2026-10-06 - Community Preservation Committee

00:02Okay. So, we we're gonna get started.

00:04Um,

00:06let's do introductions. Kristen, why

00:08don't you lead us off?

00:15>> Um, my name is Kristen Gutierz.

00:18>> I don't think your is your mic.

00:20>> Yeah, it is.

00:21>> Okay.

00:21>> My name is Christine Guteras Leavote. I

00:24am the representative from the historic

00:26commission. Um,

00:29I have a bachelor's in public history

00:31and museum administration.

00:33I have a master's in uh public admin

00:36from Clark University. I'm completing a

00:39master's in Native American studies and

00:41applying for a PhD in history right now.

00:44>> Okay.

00:46You want to top that one, Lindsay?

00:48>> I'm Lindsay Nestrom. I'm representing

00:50the Conservation Commission.

00:52>> Frank

00:54>> Frank Callahan, a member at large. I'm

00:57also a dosent with preservation

00:59Worcester and I sit on the board of the

01:01Greater Worester Land Trust.

01:03>> Marissa, you want to introduce yourself?

01:08>> Sure. Hi everyone. I'm Marissa

01:09Robertson, member at large. Uh I guess a

01:13little about me. I am the deputy

01:16director of the state's climate

01:17resilience program and I live in

01:20Worcester and like gardening and plants

01:23and yeah.

01:25>> Terrific. Thank you, Marissa. Eric,

01:30>> hi. Uh, I am Eric Stratton. I'm the

01:32representative from the parks

01:34commission.

01:35>> Thank you, Eric. And Anthony, are you

01:37with us?

01:39>> Good afternoon. Uh, Anthony Dela,

01:42representing the planning board.

01:43>> Terrific. And my name is William Eddie.

01:45I'm chair of the committee. Um, so in

01:47your packet is meeting minutes. Um, I

01:52would ask folks to take a look at them.

01:54uh see if there's any additions, edits,

01:57great thoughts,

01:59not so great thoughts. Um otherwise, I'm

02:03going to look for an audio packet. Did

02:06you receive them on email?

02:09>> We didn't do the meeting minutes because

02:10the last meeting was a public hearing.

02:13>> I thought we had the April 28th meeting.

02:17>> Uh Mr. Chairman, we approved those

02:19before the public hearing meeting. Okay,

02:22I will I'll double check that and I'm

02:23pretty sure we

02:24>> No problem. I'm gonna work off the April

02:2528th ones then. All right. So then we're

02:26not gonna there's no motion to you know

02:29to do the minutes then. I would have

02:31thought Okay. So that's on me. Um I

02:34would suggest to you that you know as I

02:36was looking through them

02:39it we were last before the public

02:41hearing we were talking about changes we

02:43wanted to make to the plan. Um, you

02:46know, in the April 28th discussion, we

02:50talked about, you know, religious

02:52buildings, uh, emergency applications,

02:56duplication of housing issues, back

02:58taxes for for applicants, historic, uh,

03:02funding for for profit unit for

03:03for-profit owners. And the reason I

03:06bring it up is because this leads has

03:09led us to a public hearing and now leads

03:12us tonight to a plan. Um, and so as we

03:16transition, well, we're not really,

03:18we're done transitioning from round two

03:20to now beginning the process for round

03:22three. This sets us up now that we have

03:25a plan to discuss tonight to move

03:27forward with the pre-application process

03:29and so on as we head toward a February

03:31completion of this of round three cycle.

03:34Are there any questions from members

03:36about where we are at this point? uh

03:39before we start to get into the kind of

03:42you know the meat of the meeting of you

03:45know and Susan's going to talk a great

03:47deal about you know round pilot round

03:50one round two where we're at as a city

03:52where we are with these projects and

03:54then how we're moving forward you know

03:56as we look tonight to vote on uh the

04:00those changes and on the application

04:04changes. So any questions about where

04:06we're at? question. Um, I'd just like to

04:09better understand options that are

04:11available to private homeowners. I don't

04:14see any um applications for private

04:18homeowner reser preservation and I just

04:21didn't understand you know where the

04:23committee stands

04:24>> on topic

04:26>> in the first two rounds

04:29and I'm certainly not going to speak for

04:31anyone other than myself but the sense

04:33of the committee as I've sensed it and

04:35by votes of of is that the committee's

04:37been hesitant to to fund private

04:42homeowners owners are private owners of

04:44buildings. We've had several who have

04:46applied for it and none have been

04:49accepted so far. Um

04:52I I sense there is a

04:55hesitancy to invest in buildings that

04:58people chose to build that ultimately

05:01they can sell for at profit. And so

05:04again, not speaking for any individual

05:06member other than myself, but by votes

05:08of the committee, it has there has been

05:10a there's not a prohibition, but

05:12certainly a hesitancy on the committee

05:14to to go that route.

