. I will start with you, Robin. I. I will say I. Matt. I. Tim. The reason I was hesitating was my recollection is obviously the funds wouldn't be available till July one. Correct. And the handicapped device, whatever you call that, did they say that they could not? I guess it's okay, but I just indicated that they may not be able to open the pool or didn't want to without that in place before July 1st. They indicated their preference was to receive the funding for the pool. Oh, okay. Great. No, so I. David. I. Katie. Katie. I. Michelle. I. Thank you. The vote passes by, I'm trying to see this here, six in favor, one against and. One absent. I want to enlarge my screen for a moment. Stay with me, please. How do I do that? Okay, so. If I'm not missing something, we have. Thank you, Sonia. We have considered all of the projects. Is that correct? Can you scroll up? Just to dot the eyes on this. Yes. Okay. So, Sonia, thank you for jumping in. And can you clarify for me your understanding of the debt amount that we need to vote approval on? 443,460. So we need to authorize a payment of debt in fiscal year 24 in the amount of $443,460. Yes. Okay. I make a motion that the committee authorize a payment for a debt service in fiscal year 24 in the amount of $443,460. Is there a second verbally? I'll second. That's fine. Okay. Matt seconds. Is there any discussion on this verbally? I won't call on you. I can't see you. We have a motion and we have a second. I'm going to proceed with a roll call vote, starting with myself. I will vote in favor. Aye. Matt? Aye. Tim? Aye. David? Aye. Katie? Aye. Michelle? Aye. Robin? Aye. The vote, what am I missing here? Seven. The vote is seven in favor and one absent for the debt authorization, even though it's not really on line 26. It's the 443,460 that we just voted on. Okay. We have voted and discussed all of the projects. We have tabled for a later point in time the North Amherst Church. If we can scroll down to our cash balance, please, Sanya. We have a cash balance in fiscal year 23 in the amount of 164,463, yet to be determined. My understanding is that we either utilize this or before the commencement of fiscal year 24, we voted for use in fiscal year 24. That is to say, we need to have a vote at some point. Do we not, Sanya, on this cash reserve? Yes, if there's no movement until the end. Okay. By June 30th, before June 30th, we have to either appropriate it for the project that it's intended for, or we have to, if you want it to be available in fiscal year 24, you have to appropriate it into a historical reserve. Given our discussions today, and thank you all for staying attentive and catching things. Are there any updates on financials, Sanya or Sean, that should be discussed that we haven't already at this point in time? No, there's been no changes. Okay. And Sean, you're good with that too. Okay. I believe we've made tremendous progress today. We have discussed reasonably thoroughly all of these projects, and we were in a position today to be able to proceed deliberately, and we started with the most uncertain ones at first intentionally, so that it would be easier down the stretch. I don't have a subsequent meeting scheduled at this point in time, but the next step in our process will be for a report to be generated. Sanya and I, or Sanya will work on along with for presentation to the town council, our voted recommendation, which we've done this evening, are provided to the town council, and Sanya, is there a timeframe where they need those final? I don't have their schedule in front of me, Sean, right now. So again, you want to make sure that they vote. I'll work with Paul and the council, but we have to make sure that they vote on this before they vote the school project, which is going to happen sometime between February and April. So it'll happen before then. And a second question, somewhat related, and Tim, I recall your comment about wishing to make a commentary in our report, whatever you referenced, I heard you, and separate from that, we had one item on one proposal that the committee wished to discuss at a later point in time, and that was the North Amherst Church. We have not, as of yet, spent 164,000 in reserves. My understanding is we're hoping to get additional information and or clarity from the applicant one way or another prior to further discussing this. So I believe we need to await further input from the applicant on this project and lacking any further input. We would have a meeting to at some point in time before the end of the summer, and we'll meet before the end of the summer anyway, to do something with our cash reserves. We can reach out as a committee to the applicant. I believe they're aware they emailed us that they wished to, that they were meeting with a general contractor. But we can have further discussion. My general understanding is that the committee is hoping for a clarified proposal on what specific work the applicant wishes to