 Okay, we're recording. Please go ahead. Okay, so this is the finance committee. We have a quorum, so I'm calling the meeting to order at 2.01 PM. Pursuit to a number of acts of the state government. We will conduct this meeting by remote means only members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. And we won't allow, there will be no in person attendance, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. So we will, if you. We will have public comment for those of you in the audience and when the time comes, I'll get to that. I thought since I know Doug is very busy now, I thought I might rearrange the order of the. The meeting and sorry about point of order, would you please confirm that everyone can hear and be heard before you get started. Thank you. Yes. Okay, so let me go around and make sure everyone can hear me and can be heard councilor Hanneke. Present. I can, I'm here. Councilor Shane. Kathy. I can still be Kathy, but I'm here. Yeah. Okay. I don't see councilor walking Bernie. Yeah, I can still be Bernie too. Okay. I think everyone can be heard who's on the council. And if you would please just announce that we're recording audio and video. Thank you. Yes. Yes. And we are recording audio and video for everyone who's attending. I thought we would, since Doug is very busy, we would take number four first. Okay. So we're going to be a school rescission and replacement order. And that way, Doug, we can let you go as soon as we're finished with that. Does everyone agree to that? Mm hmm. Okay, great. So, Doug, we sent you some, some questions and I don't. I suspect that you have written responses or anything, but I think it would be helpful for everyone on the committee to just get a sense of where is the whole track and field project right now? Where is it? How much, how much funding do you have? How much funding you need? You know, there's, there's the three different options or there's, I guess, four options. So if you could just kind of fill us in on where things stand with the project and then we can, we can then talk about the rescission order. Okay, so I think that, you know, that I was hoping that you would say that, because I think to sort of paint this picture this way is probably going to be most expedient to get to most of the questions that I saw in the packet. So I don't think I can answer expressly, but I think that there are many that I can and I'll try to get to as many of those as I can and then obviously answer them if I, if people need additional clarification. But so, so the original debt authorization through regional schools passed and then subsequently, I don't want to say modified but took additional action on. The original one was passed in March of 2022, and then in January of 2023, they took an additional vote on a sort of secondary piece. Now, the shape of that debt authorization was, was in some senses by design and the new one has similar, similar structure to allow some flexibility and also meet the requirements of the DOR. So when we do a debt authorization, and we have to go and borrow money, there's a specific amount of detail we need to give about what the projects are so that the communities that are involved can, can make a decision about what that is that we're borrowing money for. We have to give, you know, kind of purpose and intent and that sort of thing, at the same time, not be too specific either so that there's flexibility to modify your designs if necessary. But the original authorization was for $1.5 million, which is essentially, which is the first part of that original motion, which replaces the track where it sits currently. It's an east-west orientation by and large has an interior grass field. There was a second component of that that allowed if enough funding had been determined to be available that they would rotate the track and explore this larger project. As a possible separate version of the project that was allowed. So in January of 2023, the school committee determined that they had a sufficient amount of funding or they felt they had a sufficient amount of funding that they could move ahead with that format of the project. But they explicitly made the language such that it was for an artificial surface in the interior field. And so they were, they narrowed the focus of the, of the authorization a little bit in that regard. So subsequently, then, you know, time has lapped fundraising has happened. Part of the reason they did that was they had advice from some from the, the boosters, which were going to be the primary fundraisers that, you know, having that specificity in the in the motion. And in the authorization would be helpful for them because they could be more specific in what they were asking people to contribute to subsequent to that. There's been other discussions about field surface and materials and et cetera, et cetera. And so this fall and this winter the school committee is kind of taking this authorization up again. So the first step that they did was to rescind the existing authorization, which they can do with a simple majority vote and they did so that just basically cancels the one that we had. Then they re-voted a new authorization for the same amount of money with the same sort of two-fold structure where it has a base amount of a million and a half for expressly fixing the track where it exists at present. And then it had a second part that that had a little different language than before. And so the idea was that they would formally their decision to funds that were either received or immediately available for them to receive. In the previous one, it left the determination up to the school committee about whether they had the funding as opposed to actually cash in hand. The current one is much more explicit in its language as far as having sort of the funds more in hand and available for use. And again, the project description, they broaden that a little bit to allow for reorientation and either a natural surface or an artificial surface interior to that reoriented track. So the authorization has a similar sort of look and feel, a few differences from what was in place before. And the committee wanted to open the options up to take in the potential of having a natural surface as opposed to just pursuing an artificial surface. That being said, this is a complex project to fund with a number of different sources we're trying to put together, CPA funding, authorizations from the town. Donations, etc, etc. And so the one thing to keep in mind is regardless of of anything you cannot cannot contract with a construction company or for that matter designer but contract without the resources actually in hand. And so, regardless of what this authorization says or what action the school committee took in the past would take, etc. If the money's not there you can't. You can't go out and and contract with somebody without without actually having sort of cash on the barrel head as they say. So I do want to be very clear about that. I think that there are as as was noted in your questions there are some constraints on different pieces of the resources that have been put forward. The, I think in sort of question three on the first page of that it lays out CPA funding from 2021. Actually would be 2020. It was fiscal 21 but it was calendar year 2020. And those both were just designed. So they had much less restriction on those two sets of funds. The CPA funding in in 2022, which would have been the fall 22 I think and the free cash appropriation both had more explicit restrictions on it. And so my understanding is that if we don't pursue those options. Those funds aren't available to us and so that's a factor for the for the school committee to consider when evaluating whether to pursue that had separate tier of the project. And then the boosters have some restrictions they've, I think they've gone back, you'd have to check with them for sure I think they've gone back to some of the donors and said hey it looks like the school will open this up to different options and so if you were thinking you only wanted to donate for purpose, you know of a artificial surface, let us know we'll, we'll, we'll take you off the list and give you your money back or whatever. So I think that's a fluid circumstance. The million and a half original authorization for the track in place is the estimate we had to cover the design and and often this term to restructure resurfacing it's a little more than just a resurfacing of the existing track. The issues with the track and that orientation is really relative to the interior field for track and field is fine for the interior field. And it also with an east west, if you anything with a goalie which is most sports late afternoon, you're staring in the sun. And, and at the same time, if there's not the resources then we'll do what we have been doing for the last 20 some odd years and that's playing with a east west orientation so it can remain where it is it would be preferable to change it to a north south orientation. But it'll depend on resources and whether we can do that or not. So I think that as we as we move through this will have to consider all of those sorts of things. We have contracted with a designer to start going into the designs and one of the first things we're going to ask them to do they're starting to do some preparatory work around. You know the tanbrook they actually last Tuesday were were around. There was a, we had the fortune coincidence or. I don't know if it's concerned coincidence it was intentional, but there was a camera demonstration we were asking a vendor to do and we took that opportunity to have them look at the tanbrook culvert. So it was kind of a little bit of a win-win there for us. So it got some information for our designers as well as for the town relative to that and also they got to evaluate a piece of equipment that they may be bringing to the to you guys for capital purchase. But nonetheless, that process is getting underway. But one of the first tasks we've asked the designers is to revisit the estimates on the various options that well Weston and Samson had put together for us. The last formal numbers they put together for us. I think you guys quote here in in the very beginning of this of this list of questions. Those are the numbers that they gave us. I think there was when when Sean Mangano was finance director and came back to this or came to the council with a request for additional free cash appropriation. I think he got them to do some quick back the envelope updates on where those numbers had changed. It's been a very volatile market in in construction. It's settling now. I'm not saying prices are necessarily going down but they're holding a little more steady so some of that inflationary spikes that were seen over the last couple years have moderated a bit. So I think it's an appropriate thing to ask our designers to do is to come back and give us again a broad sense of the project costs for the different options. It's not a detailed design cost. But it is, you know, in much the same way that Weston Samson but they'll give their spin to it. It's a different company in the Weston Samson. They'll take their spin through the number crunching and the design features and the key things and try to get us an updated number. And so that will hopefully happen in the next two to three months. It's been a couple weeks since I've spoke to him so, you know, closer to two than three at this point. Because I think that's a critical piece of information school committee is going to need. They gave themselves till November 30 to make a determination about that second half and whether they're going to pursue that or not. I think we're going to and I said this to school committee a few weeks ago, I think they're going to have to make some choices sooner than that because it impacts the extent and effort that they're going to that the designers are going to need to make. And it also impacts. And this was something I hadn't considered previously and and it was in conversations with the designers that they mentioned