05:16>> Do you think that impacts the number of

05:18people that apply?

05:19>> It has not yet so far. It may in future

05:22rounds, but I mean, look at and we'll

05:25talk more about who applied and who

05:27we're at. Um I think if there have been

05:31restriction if there have been hurdles

05:34that

05:36that applicants have looked at I would

05:39suggest that the reimbursement model

05:42that is in CPA across the state has

05:45caused some problems with people who who

05:47didn't understand they had to put the

05:49money up front and they get reimbursed.

05:51That has been a hurdle for some. Um,

05:55you know, the hurdle, frankly, has been

05:58the city, you know, adjusting to the CPA

06:02process. You know, there was not a great

06:04secret that it took some time for us to

06:06move new contracts out of legal and

06:08things. Um, you know, and clearly I

06:12think you see by the who's received our

06:15awards, you've seen groups that have

06:18large infrastructure who have been much

06:20better able to, you know, go through the

06:23administrative process and the

06:25application process. Whether that goes

06:27in the long term, we're going to find

06:28out. Um, it certainly has been a factor

06:31in the first two rounds, but I think

06:33we're going to we're going to find as we

06:36get into round three and round four in

06:37the next year or two, we're going to

06:38figure out whether, you know, how big

06:41the pool is.

06:42>> Yeah. I'd like to just put out for

06:44consideration that um the historic

06:47commission does designate historical

06:50status for private homes, for

06:54businesses,

06:56buildings, statues, that sort of thing.

06:58and and if we're designating these

07:01historic, but they have no avenue to

07:04receive CPA funds, that kind of, you

07:08know, works against what we're doing.

07:10Um, and I I look at it I know I read

07:14um

07:16I I read kind of how uh funding is

07:21decided and I I think there's a little

07:23gray area as far as you know may be

07:26considered for the public good that sort

07:28of thing. My take on the public good or

07:33or beautifification of Worcester

07:35preservation is that without

07:38the the neighborhoods and the historic

07:40texture that we get from individual

07:42homes, we wouldn't have much of a city,

07:45right? We'd have buildings, just public

07:49or private, you know, corporate

07:51buildings. But it's really homes that

07:54kind of lend Worcers's charm. you know,

07:57our triple deckers, our our special

07:59neighborhoods in wherever. So, I'd like

08:03to just make sure that we, you know,

08:08keep an open avenue for private

08:10homeowners, especially those, think

08:11about historic districts, you know,

08:13especially if they they've own a house

08:15for years and then we then create a

08:17historic district. they've already owned

08:19the home and now you're looking at costs

08:22to repair and restore your home that are

08:26astronomical especially since co but

08:29that you know maybe they didn't ask for

08:31that to be a historic district but now

08:32their home is in one

08:33>> well I think I guess I would kind of as

08:36we kind of move forward here I would

08:38suggest that this is a discussion we

08:40will have as we get applications I think

08:42there is

08:44I don't disagree with one word you said

08:46about you know what is the charm of

08:48Worcester. But I do believe there will

08:50be a discussion that the committee will

08:51have about mind being mindful that these

08:55are taxpayer dollars that come out of

08:57people's actual tax bills and what is

09:01the best use or prop appropriate use of

09:03taxpayer dollars. And I think there's a

09:06difference between designation and

09:07actual dollars. And so I think that's

09:09something that we'll we'll have a

09:10dialogue about as we get to the actual

09:12applications just as we've had in the

09:14first two rounds.

09:16>> Terrific. Um any other discussion?

09:18>> M Mr. Chair?

09:19>> Yes.

09:20>> Uh if if I may, just uh I wanted to add

09:22into that. Um I would make the argument

09:24that while there is an is a current

09:27avenue um you know through the

09:28application that again you know there

09:30there's also limited funds available and

09:33a number of competing um applications.