accomplish in the near term and separately with the mindset of the Historic Preservation Association's estimate for the poor fleet on the eaves of both the North and the South. That's my understanding. And I see your hand is up, Tim. Yeah, I was going to suggest that after the holidays sometime, we have our discussion about use of reserves and using them during the current fiscal year when coming up with criteria and so on actually before we hear from the North Church. So whatever is convenient, that's my suggestion. We had talked about having that committee discussion to come up with criteria and guidelines and so forth. So that would be my suggestion. The default is the committee can choose to use the reserves as they wish. And that provides great flexibility for the committee. The downside is that there can be some reporting issues related to it, managing with accounting and a question of whether or not it makes sense or not. But the item of fiscal year 24 proposals significance is the North Amherst Church. So the hope would be that we can get some feedback from them. There will be, we will not meet again of course prior to the end of this year although, Sonia, I'll need to be in communication with you regarding reporting as to when that is needed. In other words, do we need to submit the report to the town council before we have any deliberations further on the North Amherst Church or can that be a separate report at a later time to your understanding? I really don't know how to answer that right now, so I'm going to try. We can talk another time. Then you're on vacation, but we'll talk soon. The only item of significance is there a deadline I'm asking related to when the report needs to be provided or a report needs to be provided to the town council. The deadline is when we bring it to the council. And I know what that date is right now. So it could be in February if needed. Yes. I think February at the latest, because once it goes to the council, then they have to refer to finance committee, the finance committee will meet and review it. Then it goes back to the council. There will be, Sonia, is there another here, another public forum that has to be scheduled or did the CPA one count? We're done with public forums for CPA. You don't have to do another, okay. But you do have to do one with the council. We do have to do one. So there's still several meetings to happen. So I would say February at the latest. I'll communicate with you, Sean, at a later point in time. So it seems to me that we've made great progress to the extent that we wish on all of the projects. And there's one that we remain to be uncertain about. My thoughts is that we get through the full cycle, generate the report for the town council. And we can consider what types of additional actions or recommendations we have for our future cycles thereafter. We can do that in the spring. One other item that would come to my mind is considering when and what sort of timeframe we wish to have for future years, the calendar for future years, when we may or may not wish to open the application cycle. Again, that's something that we can have a later meeting in the spring. So I don't have any topics that the chair did not reasonably anticipate 48 hours before the meeting. I believe we've accomplished our objectives for the evening and they thank all the committee members and town staff for their input attending and helping us all get across the finish line or close to it, except for one item that will be under review post game. And accordingly, I will adjourn this meeting. Sam, can I interject before you adjourn? Yes. It's worth it. I just want to say, and maybe I missed this, I just want to say this, this may be Sonia's last CPA process. She's done many. I just want to, you know, I know you all agree in thanking her for all, all the hours she's put in supporting CPA over the years and all the work she does behind the scenes to make sure everything runs smoothly and everybody gets their grants. So I just want to thank Sonia one last time for CPA. I'll thank her many other times for other things. I wish to, you know, your comments, Sean, Sonia, you've been extremely helpful in keeping us on track, responsive and patient, responding to unending volume of inquiries with accuracy. The town will miss you, as will we. I would like to make that more formal for the minutes and I would like to move that the committee give its strong commendation for the years of service that Sonia has made to the committee. Second. Thank you. Is there a vote? Robin says aye. Tim. Aye. Aye. David says aye. I say aye. Michelle, cannot hear you. Cannot hear you, Michelle. Aye. Katie. Definite aye. Matt. Aye. It is unanimous. Thank you so much. Thank you, Sonia. Sonia. Thank you, everybody. I'm actually quite envious of your future. And Sean, thank you. Thank you all. I will adjourn this meeting at 9.05 PM with a future meeting to be determined. Good night, everybody. Thank you.