this is, you know, the difference between not reorienting and reorienting makes it makes a difference in some of the soil testing and permitting that they will need to do around the project. And so that will be a pretty important decision for them to know in order for them to proceed in a in a timely and appropriate way and and to get permitting for the projects done in a timely way. So we want to make sure that there's enough time to get through conservation commission, et cetera, et cetera, because there's, you know, we're close up the wetlands that all those things are are needing some some review by those other boards in the process. So I think that that the decision point, although it says, you know, November 30. I think the school committee is going to have to have some level of decision making that they're going to need to do earlier than that. They may still leave themselves open with some options. We'll see what they do and how they how they proceed with that. But I think there's going to be some some of that needed just to give proper and fair. Guidance to our to our designers to not have them have to develop two projects, which will be much more expensive than what we had budgeted for that. And one of which will would be not possible. So we are going to have to give direction sooner than later on some of this. I think as far as the interior field is concerned, I think that's still. I think individuals have very precise determinations of what they think we should do, but I think more broadly, the committee has taken the approach of of having it open for the conversation. There's a difference in the initial price tag, but I think there's a total cost of investment that we have to look at on on this kind of a choice. And a number of other factors that there are part and parcel of that conversation as well and all of that's going to be part of the. Those conversations that we have with our designers when they come to us with price, I think is to have some conversations about total cost ownership and and also. What are the, what are the differences between the between the services and and what you get and what you don't get with those, those different services. Again, how much we can can do or not do is going to be dependent upon total funding available and whether, you know, some aspects will of like, say, CPA funding or or town authorizations that are separate from. From the debt authorization need to be revoted or altered in some way. The other thing. Some of the language, you know, like maybe applied or some are all of the following in the language is, is, you know, you can, you have to be descriptive to the, to the, you know, to meet the DRI DOR part of the revenue requirements when you want to go borrow money. But they do allow you a little flexibility so that if your design changes or that your. You know, resources change, then you can not include things if, if, if you, if you can't afford them. So I think they're, they're very well maybe some, some value engineering as they is the term they use in in the MSBA projects, but you know, there may be some things that need to be reviewed and eliminated as we look at these projects. Some things that aren't. Able to be eliminated would be ADA, you know, compliance, we definitely need to become more ADA compliant and more accessible in our, in our fields. Regardless of what we end up doing that will definitely be a part of whatever project we do. So that was, that's not a piece that's going to be how it looks will be different depending on the project, but, but it's not something we can not do. And that's, and we're going to try to make sure that that. Measures in nicely with some other work that's happening in and around the street, as well as the pool house across the street. It's not technically a school project, but we're going to be doing work in that area. We want to coordinate our efforts. So we'll coordinate with the town on that all together. What else did I want to make sure to mention to you guys. There were some questions about priority of use. I think those are open at the moment. You know, I mean, obviously any, any fields we have for title nine, one of the key pieces of it is that you're trying to have comparable. Access and ability to use fields and and facilities for for girls and boys. So obviously we're trying to be compliant with that and anything we do schedule wise and and I want the experience for all the kids to be as equal and as, as useful as, as we can. And so I think that, you know, when we look at, you know, a new facility, I think we're definitely going to be trying to plan that in a way that allows for and and you know, as much a quality of accesses as is as is possible because we're because it's right thing to do. And it happens to also be, you know, part of the law that we're trying to follow. So we're definitely going to try to leverage those spaces and places to meet the needs of all our kids as evenly and carefully as we can. And the other thing I will share with you just talking about debt authorizations just a little. How does the mechanics work so debt authorizations, whether it's for this or for any other purpose. So the regional school committee can vote a death or debt authorization. Once that happens. There's a seven day time frame in which they must notify the appropriate towns. Clerk, etc. And that ultimately comes to you guys in Amherst. So once that's happened, there's a 60 day window of opportunity for the town to take action, any one of the four towns to take action relative to that. So by default, there's what I, I've termed and it's my term is is a pocket approval. So if you take no action, it's approved if 60 days elapses. If not, if you want to take action and or one of the other three communities wants to take action in the three other communities, the select board would have to to notice that and would have to because the appropriating body is town meeting in those three towns, they would have to call a town meeting for that purpose in Amherst because we now have council, a town council. It's really a matter of whether the council decides to take that up as a formal vote or not. And they're not compelled to. And I think the school committee's thinking was it's for the exact same amount. It's exact, you know, not exact, but it's, it's, you know, the same purpose and intent. We're just opening the option of a different interior field surface if we are able to find those funds. And so they felt it was okay to vote off cycle, typically with the with the regional schools. What we try to do is to have all our data authorizations get approved at the same time as budget so they can go into if, if any one of the towns wants to take it up. To take it up, take up the, the approval or disapproval of a debt authorization. They can do it as part of the normal cycle of of town meeting. Many times towns don't put it on their warrant at all. If they don't have any feelings about it. I mean, it's just like words choice as to whether to include it in their warrant or not. Same with council that's up to them as to whether they want to put it on their agenda or not and take action or not. But we typically do it in, you know, we vote those debt authorizations at some time we vote the budget so it hits the cycle of everyone and hits theirs because they all will have spring town meeting. So it gives them an opportunity to put it into their spring town meeting if they choose to and part of your budget cycle in Amherst. So I generally strongly discourage our, our use of debt authorization off cycle, but, but it's not unheard of and not impossible just is a little more difficult. The other thing to know about death authorizations is that if any one community rejects that that authorization, which they have right to do it rejects it for everyone. So everybody's that's why it's in a pocket approval, you know, default approval mode, but if a single town decides to to vote it down. It kills that authorization. And so then school committee would have to go back and and reauthorize debt in some other way. The other thing I will say is part of the reason for the million and a half dollar amount was at four towns meetings in past years we talked about how this fits into our broader capital plan. And that was an amount that million and a half was an amount that the four towns in a collective consensus sort of way said we can afford this much support for this for this project as a part of our regional process and our regional agreement and our burden to bear as as regional we just really can't afford more than that we've got other capital things we want to support and other operating things we want to support so that's where the million and a half. Is has been sort of vetted with those over the over the years and so that has not changed as far as the amount. Again, that amount is is. Well, we'll get updated numbers from from our designers, but was originally a pretty strong number for for a resurfacing in the existing location. So I think I hit most of the topics, but I'm going to stop there and see what questions people have and if there's other things I can answer. Yeah, before we start, we've had we've had counselor Walker join us and Andy Steinberg counselor Walker. Can you hear us and can we hear you. Yes, I can. Thank you, Bob. Right. Thank you. Andy. Yes, and I was on by telephone from the beginning of the meeting. You didn't call on me, but I was there. Okay. Sorry. Bob, can I can I ask you to take up one quick other housekeeping item. Sam is here waiting to talk about CPA and Sandy pooler is going to give us an update on on the FY 25 revenue and expenditure projections. Can we give them an estimate of what time you expect to take up those items. Well, I was going to take them up right after this one. So, I don't know how long it's going to take us to go through this particular thing. But I don't know 15, 20 minutes before we get to CPA. Okay. Can I give Sandy a 315 ballpark for his update? He's on another meeting. So I just want to give him a heads up so that he can come over and join us when you'd like him. 315. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So questions Kathy. Doug, thank you for that presentation. You actually did a great job of answering chunks of questions. So I have a couple in terms of not, not just the wording of the replacement language which I have no problem with. So I just, I'll start out saying that I think that's fine. But when we voted a separate amount of money out of free cash, we anchored it in option two or three, both of which included reorientation so they didn't leave it. They didn't leave it optional. So one question I have is do we need to reword, will we need to reword that order to be flexible? So I'll just ask my, that's my simpler question. I think it's a simpler question. My second, I have three. So my second question is on the timing. As I understand what you just said is that the designer is going to design one option for us. It's not, they're not going to design or can have us pick it up, but they will give you some, back of the envelope update estimates. And when I look at the amount of money you have, and the 21, 2021 estimates, and I just mental inflate them by something, the somewhere between option two and not reorienting the track, you may have enough money, but you don't have enough money with artificial turf. So when you get those estimates, will you also have to do what you just said with the school committee say, okay, here are the estimates given the money we have, it's unlikely we're going to have sufficient funds by November 30th to do the whole project. So make a decision now on what they're designing. So is that kind of the sequence that first the estimates. Then my, my third, and you may, I couldn't find it in the Western and Samson so one of the issues with the fields and you mentioned Tanbrook is they don't drain very well. So they talked about doing the field with better irrigation. I'm putting money into the field, but I didn't find the word drainage so did did I just miss it so in the, when we talk