09:36you know, we we are somewhat limited in

09:39terms of, you know, how much people

09:41want. And when you have a single home

09:43asking for, you know, $300,000,

09:47um, you know, that that is a sort of

09:49lofty ask, um, you know, for something

09:52that again may have a limited um,

09:55perception of community benefit. Um, so

09:58I think that there are avenues, but I

10:00think that it may be something that it

10:02is a little trickier to navigate. And I

10:05agree that I think we'll have to look at

10:06this a little bit more um now that we've

10:08gone through our first two cycles. Um I

10:10would make the argument of we haven't

10:12seen people not apply. You know, we have

10:14seen um you know, individual homeowners

10:17or property owners apply. Um in some of

10:20those cases, again, I think people are

10:22walking away because they may not have

10:24an avenue to front the money um because

10:26it is a reimbursement model. And I think

10:28as well uh there's the aspect of and I

10:31am adamant about this because these are

10:34taxpayer dollars and we have a

10:35responsibility to the taxpayers of the

10:38city that uh there must be clawback

10:41provisions in any of these agreements

10:43that if we give these funds to someone

10:45and they're turning around and then

10:47selling a house for profit, even if it's

10:49just turning it around to another

10:50homeowner, those funds should be coming

10:52back to this commission uh or to this

10:55committee so that those funds can go

10:57into other restoration projects and we

10:59have typically had uh a time period

11:02where we will let those expire after a

11:04certain period of time for those

11:05callback provisions. But it it gets

11:08really tricky when we start thinking

11:09about giving taxpayer funds to private

11:12businesses or individuals who then may

11:14turn around and make a profit off of

11:16this.

11:18>> Terrific.

11:18>> So that's that's one of the issues I've

11:20had and I know I've been very vocal

11:21about this. This is an issue I have a

11:22lot of concern over um with our um you

11:26know sort of uh you know choosing what

11:29projects we we will or will not fund

11:32that you know we I want to make sure

11:34that they are providing that community

11:35benefit.

11:37And again I think that that could

11:38include individual homes especially some

11:40of the unique um you know uh historic

11:44neighborhoods that we have. Um, but that

11:46I I think that it may be just a little

11:48trickier to sort of navigate that for

11:51some of those individuals. And I say

11:52this is someone who has a hundred-y old

11:54house that man, I would have a lot of

11:55projects I would love to get done.

11:59>> Terrific. Uh, any other discussion?

12:02Hearing none, um, we'll go move forward

12:05on the agenda update. Lots of good news

12:07to share, I think, uh, from our friend

12:09Susan Dailyaly on

12:11>> through the chair. All right, I want to

12:12thank you all for making the time to um

12:15come to the meeting tonight. We do have

12:17a lot of things to update you on. Um if

12:20you look in your packet, you'll see a

12:22colorful table and that kind of outlines

12:26um our 13 executed contracts with three

12:30of those projects being complete. Um the

12:33Geric Valley, Roberto Clemente Park,

12:35Brooks Dairy Farm acquisition, and the

12:38preservation of Worester Jail records by

12:40the Antiquarian Society.

12:42Uh we have a few a few others have

12:44already begun their projects. Kendrick

12:47Baseball Field, Hope Cemetery, Historic

12:49Gravestone Excavation and Restoration,

12:52and the Robert and Esther Godard Center

12:54for Inspiration. Also, the Wister

12:56Historical Museum HVAC project and the

12:59Salsbury House HVAC and uh boiler

13:02replacement as well as the upgrades to

13:06the electrical um at the gazebo of

13:08Institute Park. So all these have begun

13:10their projects. Some of them have

13:12already submitted pay um pay requests

13:15and have been reimbursed for part of

13:17those um projects. Um we also have five

13:22draft contracts that are currently being

13:24reviewed by law. Um I pretty sure they

13:27should be executed by the end of the

13:29month. So that's uh that's also a good

13:32thing. And then if you look at the

13:34second page, those are the contracts

13:38that still have yet to be executed.

13:40We've met with all of these agencies.

13:44Some of them have draft contracts

13:46working. Uh we just need some either um

13:49budgets or required documents for them.

13:53Um so all of these are in the process. A

13:57few of them haven't been started yet uh

13:59because we're waiting on additional

14:01documentation, but they've all been met

14:05with and a lot of them are in progress

14:08as well.

14:09>> Excuse me, Mr. Ch. If I can just add to

14:10I think it's important to note that um

14:12some of these executed contracts and the

14:14contracts that are currently being

14:16reviewed by the law department, they're

14:17from both rounds one and two.

14:19>> So, it's not just round one that we've

14:21made progress on two as well.

14:23>> Right. And the other um I just noticed

14:25this the um

14:28No, it is there. Sorry, I didn't think

14:29the trust fund was listed, but it is.

14:31>> Okay. Yeah.

14:32>> So, Susan, do you want to keep going

14:35some questions?

14:36>> Yes.

14:36>> The one that surprises me is the trust

14:38fund. Um they they reported great

14:42progress at one of our, you know, and so

14:45I'm a little surprised that they haven't

14:46drawn down a significant portion of the

14:492.5. That's actually they may have, but

14:52because it's an internal transfer, it's

14:55harder for me to see, but as we go

14:58through um as we go through the the

15:03updates, you'll see where their their

15:05money has gone into and some of the

15:07projects have begun. I'm just not sure

15:10where they aren't drawing down funds.

15:12>> Do I guess that's a bigger picture issue

15:14then. So, is there in the internal city

15:17family? Um so in this case Clemente

15:21Field um WPF West public schools y

15:25>> um

15:26>> Brooks Dairy Farm

15:27>> Brooks the trust fund

15:29>> do we have trouble accounting for where

15:32they are in the process moneywise

15:34>> it's

15:36when the other projects submit for

15:40funding it comes through me and I have

15:42to enter it into the system so I have

15:44more control when it's more of an

15:46internal thing it goes

15:48kind of through budget more than me. Um,

15:51but I could have definitely have gotten

15:53an update from Janette. She updated me

15:55on all the projects. I didn't even think

15:56to ask how much she's already spent out,

15:59but I can definitely get that.

16:01>> We can get that for November. We can

16:02even email it to the committee

16:04beforehand.

16:04>> That's fine.

16:05>> Uh, other questions from committee

16:07members?

16:12>> Sure. Um, you know, I that actually

16:14answered one of the concerns or

16:15questions that I had related to uh

16:17affordable housing because they they did

16:20present a lot of uh updates. So, it it

16:22seems like we just probably need to get

16:23caught up in terms of our data there.

16:25So, that would be appreciated before our

16:26next meeting. Um, uh, are we getting to

16:30the the item below the the sort of table

16:32here or are we waiting for a moment to

16:34get the update regarding Veterans, Inc.?

16:37>> I I think we're about to come to

16:38Veterans, Inc.

16:39>> Okay. Okay. I'll I'll wait in case

16:40people have other things first.

16:43>> Any other anything on the charts?

16:46>> Terrific. Susan, do you want to go

16:48>> question?

16:48>> Oh, who's the question? I'm sorry. Oh,

16:51Marissa.

16:53>> Yeah, sorry. Um, I'm not sure like

16:55should I be raising my hand or just

16:58like unmuting. For those online, if you

17:00have a question, just say just, you

17:02know, say something and then just tell

17:04us who who I mean, obviously Marissa

17:06will figure out it's you from Erica.

17:08>> But but yeah, if you could just put say,

17:10you know, say this is Marissa or

17:12something.

17:13>> Okay. Um I was just curious about next

17:16to the Green Hill Park project, it says

17:20um about the litter stations that park

17:23said no to them and the award amount was

17:24reduced. I'm just curious what those

17:27were and why it seems like they were

17:29rejected by parks.

17:31>> Where is it?

17:32>> It was the dog litter stations

17:35um that Greenh Hill Park had

17:40wanted to put in. But when we met with

17:42parks, there was no nobody was going to

17:44be cleaning it up. Nobody was going to

17:46be um putting more bags in. They and

17:50they said, "This is not something that

17:52we want."

17:54And if I could add, that's a bummer.

17:56>> Yeah. And if I could also add, it was

17:57also um some concern if that would

17:59actually consider a capital improvement

18:02>> under the CPA guidelines.

18:05>> Oh, okay. All right. Thank you.

18:07>> Perfect.

18:10>> Eric, you're all set. Anthony, you're

18:11all set.

18:14>> Okay. Let's go to Veterans, Inc.. How

18:16are our good friends on Grove Street

18:18doing?

18:18>> Okay.