about larger projects is there's something to get in under it and I'm particularly asking that because in the Fort River School project. That's a fairly substantial expense to make sure that if you put grass on top of the dirt, it's not bubbling up just and the water is draining in some way, you know, so it's it is that in there somewhere and I just didn't find it or is that a given So the current wordings payment of all costs incidental and related to so it clearly could cover that. So that was my list of what's essential because I could see some of the things on the list, like lighting, lighting you could potentially do later and you'd still have a track in a field. So if you were getting to within $400,000 of it, you can do something. So those are my three questions. Do we need to change the wording on the additional enormous awarded you, or does option two and three is that does that imply flexibility do we need to make it broader and then the timing on making a decision on what the it is. I had the, you know, in Western stamps reorienting was only a couple hundred thousand dollars different. I should say only the big jump up is going to the eight lane track. And then, and because you had to fix if you went to eight lanes you had to do something about the field to so but you've just said time wise permitting will take longer. When she start moving things around. Yeah. You know, I think that you know, answering the first question first on the 900,000, I, I don't, I would say there's no actually needed just yet. I think once we get, it'll be perhaps a question the council will want to take up relative to what we understand when we get estimates, because I think that'll, that'll inform whether we need that resource or to what extent we'll need that resource what might be that once we know a little more that'll be a pretty critical thing. You know, it's necessary for either option two or three, which is reoriented. And, and so I don't think making there's any need for any action on that just yet. And then we'll see with with regard to estimates, whether that resource is still needed. And if so, you know, all of it or some of it or, and that would probably require a re vote by the council to to broaden the scope or change the scope a little bit. I think all the timing. Yeah, it's critically important to get those those estimates of of projects and, and if you recall some of the aspects of that previous outline of costs, you know, did talk to certain features. So we may have to sort of press the question about alien versus six lane is a lot more opportunity with an eight lane track to do things like host state MIA and other events, which, you know, have opportunity for the district as well. You know, they're there. There are some advantages that and if the money's just not there the money's just not there. And so we may make a different choice based on on our available resource and whether it's more important to have an eight lane track versus something else. So those are some of those trade offs that we'll have to discuss as part of it too. But yeah, sort of getting those refined estimates are going to be pretty critical to to making a decision but I do think that because it you know, you know, in a sort of perfect independent project. What we'd like to do is have the designers work and chip away and get the project done and have a design for us that's ready for sort of bidding in that November timeframe, because if we can take bids in the November December time frame or December January timeframe, then that's for the construction season that comes in in in the warm weather of calendar 2025. So there's that piece of the puzzle and in order to get to sort of bitable documents we're going to have to be prepared or already through certain permitting processes and so I think those those estimates are pretty critical for us to make some decisions about what direction we want our designers to go and then be able then have them be able to go through the those steps that they need to to get to you know those documents in that in that timeframe. So, like I said, while the the council gave themselves I mean the school committee gave themselves till the end of November to kind of make a choice I think we're going to the cesty will will prompt them to make a decision sooner than that. And then third question range. Yeah, absolutely. The field does not drain well now so obviously if we're going to go to the trouble of taking out the track as it exists and putting in new. You know, we will definitely want to do some level of work there there is some irrigation on that field right now it's not in terrific shape so we want to revisit that irrigation while you're doing that and you for crown the field et cetera to to make it much more functional so yes I think the change would be a part and parcel of that project. And I'll make sure to press that with the designers to make sure that they've accounted for that as part of their design and rework of existing space and or obviously any new newly reoriented space. Thank you. Councilor Haneke. Thank you. I'm not sure where to start actually. Two years ago the school committee said they needed a decision and needed to make a decision on. I don't know if it was as quick as possible because of costs escalating and fitting it into things and doing all sorts of things. And here we are two years later without a decision. And yet that one and a half million authorization has now been rescinded and we're asked to reauthorize it again with the same unknowns that were present two years ago. We're looking at essentially greater unknowns because we're now being asked to reauthorize it without any cost estimates that are close in time to when we're authorizing this bond. I mean we're looking at cost estimates from three years ago and the 60 day timeframe from what you just said will expire before we have updated cost estimates, unless I misunderstood you. So we have to make a decision with, if we do not want to pocket approve this, the decision needs made and a vote needs to happen by March 19, I believe, 18th or 19th somewhere in there. Yet you said you'll have updated cost estimates in two to three months. That's April or May. So I'm struggling with how I even make a recommendation. I don't know whether the one and a half million authorization will actually cover the cost of an option one that from all intents and purposes, the school committee doesn't even want to do. So I guess I don't know how to even discuss what our recommendations should be with that but I do have some specific questions about the wording in this order. Can I answer the first one first? Is that right? So I think the school committee was feeling that the authorization for a million and a half was and sort of rescinding and re-issuing it because it was for the same amount. The level of risk for the communities and the project was still essentially the same so they didn't expect any discomfort or pushback from the communities relative to that. And I think it's clear it's within the purview of all four communities to take action if they so choose. So I think they felt it was the same. And I think that, again, the reason for a million and a half goes back to the original conversation with the four communities from a couple years ago about the level of support they felt they could afford for this type of project within our capital plan. And so I think, again, that's why the number is what it is and it hasn't changed. So I think those are two pieces that help. And again, the variability of answers to some things are the same. I think, again, the first part of the authorization is the critical part relative to the minimal amount of project that would be done. There is a strong interest to have the more expensive project done. But again, it's overall project cost and funding available are aspects in determining whether that can move ahead or not move ahead. But we need to track whether it's in places as now or reoriented. We need to track, but we're not even clear that the money they are seeking to borrow and that they're seeking us to authorize to borrow will actually pay for a track anymore. Back in 2021, when we were asked to make this decision and recommendation back in 2022, we at least had numbers that showed that a million and a half would cover option one a. We don't even have those numbers now. And so that that's part of my struggle but I want to go back to some specific questions about November 30 and the wording that requires what has been received sufficient funding has been received. Those are two different phrases I want to get into and hear better answers for what constitutes sufficient funding to choose to reorient the track. Is it a full 100% by November 30? Is it 90% is it 80% because my understanding is and you can you can be more clear with that that the region has not sought new CPA allocations from any town, or a modification of CPA allocation and given the timing of CPA requests in all of the towns cannot do so and receive an answer by November 30 correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe any of that CPA money that is mentioned in sort of that new chart, particularly with the asterisks for Pellum could be received or even known if it might be received by November 30. And so what is sufficient funding how what what kind of percentage are we looking at and what is has been received mean, does it mean that the school committee is counting our 800,000 for that is restricted to a artificial turf field as received, even if they choose option to a grass turf field that it can't be used for. Or is it only received for an option three. I guess this is part of where I'm struggling with, what are we really being asked to authorize and what kind of risk are we taking in authorizing a borrowing that has so many unknowns, including unclear language about how those unknowns would be resolved. I went back and forth with bond council about the language a little bit with, with, you know, with intention so when we go with the language has been received that means it has to be either authorized or explicitly given. So for example, that would require. For example, if I wanted to give $10,000 the project directly to the school district that would, and I, I could promise that, but until I actually donate the money, and the school committee accepts that it's not received yet. So that's one piece of, you know, of that that that's stronger language than was the case in the previous authorization in the previous authorization says has determined which just meant that they had a level of confidence that the money was available. Not that they actually had to have it in hand. So that's one distinction there. And I think the, you know, school committee wanted the, the flexibility on the on, on sufficient funds. Again, I think that's, you know, you could have put a dollar amount in that's what we had in the previous version. They moved away from that as an option. And I think it depends. So I will say this though, just back to the question of, you know, in hand authorizations. You know, if they have restrictions on them, you know, they apply in cases, you know, so if you're, if you're wanting to do, you know, project a and project a is one that's, you know, allowed under the authorization regardless which one CPA, you know, free cash that etc. If that is that is, you know, in hand authorization, if it's for that purpose. So if, for example, the 900,000 has options to or three, if we go back to one, that would not be available to be counted toward a project that would would not involve reorienting the track. It would be able for either one of the other two. If you look at the CPA funding from $800,000, I believe it only has the artificial surface involved there. If, if they're considering an artificial surface project that funding is available for that for any other project. It's not so I think it, you know, depending on which one they're evaluating there's different totals available to to the committee for that purpose. And again, I think the third thing I'll say is