18:19>> Sorry. Apologies. It took took me a

18:21moment to unmute. Um the only question

18:22I'd have is um it looks like there's uh

18:26still four I'm sorry five items from

18:28round one that we are waiting on. Um I

18:32just wanted to check and you know uh

18:35this may require a little bit of

18:36investigation. You know my concern is

18:39now that you know we're moving into

18:40funding cycle three. I realize these are

18:43funding cycle one. You know reading

18:45through the notes there. We're waiting

18:47on required budget and documentation and

18:49other things from these group. My

18:51concern is that, you know, at what point

18:54do we um, for lack of a better term, cut

18:57bait and say, "Great, we're gonna

18:59recommend that the city sort of resend

19:02this and we, you know, put those funds

19:04towards another project." Um, I do think

19:07that, you know, it is important that

19:10these organizations also be making, you

19:14know, taking action to get these

19:16projects done. And it gives me concern

19:18when I see, you know, when you start

19:20totaling all of these up. Um, you know,

19:22it's a reasonable and substantial amount

19:25of money to to find out what's going on.

19:29And again, specifically looking at the

19:31things that are in cycle one.

19:33>> Um, Eric,

19:35>> Eric, perhaps we could have Paul and

19:37Susan um because some of these predate

19:40Susan. So could perhaps we could run

19:42through the five, you know, the Fatty

19:44Jenkins, Wester Common Ground, the WCBB

19:49um over at uh over on the east side over

19:52here. Um the city clerks because this is

19:55pretty

19:56pretty wide ranging here. Um the Khole

19:59House over on Lincoln Street and

20:02obviously the complicated mural

20:04relocation from St. Oen to the art

20:06museum.

20:07>> And that's my mistake. That's actually

20:08brown.

20:08>> That should be two. Yeah. Yep.

20:10>> Okay.

20:11>> So then what what else is one? We got

20:13You said five, Eric. Who? There's four.

20:15>> Sorry. Well, I think I think I was I'm

20:17sorry. I was counting that and caught

20:18that myself at the same time. I think

20:19that uh you know, again, I I think from

20:21my end, you know, perhaps, you know, um

20:23you know, Paul and Susan, you know, if

20:24you guys can maybe follow up with them

20:25and say we need to get moving on this or

20:28this is a you know, this might become a

20:30concern that these funds are just being

20:34sat on. Um I don't think you know you

20:36know I I speak you know speaking just as

20:38a taxpayer I don't love the idea of my

20:40you know the the you know my

20:42contributions toward this being sat on

20:45and no action being taken. I think

20:47people voted for the CPA because they

20:49want to see these projects moving

20:50forward. I realized that there were

20:52delays in terms of learning how to do

20:54this and getting this through and to get

20:56grant agreements. But um it it is a a

20:59concern for me that you know when I see

21:01things like oh they've started

21:02collecting documents or we're waiting on

21:04documents. This is a couple years now.

21:06Why is it taking so long to get these

21:08documents?

21:08>> So let's get an answer from the city on

21:10each of the four and and where we're at

21:11in

21:12>> please

21:14follow Susan.

21:14>> Sure jump in on one of these but um

21:17through the chair the um so the fatty

21:20Jenkins cage so that is actually also

21:23being funded with community development

21:25block grant dollars. So, we're gonna

21:27correct me if I'm wrong, male, but we're

21:29going to combine the scopes into one

21:31contract.

21:32>> We're gonna do the exact. This is why I

21:34don't speak. Go ahead, Mr. Dale.

21:35>> So, the the issue with CDBG funding

21:38coming into this project, even though

21:41it's, you know, two separate

21:44contracts, the project's the same. So

21:46when federal funding comes into C with

21:49CPA funding, um prevailing wage,

21:54um they need to do sealed bids, things

21:57like that. They didn't understand that

22:00until they had gotten their CDBG

22:02funding. CDBG, the CDBG um program staff

22:06let them know, you know, prevailing

22:07wage, that's all that that's understood

22:10with CDBG. But then they got the CPA

22:13money and then we had to let them know

22:15because you have that CDBG funding that

22:18triggers everything else that goes along

22:21with CDBG. So they're go they're they

22:23had to prepare bid documents.

22:25>> They're worried that costs may come in

22:27higher because now prevailing wage. Um

22:30so I know they've already got their bid

22:32documents for CDBG and they're working

22:34on ours. But that was the hold up with

22:36that. Is there a chance, Susan, that

22:38they end up coming back to us in round

22:40three to say we don't have enough money

22:42because of the prevailing wage

22:43provision?

22:44>> It's it's possible. I'm waiting on the

22:46budget to see how prevailing wage

22:49affects

22:50all the work that needs to be done, but

22:53that is that is possible.

22:55>> And the Goldsbury Trail.

22:58>> Um

22:59>> if I if I can just on that that first

23:01update as well. Um just a a question

23:04kind of related I guess related to that

23:06too. You mentioned like the the question

23:08about trying to combine the agreements.

23:11Um my only concern with that for any of

23:13the projects regardless of what kind of

23:15m you know multiple agreements might

23:16exist is again the aspect that I'm

23:19rather adamant about that I want

23:21clawback provisions on any of the CPA

23:23items that we're pushing forward and I

23:25don't know if other groups or other

23:27agreements will permit or allow that

23:30type of language. So, we may need to be

23:31mindful about keeping these agreements

23:33separate to make sure that language is

23:34there.

23:35>> Yes, this it's definitely going to be

23:37separate. And the good thing about this

23:40project is this land already has a

23:43conservation restriction on it for

23:46recreational.

23:47>> You're talking the Jenkins?

23:48>> Yes.

23:48>> Okay.

23:49>> Yeah.

23:50>> Um the WPC BDC gang over there at

23:54Goldsbury,

23:56I I know they were moving on this.

23:57What's is there a holdup over there,

23:59Paul?

24:01Uh, Mim. So, in this one, we're it's

24:03basically as it the status is as it

24:05reads. We're just waiting for additional

24:06documentation to finalize everything.

24:08>> So, we'll we can send something over to

24:10Craig and say

24:12>> I'm going to see them tomorrow. I'll ask

24:13him again.

24:14>> Terrific. Um, and how's Nico doing?

24:16What's going on at the city clerk's

24:17office?

24:18>> So, when I had talked to him, he had let

24:20me know that the quote they had gotten

24:22had come in way over this amount. So, he

24:25was going out for another quote. in in

24:29all honesty, I haven't circled back.

24:31I've been working on the other ones. But

24:34>> with regard to that one, as I recall,

24:36they had come in with a a larger a much

24:39larger amount. I want to say about

24:41$270,000

24:43and that we allocated a portion of it.

24:46And so even that is I to me it's just a

24:49part of what eventually I think they'll

24:52be coming back to us to ask for more

24:54funds and that type of thing.

24:56So I do need to circle back though.

24:57>> It's always a danger at the end. As you

24:59recall, at the end, we're always trying

25:01when we have a little bit of money left

25:02at the end. We've tried to kind of give

25:04partials to try to give everybody a

25:07little something. And there's the danger

25:09with partials is that they don't have

25:11the rest of the money to do it. So, um,

25:15we may learn that as a hard lesson down

25:17the road. But, um, what's going on at

25:19Cahill? That's a small amount.

25:20>> Kahill, they're all volunteers. They've

25:22been a little hard to get a hold of.

25:24I've talked to a few people. Um they

25:26they do know what they need

25:30and they said they would be getting it

25:32to me.

25:33>> Um I happened to see the uh person who

25:35came and gave the presentation a couple

25:37of years ago and I said, "How's things

25:40going?" And he said, "I'm out of the

25:41picture."

25:42>> Yes. When I emailed him,

25:44>> I think that's probably they've got a

25:45leadership problem down.

25:46>> Yeah. So that was the first hold up. I

25:48had emailed him and then it took a while

25:50for him to um steer me to towards

25:53someone else and then there was someone

25:55else and it's just been

25:57>> okay.

25:58>> I have a draft ready so as soon as I get

26:00their stuff we can go.

26:02>> Um Veterans Inc.

26:05>> Okay.

26:07So

26:09you can see your packet um for

26:12information on that. But there

26:15as you can see in the first for their

26:18first um application their request was

26:20for the rehabilitation restoration of

26:23the roof and masonry work. They wanted

26:25to repoint um fix the facade

26:29uh the chimneys the roof um and

26:32basically this was to prevent ongoing

26:33water damage. Um and they requested

26:36$786,980.

26:40They were awarded $273,25

26:45to do part of this work. They then came

26:48back for round two and they applied for

26:51489 O2 to complete the masonry work. Um

26:56and they were awarded

26:59that entire amount bring their total

27:01funding for both cycles to 762045.