just that. And part of why you know you can have language like sufficient funds is because, again, you can't contract for service delivery without actually having the resource so if you've authorized and it has restrictions. So some of these that are that are in conflict potentially with each other. Most are not some are more just narrowly defined than others. Some are more narrowly defined than others. That makes a difference. I think on the CPA question. Yeah, we're at a cycle. We've gone to cycle. A couple of times we've had feedback from some communities that they are much more interested in a project that definitively has a grass interior. The only, you know, so yeah, those are not going to be available resources to be counted in hand. Before November 30, unless there's, there's a willingness by, you know, a community to take up their CPA out of cycle, which they can technically do, but then they're going to have to actually to appropriate it, they would have to either do it off cycle or do everything but appropriate it off cycle and then appropriate it the following May. So I think that's, you know, those are those are funds that aren't really very available at the moment. But I think there are, you know, and there are cases in certainly in Amherst and I believe in the other communities too, if they have a special, they've had special town meetings where they've done off cycle appropriations rare, and I wouldn't count on it. And I think that is a weakness as far as a funding source that is potential. But I think it's, it's, it's a concern as far as getting more funding available for the project sooner. Can I follow up on that. Go ahead. Thank you. So if it's off cycle and you don't expect it doesn't sound like you expect to apply off cycle either. And you were looking to go out to bid in November December. But anything on cycle won't be available to July 1 2025 for those CPA communities. Is it basically true that that should not even be considered as part of how the school committee would determine if they have sufficient funding. By the time they'd have to sign a contract for construction. Right. No, I believe that's correct. Yes. Funding from the other communities for additional resources is, is not something that's going to be available or be able to be considered as, as formerly available. By the time they're going to need to make a decision or but and to be quite honest getting back to the earlier thing, I think we're going to have to make some level of decision about sufficient funding, much, much sooner. We can actually, you know, you can make a decision much like this. The school committee did in January of 23 where they, they made a determination about funding level being sufficient. But we couldn't, we could, we could have entered into design contracts at that point, but we couldn't enter into construction contracts at that point because the actual available funds weren't there. So I think, yeah, that's a, that's a difficulty for a more expensive project is that things like CPA funds would be would be essentially unavailable when decisions have to be made. Kathy, you're muted Kathy. I'm unmuting. I just want to follow up on the CPA question focusing on just Amherst right now. I mean, if I look at Amherst, it's on the books, you know, in terms of the way we keep our CPA. Our CPA books it with a wording that is restrictive and we've got Holly here and Sam and Paul but I'm, I've been assuming that that with a wording change that money could be made flexible it's anchored only in artificial turf. Now it's an interesting wording because it's the prologue says three and makes it clear it can't be used, not a dollar of it can be used for turf. It's got to be used for everything but turf. So, so we, we have the ability to go out of we Amherst have had the ability a while to go out of cycle for CPA to take up. Sometimes we've pulled one thing out and done it later for other reasons. So I just, my question is, is it, if the school came to CPA, is it just a matter of changing the wording and getting CPA to say, we still do it. And I know the way CPA books work. That's been booked in some way, you know, is expecting it to be spent. So it's, it's, it's not a question of you as much I guess of the CPA experts. I had just assumed. So I was thinking, okay, you could reward it this way or that way that would allow the flexibility that's in the new motion so with Mandy's concern if I add the Amherst CPA, the Amherst other 900, the Amherst share of 1.5 we get up to a substantial amount of money. So it looks to me like at a minimum the track is feasible but a track with something is feasible whether it's eight lanes as once we're flexible. So my question is just on, is it just basically a word change we don't they don't have to meet more than that to decide whether they're willing to make flex flexible wording. And maybe, you know, if people on the spot don't want to answer that that's fine with me. You know, but I had asked it at the council meeting to it, because I was thinking that it's, it's just a change in some wording and CPA was always. What they were trying to do when I was, I was there at the meeting was make sure that the money went for the larger project rather than just the track. And when asked what is the larger project they were told three, they weren't told whether it's either two or three or some combination of one and a half two and three. So it was, we're not buying just a track we're also buying field and there was a lot of discussion field the word field kept coming in. And I think it's just a matter of word change, in which case it's a fair amount of money will be on the table for people to be looking at options. It's not quite a bit more than 1.5. Yeah, I wouldn't offer a suggestion. You know, I mean I can offer a suggestion of answer for the CPA technicalities but what I think I will just offer this is that part of you hit you hit your mute button. Sorry, what I was saying was, I wouldn't, I wouldn't offer an answer on CPA. I think I know, but I wouldn't profess to know for sure but I think that the, I think the reason for the explicit language about not paying for the turf is because, whether it's grass or it's not, it's not an allowable CPA expense so they were just being very particular about not it's this project and we can't pay for this part of this project because it's not allowable or CPA. I think the other question I think it's for the staff on town, you know, the town staff to answer that. Thank you. Andy. Yeah, I have a concern about whether we are engaging in a process that is going to give us all of our athletic field needs. And or whether we're going to be in a position where because of decisions that get made down the line. We may need more fields in order to have fields that are adequately maintained for all sports at all times for both girls and boys sports. The second thing that I'm concerned about is maintenance and whether you've done any calculations is to what the maintenance costs are and how you whether you expect to be able to meet the maintenance expenses of the various options. I think that we as Amherst need to be very cautious about what we're committing our DPW to do that it's not getting that it would not get compensated for. So, which makes me think about those issues. So, I don't know if you have any comments on any of that. Just a little bit. I think that that's 1 of those sort of pieces of the of the rework of estimates here at the beginning that I'll want to press them on a little bit is what's that. Kind of total cost of ownership, which includes that maintenance year over year, the expectation of those costs. I mean, that was a piece of some of the work that Western and Samson did previously. I think we'll press them on that point again and and and and then that begs questions to your point about, you know, who, who carries that burden, whether it be town staff or school staff. We've had a shared arrangement in the past, but if it's an appreciably different sort of cost, regardless of which choice and I don't want to presume answers about 1 field type versus another. You know, if it's if it's an appreciably different cost, then we have to have that as part of the conversation as well as as as we think about the totality of what this asks of our community. Any other comments. Questions Bernie. Yeah, thanks. I'm not going to throw a button here, but I will start by thanking Doug for all the work he's doing on behalf of the schools in the town. I think it's. It's very much appreciated and I just want to say thank you for it. My question would be pretty simply. When are we going to know what we're buying and to who is going to be the person who. Authorizes the purchase who's going to who will be responsible for saying it's sufficient appropriation exists, which is required by law. So I think when will we know I think that. I think it's going to be pretty quickly after we get some, like I said, some estimates from our designers that update the numbers that we have, I think we'll frame this in a way. And I think that, you know, this ties back a little bit to. To council. You know, sort of questions and concerns around, you know, CPA sources outside, et cetera, et cetera. I think that, you know, we're going to have to. To make a pretty firm decision in probably the, you know, about a 3 month window of time. I think we're going to just have to. Figure it out one way or the other in the school committee will be the one that decides that because they're the ones that. That vote that debt authorization to which this is tied. So I think there's some, some critical questions over the next few months, and particularly about, you know, once we get estimates back. That they'll have to grapple with and make, make firm decisions on for a number of reasons. Some is to give direction to designers, some to give direction to fundraisers, some to give directions to. And, and. You know, to the town about what things we are, are not going to tap into as far as current authorizations, et cetera, et cetera. And who's just to kind of follow up on that. I'm glad you mentioned at the start that the cost of ownership is going to be calculated into this because I think. One of the concerns I have is that the ongoing maintenance costs are just going to somehow get washed into one budget or another or be wished away only to surface later and cause us some problems. But again, Doug, who's going to be the, who's going to be the person who says, all right, we know that we have sufficient funds that we can go forward with purchase. Um, region school committee will have to make that make that call because it'll, it'll tie into that activation of the second half of that ad authorization. Um, so I think they'll have to, they'll have to bring clarity to that. The data authorization has sort of one thing and then a second tier that they give it. The timeline gives them till the end of November where they can make the decision sooner if they choose to, but I think that'll be the regional school committee that's going to have to. To execute that decision and formalize that project. Thanks. Any other discussion of this issue. Okay. Okay, Athena. Councilor Hanneke. Yeah, I guess I just want clarity when you mean discussion and questions for Doug, or are we discussing this as a committee to try and get to a voted recommendation today? Are we folding that off for two weeks? Well, I was hoping we could get a vote today, but if people aren't prepared to vote, that's fine too. We can, we can, we can wait. I mean, there's. I was going to, about to ask Athena, we have three choices here really, we could say yes, we agree with this rescission or we could recommend that the council accept it. We can recommend that the council. Turn it down or we could recommend that the council just sit on their hands for two, two months and have it just, you know, a pocket, a pocket approval. And I don't know what the, I don't know how we, how we vote on something that's got three options. So my suggestion, Bob would be let's take the other two pieces. We've got public comments. And if we have time, get a sense of the committee. Make it the first item on the next meeting. Okay. That would be my suggestion just since we've got Sam waiting and we've got Sandy pooler. And, and so if, if it turns out that we need among the committee, a longish discussion, we don't want to, all of us have time to think. Yeah, that's fair enough. Now we don't have to vote on this today. And then Doug can leave us unless, unless he says, gee, the price just went down and tracks are now coming in at a million dollars. Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be nice. Absolutely. But I really appreciate everybody's time and your thoughtfulness about this and, and these are, you know, these are the right questions. These are the same ones I'm, you know, dealing with and thinking about as well. So I appreciate you guys thinking about this deeply and wanting to be good stewards of the town's money. So I appreciate that. And I, I fully want to give you guys the answers that you need. So if you have others that you have that come up, feel free to reach out. Okay. Thank you, Doug. So why don't we, since we have Sam here, why don't we move on to CPA. Sam, I would do, did you want to give a little presentation? Did you want to summarize what, what CPA has proposed or I'd be glad to, if you wish to do public comments, I don't know if there are individuals who are waiting need to depart. I'm okay delaying 20 minutes if that's the case. I'm multitasking but my thought was to just go through the slide so and quickly mention the projects so that the public if they're watching could at least get a very brief understanding of the projects. Okay, so maybe we should, so let's go to public comment. There are some folks in the audience. If anyone wants to comment on any issue either on this agenda or any issue that's before the finance committee, please, this is your opportunity to do so now. Please raise your hand. I don't see anyone on a phone. Okay, I don't see any hands raised. So, I guess we'll just move, move ahead to, to, to Sam's presentation. Well, thank you, Bob. I'm glad that that was a quick process. There's a slide show that was presented to the town council and the finance committee. Maybe a month ago or so I'm wondering if that could be displayed. Sure, give me just a moment please. I'd like to thank you Bob and thank the finance committee for putting CPA on the agenda and inviting me to briefly communicates our previous cycle. This is the fiscal year 25 recommendations that is to say applications that we received last fall, which are committee but deliberated in the fall, and the funds, if approved by finance committee in the town council would become available to applicants at the earliest of July 1 of this coming year. So next slide. I want to acknowledge the other members of the committee I'm here to speak on behalf of all the members who put in a lot of work. I'm the chair of Tim Neil, vice chair, Katie Allen Zogel, member at large and Bob Saul member at large, Robin Fordham, who is the historical commission delegate and presents the historical commission applications to that committee. Doug Marshall, planning board delegate, David Williams housing authority, Matt Kane recreation and Michelle labby for the conservation commission. I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work of town staff, Holly Drake, who has been very helpful with all sorts of requests, and who also had to pick up after the departure of both Sonia and Sean Dave Zomac, who has been helpful, and I also want to acknowledge the council liaison Pam Rudy previously Kathy. Next slide. So this is a general listing of the amount that was requested and what what we've, excuse me the amount that we've making a recommendation to appropriate and listed by category. In red the total is 2.375 million and change. And the majority of this this cycle falls under recreation. There's no open space proposals but in terms of meeting the 10% CPA legislative requirement of funding for each category, open space and recreation are counted together so it meets the totals. Next slide. So this is a listing of all the proposals that we're recommending if you wish to look at a synopsis at a later point in time. I'll briefly talk about each one, but here they are by category. No requests within open space. Next slide. There were three proposals as well that are not being recommended. They're listed here and the reasons why I'll briefly comment on them. I'll get to the slide affiliated with the next slide. I think it makes sense for me to just briefly talk about each one Bob and then for you to ask any questions if you wish. So, first proposal we recommended was from the Amherst municipal affordable housing trust. We're recommending $300,000. All of these votes were unanimous with all nine members. No abstentions. They had asked for 500,000 and reduced it we went back to a number of the applicants indicating that we had a shortage of applications versus the available funding. And after internal discussions they came back with a request for 300,000. We recognized that CPA is one of the few sources of funds, maybe the only source of funds for the trust. And the committee recognized that this is a priority for the town. Next slide. And we advanced to the next slide. Maybe not. Bueller. Bueller. That's a reference to the movie. I'm not sure if Athena's okay she can hear me. So the town has requested funding as well for pre development work affiliated and studies associated with housing. It's not just the funding of the acquisitions and the structures and the contracting there's also work that goes on in advance. I had initially requested $275,000. And again, after request from the council to reconsider what might be needed they came back with 150,000. And this covers a variety of different studies maybe 10 to 15 professional contracts of varying amounts that might be necessary in terms of wetlands design, etc. Next slide. This was an interesting one. A study committee was put together at the request of town manager I believe to look at the possibility of generating a local historic district for the East Amherst district that's down by East Street opposite for River School area. The study committee doesn't have other sources of funding as requested $20,000 for hiring a consultant to do a lot of legwork that's necessary for the creation of a application for the district. They're going to look at all the different 49 different structures generate inventory reports. It's really an architectural and historical consultant. And interestingly enough, this was the original town center before activity before the onset of the railroad, which is something I learned from their application $20,000 modest amounts committee was in favor of it. Next item. The strong semi house museum is seeking funding for thorough study to be conducted by Coon Riddle to put them on a position to both prioritize their needs and to apply for future grants and funding the thorough study will be usable by them for applications. They want to look at a few different areas they want to look at the internal photography. And get a basis point in advance of work that should commence within their neighbor the Jones library, so they can have a zero point to see if there's any impact from that. They want to, in that site survey they also want to look at ADA compliance opportunities for the building, and they want to look at the structural integrity from top to bottom, and the mechanical systems. It's a necessary study from their standpoint for the purposes of both having a plan for the future and for future funding applications they'll parlay the funds to greater good. Next slide. This is an interesting one the North Church currently occupied Amherst Zion Church of the Nazarene very historic building it's 200 year anniversary is coming up in 2026. This applicant came to us last cycle fiscal year 24, and they had a very involved project but it wasn't quite focused enough so we asked that they come back to us with a more application on the areas of greatest need. The roof is in very bad shape for anyone who drives by it on the south west corner you'll see gaping hole in the software area, and in fact I was informed a month ago by the liaison from the church that it started leaking in the middle of one of their services. So the need is there. We're tight for this congregation. The Historical Commission, as well as our committee felt that very important to repair the roof to prevent what's titled demolition by neglect. The building. Once you get water coming in, things get worse and worse quickly. The church did indicate in their discussion process presentation that they are willing to provide church funds as a contingency for variables that may be more than are needed. And they also spoke to a bank about financing for future needs and they were led to believe that the bank would provide them alone. So they didn't consider all of that beyond the urgent nature of the roof affair, recognizing that if nothing gets done that there can be problems there so we approved this year's application from them. This year's application request was for $177,911 but we added $5,000 for the creation of a historic preservation restriction. And I had emailed the council which your committee members would have received that it's the historic preservation restriction that is the, I guess the protectant of the building going forward it stays with the deed. And I know that the building can't have the roof fixed and then be turned into something completely different torn down their restrictions on the outside of the building, which aligns with the mass historical society and the Amherst historical commission goals. So, next slide. In the south cemeteries if anyone's walked through they'll notice quite a number of damaged headstones as well as some monuments. The town applicants initially requested $150,000. Again, in lieu of the in the lack of funding or the lack of available resources they came back with a lowered request for 100,000 removing the removal of the north fence that was a part of their initial request committee was very much in favor of preserving the portion of our history related to the damaged headstones. Next, another interesting project the North Amherst district one neighborhood association. They've been working on this for a number of years make gauge and others have spearheaded an attempt. To document the extensive interesting history of the area, both in terms of the structures that have are no longer there but also the impact and relationships of the various structures to the town in general, as well as the Native American who were there and the impact of the mill wherever so they have a lot of different areas they're looking into this is phase two of their project. We gave them 12,000 plus a couple years ago, and it's to document the nine different non physical sites and three correlated issues that I mentioned the intent that the funding will be used to hire to 5050 half half time each consultants to do the research which will allow them to document the history. Next slide. Oh, excuse me and they are, they did raise 15,600 of their own money that they're contributing to the project. Next slide. 12,000 words, no river tennis courts hazardous dangerous and safety issue. I remember driving by that and looking at it a few times years ago. Yes, it needs repair to courts priority 60,000 maybe was very quick in the decision to recommend this project. Next slide. Similarly, the softball facilities throughout Amherst three different locations the town is seeking to repair them. Three locations being slowness park and community fields. And a number of community members spoke up in favor of this project, indicating the genuine safety risk that exists around many of the bases. In fact, one of the committee members had heard her ankle while playing and it's not just a typical terrain there are actual divots around it so it's not simply an aesthetic and a playability it's it's a safety issue as well so the committee was very much in favor of supporting the update of these facilities which will come into greater use as Fort River school begins its construction in the fields there come offline. Next slide. This is a follow up on the World Memorial pool area that Slater mentioned work that would be going on here potentially. The request was for 750,000 the total project that's envisioned is in the 1.5 to $2 million range. And Slater would be utilized as a basis for applications of a park grant Parkland acquisition renovations. Community grant as well as an LWCF grant land and water conservation fund one or the other those grants could be $500,000 up to for the park grant and up to a million dollars potentially for the LWCF. The amount of work is needed if you go by there you can see the basketball courts and other areas basically they're looking to entirely re-envision this. There's already funding that was given for the planning of the area but this is much beyond as the entire area which would being a part of the overall recreation plan for the town in a very central, very widely utilized area. The committee was in favor of this. Next slide. Town recreation trails. Widely utilized in town they initially came with a request for $100,000 that was reduced to $86,000 again to accommodate the request of the committee to try and achieve our have our available funds that's the projects that we're recommending. Like last year, the committee had more requests than available funds but this year the committee decided that it did not wish to bond projects as it's done in the past but rather to allocate the available resources without extending debt down the road. Again, there's 80 miles of trails in Amherst and all sorts of work this is for the primarily Puffers pond, large hill and potentially hickory ridge area. Next slide. This is one of the projects that we did not recommend. It was a historic preservation submittal for from private owners, Michael and Kimberly Como to essentially move their house which is located close to the road on North Hampton Road down by the lights at the intersection where ginger garden is a little ways up by Amherst College. This is the house back on the foundation to get it further from the road. The committee did not believe that there was a large enough public benefit and that there were more cost effective ways to address the damaged foundation and or any risk from the road. So, the committee did not vote to recommend this project. Next slide. So this was an interesting proposal from the town and recreation department regarding funding for pickleball courts the desired location initially was Kiwanis field off of Stanley Street. They came to us a year ago and an initial $120,000 was recommended and approved by finance and town council. There was some concern from the neighborhood residents association. And after a couple of different meetings and discussions that was decided by the town that they wanted to review options further to identify what would be the best location fit in Amherst for pickleball they wish to proceed at some point. But they need to revisit the planning for it so this proposal was withdrawn and I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back again potentially in a different location. Next slide. This was the last proposal request that came in. The applicant checked all four CPA categories, although and it was titled the bear day field station education center submitted by Christie. It was determined that this project and proposal was not eligible for any of the categories they essentially want to buy the house on. So we went on to one road heading towards route 63 after the North Amherst school and turn it into an education center but it was early on deemed not to be an eligible use of CPA funds. So that was the what occurred with this one and that was the last of the projects that came before our committee or came to CPA rather. Next slide. Next slide as well there's no CPA administration or general reserve funding, but last but not least, the committee voted to recommend the authorization and approval of the debt service for the projects listed above. They're in varying stages. It's good for me to see that the Kendrick Park is in its fifth year, as well as rolling green in its 10th year about to be taken off the books. But there are three others that have ongoing years and you'll see that the high school track and field is listed that service for a project that we had estimated would start in 2025 as we know from discussions earlier today. It's uncertain what will occur there, but that should summarize all the proposals and I'd be glad to respond if the committee wishes to any questions that I can assist with. Yeah, I believe last year was Tim Neil who raised the issue about the amount of borrowing that's done and I've learned from my time in the finance committee with Tim always to take his concerns seriously. And I'm glad to see that the CPA committee is avoiding borrowing now and basically doing pay as you go sort of pay as you go projects. I think that's, I think I feel much more comfortable. I also want to congratulate you on dodging the pickleball flap. At least putting it off for at least a year. That wasn't my decision that was, it's out there, we all know it's out there. And I should issue a sarcasm alert. Was there any discussion about the tennis court refinishing being natural clay grass versus clay. No, you have to check the historic records at the US open versus one will turn I don't know. Thank you. Kathy. Thank you for the presentation and I'm assuming Athena will have the full order I have actually one only a question on one project because you have answered my question that I asked about the Zion church, you know I'm I know the tennis courts well and Bernie their rock hard cement, what's been interesting about them is when they've been refinished. They have it outlasted so what you just saw is something that's happening so there must be water flow or something underneath it. So I just want to make sure this is, I will send this comment into the town that whatever is happening that courts that look really good with. We're not talking about 20 years later, a short time later look, not very good to have the nets be literally pull pulling out of the service. And what he didn't show is, it's kind of an interesting crack. There cracks on virtually all the white lines. So it's like if you put down the white line for the service. Let's put a crack there. And then the back line I'm going, the crack, the crack seem to be located in a place that's a new surface. So I just, you know, just on up my question on the Zion church for those who didn't hear it is the church is in pretty bad shape if you look at it from the outside and I'm, I have no doubt it's historic it's fantastic these are all my neighborhood. I want to make sure that we're not down the road of another couple hundred thousand another 400,000 because the congregation literally can't afford to keep it up. And that's not your problem this year so I'm supportive of it so. And then the very last is when you see the order, or what Sam just put up the debt, Bernie we some of the thing this is debt so the CPA Award for track and field is not being paid all all in one year but they're holding that money is showing up in in an annual cycle so I actually like the ability that CPA has to do some of them, as long as they leave enough flexibility each next year. So it's not all consumed with that so well done I thought it was a really nice set of projects thank you. Let me make one comment Kathy regarding the tennis courts in their application town staff referenced that the source, at least the perceived source of the damage was a significant tension that existed in the method that the net posts were put in. So I think it would be worth. I'm glad to see that you have questions to ask further to make sure that the planning is done right but that was our understanding from their application. Okay, that's great I'll just send pictures of other parts of the court, other cracks, I mean if you play tennis and you serve you find the cracks pretty quickly. Yes, I believe you thank you. Thank you. Um, I had similar concerns about the Zion church and North Amherst and their ability to even maintain and preserve any funding repairs for the for the funding that we're giving them we're we're you know this this proposal is for roofing. They have a maintenance budget for the entire building of $16,000 a year they say in our application which so I worry as as Kathy did about ongoing. Are we putting money to a project that won't be able to be maintained even what we put the money to. Did you have any conversations so I'm curious if the committee had any conversations with the Zion church representatives about that on similarly I have a couple questions about a couple of projects on the more Memorial pool project it does look like that this project is in the community fields master plan so yay. But I'm curious whether the committee asked about the plan playground that is within that master plan for within this project at war Memorial given the fact that Kendrick park has a playground to blocks away. Does the committee have any questions or discussion about what ages, the potential for a playground and splash pad would be that they talked about in their application. To focus on, are they looking at more focusing on teenage play areas, which would compliment what's it Kendrick or something else and just war their conversations about that. And the historic district money I agree it's not a lot of money. I worry that granting this money. Sends a potential message that the creation of the historic district is favored or not. Given some of the language in the application about why a historic district is desired. Some quite negative language about a number of people living in our town, for example they wrote in their application that a historic district would prevent quote the construction of prefab shoddily built student hotels which detract from and devalue the town and would benefit only a handful of landlords. Written, that's a direct quote from their application. And as well as a quote about rapid changes occurring in the area including a new school and a proposed adjacent overlay district and my understanding is there isn't even a proposed adjacent overlay district did the committee. Okay, talk to the applicants of the historic district money about the reasons behind this that might not necessarily just be seeking to preserve really necessary buildings that represent or are, you know, our integral to our town versus seeking to stop changes to our town. Thank you Mandy. I read, I'll go in reverse order appreciate your, as always your thorough review and precise question questions related to all areas in the town. I'll go in reverse order. I had just read again that proposal application today with the language you referenced and it does jump off the page. As a committee we did discuss the various benefits of the project as proposed irrespective of any editorial input that the applicants might have made. We tend to, or I tend to speak for myself try to separate the substance of what is being proposed versus individual opinions that might exist. We, we did hear from the presenters and the committee and the historical commission was also very much in favor of it. The historical commission and applicants did distinguish between the potential in the longer term of creating a local historic district versus the value of generating the inventory forms for the 49 individual properties that are there. Those items those individual inventories which do get submitted to the state. They do provide some benefit from a historical preservation perspective for those specific properties because it documents the existing condition and and can be a basis down the road for looking at alterations on the houses that that are comprised of that inventory. But in terms of the overall referenced goal of a local historic district it was recognized that there are other steps beyond whatever the town might choose to do and the committee did decide