27:05When we met with them, we discussed the

27:07grant agreement, made sure they

27:10understood that because of that much

27:12money, CPA funding required a perpetual

27:15um um preservation restriction. they

27:19went back. They they have a preservation

27:23covenant and they felt that that was

27:25enough

27:27to protect the building, but when our

27:29historic preservation manager contacted

27:31the state, um she was told that

27:36it was actually not enough um protection

27:41for the building and that we should get

27:42a preservation restriction. Um Veterans,

27:46Inc. doesn't want to have a preservation

27:49restriction. They feel like it would

27:51make

27:53applying to do more work more honorous

27:55for them, even though we tried to

27:56explain that it's kind of the same

27:58paperwork. So, basically what they're

28:00asking to do, um, they're requesting to

28:04combine their grants and lower their

28:08funding amount to 249,999

28:12to avoid a preservation restriction.

28:15But we spoke to the coalition. They

28:17can't combine them. So basically what

28:20they would what you could vote for them

28:22to be able to do would be to um

28:28just go off the first

28:30>> round one where we where we had granted

28:34them $273,000.

28:37Lower that amount.

28:40>> Yep. So basically that's what they're

28:42asking.

28:43>> And withdraw the second.

28:44>> And withdraw the second. So they want to

28:46lower it so they don't get a

28:47preservation restriction.

28:48>> Shaking my head, but I get it.

28:50>> Yeah.

28:51>> Um Eric, I sense you have something

28:53you'd like to add on this one.

28:57>> You're you're reading my mind from afar.

28:59Um, I I will admit this this gives me

29:03some concerns that quite frankly the

29:06request to to lower the funds to simply

29:09avoid the conservation restriction uh

29:14seems a little outside of the spirit of

29:16the CPA to me. Um, quite quite frankly,

29:19you know, again, if you're applying

29:21under a specific category, it seems to

29:22me you should be coming in understanding

29:24that there are requirements attached to

29:26that. And frankly, this is a beautiful

29:28historic building that part of my

29:30interest in voting to push forward this

29:32project is to preserve that building.

29:36And it seems to me to say, well, we have

29:39a covenant that doesn't necessarily bind

29:41them very much from, you know, changing

29:44anything or doing a lot. Um,

29:48it's rather concerning to me. And and I

29:50would also say that I if I'm correct me

29:53if I'm wrong um uh from the city, we

29:57once this has gone through, if we want

29:58to change it, we'd have to vote to

30:00change all of this and then it would

30:03have to go back to city council to then

30:04approve it again.

30:07>> Uh through the chair, no, because

30:09they're not they're not trying to change

30:12the scope in an application. They're

30:13just withdrawing a application in the

30:16second round and we would only allow

30:18them to do what was um proposed in the

30:22application for the first round.

30:24>> Okay. So, I guess the the question I

30:26would have is, you know, this is another

30:28group that came to us twice because they

30:31wanted the funds to do all of the roof.

30:34Um and now they're basically saying,

30:35well, we were willing to only do part of

30:38the roof. We'll withdraw our other

30:39applications so we don't have to get

30:40this agreement. there's nothing to

30:43prevent them from coming back later to

30:44say, "Well, now we want to do the other,

30:46you know, other portion of the roof and

30:48even make it smaller to try and again

30:50continue to avoid this." This this gives

30:52me great concern and I'd be interested

30:54to hear how other members of the

30:55committee feel about this. I I for one

30:59feel like it's outside the spirit of

31:01what the CPA is intended to do by trying

31:03to skirt the preservation restriction.

31:07>> So So Mr. Chairman, if I can just add

31:09one comment um to Mr. Stratton's um

31:12remark. So, and I understand his

31:14concerns, but just one thing to note. If

31:16they do come back and we explain that to

31:18them, basically, if they request funding

31:21for one penny, that trig is the

31:24perpetual restriction because it's all

31:27accumulative. So,

31:28>> yeah, we talked about that. They said

31:29they would not come back because they

31:31don't want

31:32>> Yeah, I you know, I guess Eric, I I

31:34share I mean, when I first started

31:36hearing this, you know, it's kind of

31:38>> a dollar, not a penny. Sorry. You know,

31:40it's it's I got it. It's it's you know,

31:42this makes you shake your head a little

31:44bit.

31:45>> They don't make pennies anymore.

31:47>> Yeah.