that it was worthwhile to provide the funding regardless of what does or does not occur with the local historic district based upon the research so that's my long winded answer. Regarding the pool. Kendrick Park certainly widely utilized it's great to see that that's come about in the town to the surprise of all just how widely utilized it is. I don't recall. If we discuss the age brackets we know that it's adjacent to the high school and adjacent to the pool. They may have submitted it and forgive me if I am not seen it at present, but the committee recognized the just the very wide usage from current observation and from past personal experience that that area has for the town as well as the current state of it and recognize that we don't know what's going to occur with the rest of the athletic playing fields. But we recognize that the central area for town community members. Just a value in it regardless of what the town chooses to prioritize on the specific. specific items so we didn't really to my recollection delve into that but I can look and I'll check and I'll let you know via email fight. See that we did if we did if we don't will consider it a pop if a pocket lack of awareness. The earlier one and your first question was on the North Church future needs. We did discuss that both in their prior years application and this year is one of the reasons we asked for much more focused presentation or proposal for this year application. We did not necessarily. We did not see demonstrated capacity from the applicant that they would be in a position to be able to handle all of the different. They would call it wish list of maintenance items on their property. But what we did try and hone in on is what is actually critical for that building. And it was considered by all members that unequivocally the roof structure is the must have. And we didn't get into what they may or may not choose to do with painting of the structure because that would not have the same. It's in jeopardy. I would phrase it that way based on my own observation and experience in its current state. And we looked at that structure as and the Historical Commission also. You know, it's a building that has slate or slate like roof that was put on not at its onset but maybe 100 years ago. The Historical Commission specifically authorized. After talking with the state, the use of a less expensive roof in recognition that if we do nothing. It's it may fall at some point. I'm over dramatizing but it may fall in on itself. So it's literally a. How do we stop the water coming in metaphorically and actually so we didn't get into their capacity for long term we recognize their limited budget they didn't say that they can do other forms of fundraising but it's really speculative on our part. I could come up with some suggestions for them but I share the interest and hope that they are committee hopes that they have the capacity to make this work with the local contractors estimate that they provided. I think from anyone I've heard talking about it in front of our committee and a few aside conversations. If you have an interest in the protection or and or retention I guess of that historic building. So hopefully I answered your questions. Yes, thank you so much. Bernie. Yeah, just very quickly. I want to congratulate Sam and the committee on their choice around the preserving the roof. On that church. I think you're explaining from very thorough and right on target with an old building like that once the roof goes the rest of the structure will fall guarantee. So what do you want to thank you for for making that effort and taking that into consideration. I'd also notice that the the south congregational church just on the road for me has a bright blue tarp where it's simply used to be and I don't know if they're going to knock on your door at some point. But there's another one that they already did last year and last year. Okay. We're in good shape. You might take a trip to the back of that parking lot. You'll see the, the spire. It's very interesting. Yeah, yeah. I walk by it on a daily basis and I haven't ventured to the back of the parking lot yet, but I will. And again, thank you. I think you made the right decision. Andy. Yeah, Sam real quick question and thank you for the report and thank you for an outstanding processes here and recommendations. I was surprised that there was nothing put in there for administrative expenses because we do have administrative expenses every year including belonging to the coalition. Do we have reserve funds or how is that being covered. We had allocated a few years ago, it might have been three years ago about $50,000 towards administrative expenses and or signage. That's being depleted, but there's still a significant amount remaining. I don't have the exact dollar amount. We did communicate with Holly. And previously previously with Sean to confirm that there was sufficient funding to meet not just this next year's expenses but thereafter. There's advertising. It's, it may be 7,000 a year or so that's fixed. It might be a slight variable but that's going to happen regardless of what's there but there is a reserve. The commission reserve, certainly to meet the next cycle and I believe for a couple of cycles. Yeah, according to the report that was 60,000 put into the original budget for administrative expenses, and you spent about 14,000 so there's about 46,000 unspent. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay, thank you, Sam. Appreciate your very good presentation. And I think we'll maybe we can move on to the. The update on the FY 25 revenues because I think we're going to run out of time. So, so Sandy. Hi, everybody. Do I have. There we go. I'm just going to share this. This copy of it, which I know is small, so let's see if I can figure out how to make it bigger. Some of you have seen this before. Just give me one second. I'm sorry. Is that big enough for you people to be able to see. I can see it. Okay, thank you. So, we did a updated forecast. And this includes a few significant no items. One is that we have now the revenue from the governor's cherry sheets from her budget that she announced in January. These are, I think pretty solid. We have some in a little bit of detail in a second. But that's, I think probably the most significant revenue update. We also have definite figures now on health insurance and pensions. And we're getting closer on capital. I will say for capital. The overall budget that might be going toward debt service versus cash. Doesn't affect the bottom line of the overall budget because we'll still spend 10.5% of the overall tax levy on capital. It's just going to be a matter of figuring out how much is that it's going to be for debt service and how much of that for cash to include in the JCPC report. And then just kind of looking at our overall forecast. Some of you have seen this before or are familiar with it. So, I'll go in a little bit of detail, but I don't want to go in excruciating detail. I will just say that we continue to assume that we're going to have $650,000 in new growth next year that is, I think, an appropriate amount to have at this time of year to estimate at this time of year. The local receipts numbers are updated and I think reflect the same numbers that you saw back in. In November, there may be a few minor corrections, but we have about a $540,000 increase in local receipts. As I said, the big change now is in general government aid in Chapter 78. Chapter 78 has gone up a half a percent based on $30 per student. There's a lot of lobbying at the state house to try to get that number to go up to as high as 100. That's what the MMA is asking for. I wouldn't frankly count on that, given that the state has consistently not met its revenue expectations this year. So I would cautious on that number. The next number that's really big is unrestricted general government aid. This reflects the governor's commitment of a 3% increase in general government aid, which is even above what the state is projecting that its own revenue increases will be. So that is a good number for us. So overall, we're ahead in state aid by about $240,000. The other numbers here are, I think you've seen pretty much all of them before in the previous forecast. The skip to expenses. The most important thing is that in previous forecasts, we had been projected that we'd have enough money to allocate 3% to all four major budgets. We're now at 4%. That was presented to BCG on Friday and to the four towns meetings on Saturday. And I think it reflects that Amherst is willing to put forward appropriations to the budgets based on what our resources are. And this year we do have the resources put forward 4%. One of the major reasons we have those resources is that we got our final assessment down near the bottom of the page on our pension assessment. And you can see it's up, you know, it's not even a fraction of a percent that $1400 $1500. And that's a very good increase. Usually it's about a half a million dollars. We know that they take a snapshot of our enrollment as of September 30th every year. And we know on September 30th we had certain positions in the town that were vacant, probably more so than maybe in previous years. So that our overall pension assessment was lower than we might have expected. So for FY 25, that's good news because the assessment is the assessment. That's what we pay and that's what it comes in at. If it comes in low like this, it gives us more money to spread around and other things. I would warn that I think it's likely that it will come in higher next year. I don't think it's going to double. That would be a big increase. But I do think it shows that FY 25 is a lucky year for Amherst. And so, you know, because we've had that one time savings with all of that in play, we have a surplus of $14000, which in a $97 million budget is nothing. So that is the quick and dirty. I am happy to answer any questions people may have. Oh, you guys are really smart. You don't have any questions. Kathy, I'm glad that you have that. To be able to ask a question. You can't get away with a no question on $97 million worth of information. I have a couple questions that don't really have answers. So I just want to state them. I noticed that we're, we've gone up slightly on OPEB, $50,000 compared to $550, and $550 was $50,000 above. So given what's happening in our schools, we made, do we have to do that? So some of this is we have a long term plan for OPEB, but could we do smaller and we have guidelines that say equal amounts to everyone, but our schools, both regional and elementary are in particular trouble because they're losing their and some of what they did to deal with COVID, they have not, I'll say it nicely, they've not adjusted staffing as quickly as they might otherwise have adjusted it to declines of enrollment, but they've got, you see it in the press. So it's a question of things like OPEB, but it's a little bit more discretionary and we were at the 500, do we need, and then we were 550, do we need to go to 600, and I know it's just $50,000. So that's my one, my question there and we've been budgeting in a way. You probably started this way back when you, that we get good news every year in the fall. But you know that, you know, we've got a margin built into some of this, which is smart, you know, on a little bit lower and a little bit higher. So aside from the 5% that is a comfortable margin. Is that margin is that 5% still built into this and it's just not a line item that says, you know, margin. And your bottom line of 14,000, which is you said is not even rounding it. Right. So I'll try to answer both those are all three of those questions as to OPEB there's no legal requirement that we increase funding. I think it is consistent as I read it. It happened before I got here consistent with what the town has been doing has been trying to do to show to the rating agencies that we do have a funding plan in place and I think they like that. I don't think it's that makes a huge amount of difference 50,000 one way or the other but I do think they like to see that. I would also say that I don't think $50,000 is going to make a bit of difference in the school's problems. Anyway, I know I would come back to the earlier year that was 500, you know, so it's 100,000 over this two year period but yeah, I agree. Yep. And then as far as the two issues of the school's general budget challenges and the equal distribution of money. I would say the equal distribution of money is a policy question that's been in the town for a long time and certainly the case when I was here. I teach a class on budgeting that you mass Boston and I give that as an example of one of the ways that cities and towns can split up their money. And so I think to deviate from that would be a major change in how the town has run its business over time. Only there have been some minor exceptions in the past where the town has thrown a few hundred thousand dollars maybe toward the schools for some one time expenses, or even I think a few years ago maybe built a one time bump in. I know when I was here on two years in row in the elementary school budget the superintendent told us that we'd given her too much money and she asked us to cut her budget by $100,000. So for two years in a row, we did that that I have to say was unusual. You don't see that a lot around the state. But I do think if the town were to deviate from that. That would be a big discussion that is kind of at the BCG level or council level and manager level and that everybody else level. I do think one of the things about the school budget, you've mentioned positions and so forth. It has always been my position not to get in arguments with schools about how they spend their money because as a municipal finance person. I usually lose those arguments. What I can talk about is how many resources the town has and what money we were able to put on the table. The school committee has made various policy decisions, whether it's the number of people they keep on staff, the level of which they've settled their collective bargaining agreements, the number of programs they have and so forth. That are all really in their court and I don't try to second guess them, but they do have consequences for what their budgets tend to be. And as the school committee makes those decisions, they also have to live with the consequences of what those decisions are. So I know that they have some challenges, but I also have not seen. I think they still have to come up with a better explanation for how to deal with those challenges. Then I've seen to date, I haven't seen a plan yet with any concrete decisions in place that would get them out of their long term problems. And so I think just giving them a lot more money at some point before we saw any evidence of that would not solve the problem. So that's my little soapbox speech about town and school budgets. Thank you. No, that answers, it's a conversation we're having at home. Okay. And could you just remind me then of your second question. It was, I think it was just around the, oh, the last one was is built into this, the expectation that we've got a margin. So one of the interesting things, one of the interesting things about Amherst is that it doesn't rely on using free cash for its, for its, as a budget source sometimes do sometimes don't, which means that at least in my experience overall, and I haven't looked at it in precise detail lately, but overall. We tend to estimate our local receipts, which is the one thing we really have any saying fairly close to what the actuals are. And so, because if you use a lot of free cash, let's say in your budget, as we did in Arlington, you have to be very much more conservative in your local receipt estimates, so that you know you can create that free cash the next year. So Amherst tends to be fairly aggressive in their local receipt estimates, while still being conservative enough to take into consideration if something falls short. So there are various local receipts like building permits that can change very quickly if there's an economic downturn or increase in interest rates or so forth. That's something for our interest income. The one thing that has probably been a little bit conservative in the estimate is new growth at 650. That is lower than the actuals over the last few years. Again, that is a number that isn't guaranteed at any one year. You have to have new building going on for that to happen. And I'd say it's a very typical thing for cities and towns to estimate new growth at this range of conservatism. Because until we hear from the assessors, which will be months from now, what that true number is going to be. I hope that answers your question. It does. And I just so I actually had to teach public finance for a while and I talked about underestimating receipts and overestimating expenses to make sure you weren't wrong because you couldn't raise your prices. Exactly. As opposed to the private sector. So, so thank you. Any other questions for Sandy. Next item on the agenda is the recap of the BCG and the four towns meeting. Paul, do you want to give your impressions of that of those two meetings? Sure. It might be better for a member, one of your representatives at the meetings to do that. But basically we shared the information that you just got. You just received some from Sandy. We've sent out that spreadsheet so you can look at it in your own time. And this is the opportunity for us to share it with the finance committee of the town council. I think generally at the BCG meeting, there was. Relief, I think, from the members of the school committee and the library trustees who are dealing with increased expenses as our as our town offices town, town departments. And pleased that we were able to. Achieve this 1 time and I really do look at this as a 1 time 4% aberration because of the the pensions. And then for at the 4 towns meeting, I think there was a general. Again, relief and thanks to the town of Amherst for moving to 4%. It had some a side effect of increasing shoots berry by a marginal amount. All 4 community said that they could meet their commitments that they had said under the formula that they would have to provide. It doesn't mean that it solves any of it. It gets a bit closer to the. Budget gap that the schools have identified, but it doesn't solve it for sure by a long way. Annie, did you want to add? Yeah, I think the comment that I make is regarding the 4 towns meeting and there was an issue that I think Mandy raised. At the meeting and that is that. There was a lot of good feelings because we went to 4%, which is the. Guard rail amount. And so that there's some towns that I almost have to assume that they're going to have 4% every year. And it was, you know, this idea that ever started to it because of the biggest community and have the best ability to afford it. And the point is that. As Sandy just said, it was fortunate timing of. Where our staffing level was on September 30. Of 23 that enabled us to do that. Because it lowered our retirement cost way that. Hampshire County retirement system calculates and. I am concerned that there may be an expectation. As much as the point was made that there shouldn't be that we can do this again every year. And I think that that gets back into the point that Kathy raised about. Even budgets and I think that's a conversation that we don't really want to have today because we don't have time to have it today and. But you put it all together and I think that the 1 concern I had out of the 4 time meeting is we created expectations for future years. That we're not realistic. Yeah, we tried to make the point that. That the 4% we couldn't count they couldn't count on that again next year, but. But you're right, Andy. We're from now. They will, they'll forget about that. We're now at four o'clock. I don't know if you want to go through this draft surplus property disposition now or if we want to just. Discuss it next time. Any thoughts. Athena. I just wanted to point out Dave wasn't able to join us today. The new draft went into the packet this. Either. Today or yesterday. So I'm wondering if committee members have had a chance to take a careful look at it. But if you wanted to postpone it to the next meeting, then. I think Dave will be able to join us. I also wanted to note that. I just wanted to point out that. I think it changes the committee members are proposed right now. I haven't been reviewed by KP law and we're going to look for that review before we asked the council to adopt the new policy. There was one question that was outstanding at the towards the end about the hearing. The requirement and schedule. I'm not sure what the other. The other. Surplus property disposition policies that I looked at from other cities do have a hearing requirement and the select board. Policy the existing policy has a hearing requirement. Although. All of the policies that I looked at allow the council to waive. So I would just like to confirm with. With our town attorneys that that's not required in that. The committee could recommend some changes to that timeline if they wanted to or to include a waiver with a two thirds vote if they wanted to as well. So, Bob, I think we should postpone because I read it really quickly. But and then do what we did last time, but this can be much more focused if there are any remaining. Issues on different lines. I had one, but it's not major. It's sort of a question and then what Athena just said. So I'm fine with waiting until two weeks from now. And then with Mandy's question about the other item of do to continue the discussion on the regional schools, what finance wants to recommend. I'm also okay with waiting to have that discussion, but I wonder if we want to vote out a recommendation to approve the CPA. We have a financial order in our packet and that would mean we don't have to do that next time unless Athena, you know, you, you want to wait on that. The council public hearing on the appropriations outside the budget is scheduled for March 4. And so that gives the committee opportunity to hear the feedback of the public hearing and then vote a recommendation before the council vote at the next council meeting. Okay, so we were not anticipating the committee voted a recommendation today. Okay, so we don't have to. So anything like, I'm looking for what can we get off the agenda and I noticed we have minutes on the agenda and I did read the minutes and I think they're just fine. So, so is there a proposal then to accept the minutes. I only saw minutes from one meeting so maybe it said to but I saw the one and those looked fine that was the election. So I, I make a motion to accept the minutes. That was January 23rd. Yeah. And I'll second that. Okay. Let's go around. I'll go first. I vote yes. Bernie support. Kathy. Yes. Andy. Yes. Commissioner Walker. I think she's left. She's still here. No, she left the meeting. Okay, so she's absent. Commissioner Hanneke. I. Councilor. Sorry. Okay, so it's. For yes. One support and one absent. So we'll accept that those meetings. Okay. One thing off the, off the agenda. I think given what Athena said, CPA can wait until after the March 4th council meeting to come back on our agenda. Yeah. Yeah. I think we can, we can wait on that. That sounds good to me. And just the next agenda. Whether people, this is a suggestion, but I don't feel strongly about it. The minutes. If we took, if we each said. One of us will read the minutes. Before the next meeting so they can do what I just did now. Then we could avoid a backlog where everyone, so we could vote quickly on it, or we could actually have that person read the minutes and say they're fine, but I just, I want to make sure. Okay. So. Spending us a little time on minutes would be my preference, given that we've got zoom recordings of all of these. Yeah, I agree. And I also, I want to, as you said, I want to get them off the agendas. So we don't have what big stack, you know, in May. Okay. I think that's anything. Any last questions or comments? Okay. Thank you. And four or 5pm. Great. Everybody. Take care.