31:49>> Um,

31:51you know,

31:54it it's it's you're right, this isn't in

31:56the spirit of it. It also, frankly, we

31:59would have probably looked at other

32:00projects in in the second round. Um, so

32:05it's not a great look. Um, it's not, you

32:08know, You know, all kidding aside,

32:10shaking the head, you it's not a great

32:13look. But at the end of the day,

32:17the scope of what this applicant does

32:20obviously had an impact on the

32:22committee. His choice to give money.

32:24They have a good organization that does

32:26good work for a part of our community

32:29that is in need. Um the project in the

32:32historical building is something we

32:34cared about. If they came to us and

32:36asked us for $249,999,

32:39would we have said no? Obviously, the

32:41answer is no. We would have given it to

32:43them since we gave them 273 and 489. So,

32:46while I may not love the squirt around,

32:49we would, you know, my feeling is given

32:51that we, you know, said yes twice to

32:55larger amounts, we would have certainly

32:56said yes. So, as much as I think this is

32:59not a great look and it's also not I

33:03don't get it to be honest with you. Um,

33:05you know, I would urge us to approve the

33:08249999.

33:10Other committee's members thoughts. Um,

33:14so I was thinking was the preservation

33:17restriction on the application form and

33:19I saw a uh sample of the application

33:22form in the uh annual update and it does

33:26list about a conservation restriction in

33:30the form. So I think they knew that

33:32upfront. I personally don't understand

33:35why they have such a problem. The worst

33:37case scenario to me is the clawback that

33:39they have to give the money back. Uh why

33:42they have a problem with that, I don't

33:44know. I personally was involved with a

33:46grant from the state for preservation at

33:49the uh school that I worked for and um

33:52that was 30 some odd years ago. It was

33:54about $30,000. I think this with

33:56inflation and everything else like that,

33:58you could give the money back and it's

34:00not a lot more affordable now. So I

34:02personally don't understand why they

34:04have such an objection.

34:05>> I don't think any of us get a frank.

34:07>> Yeah.

34:09So

34:11any other thoughts?

34:14So

34:14>> I guess one of the other questions is is

34:16what act Oh sorry please Marissa go

34:18ahead.

34:20>> Um I don't know if this is um

34:24truly the re like if they are saying

34:26like they don't want to go through the

34:28paperwork or something. I can understand

34:31that feeling like daunting, especially

34:34to a nonprofit or somebody who like

34:36might not be familiar with uh

34:38restrictions like this. If that's like

34:40truly the case, is there somebody that

34:43can help them

34:45>> figure that out or is it just like an

34:48excuse for them not wanting to do it for

34:49another? I think Susan can tell you and

34:51I'm going to turn it to her that

34:53>> the city has made every effort to try to

34:58I think as your colleagues on this

35:00committee are all kind of shaking their

35:02head a little bit of like what is this?

35:04But um Susan, why don't you talk about

35:06how you've worked with them

35:07>> through the chair? Um, I had Michelle

35:10JSON, a historic preservation manager,

35:14go through with them exactly what would

35:17change, which I think it was one form

35:21um, and explaining that they would have

35:24to fill out the same forms they did

35:26whether they have the preservation

35:27restriction or not with the exception of

35:29this one form. So, it's it's not um much

35:33more honorous. So, we're not really sure

35:36why

35:38Why?

35:39>> It's it's it's you know I think Marissa

35:42Dancy you know I think city's done all

35:45they can with this. I think we have in

35:47front of us a couple options here which

35:49is regardless of whether we think this

35:52is makes a lot of sense to us is either

35:55to

35:57you know approve the 249999

36:00or pull the whole thing back. But I I

36:02would worry about what message that

36:04would send. So,

36:07I think we're going to need a motion of

36:09some sort here.

36:10>> I I had a question on this actually,

36:13too. Um, is this something we need to

36:15act on this evening or is this something

36:17where we could request that they come

36:19and speak to the committee um and answer

36:21questions directly. Um, it seems that,

36:24you know, if they have such a concern

36:25about this that that seems like a

36:26reasonable ask to say, "Great, come talk

36:29to us about it. Could we we have

36:30concerns and questions about this?"

36:32I I guess my only question is have has

36:35the city has had this discussion in

36:38multiple occasions my my understanding

36:40is and I just don't know what the the

36:44goal of bringing them in front of the

36:46committee in public when they've had

36:47this discussion with city administration

36:49staff over and over. Um do you guys have

36:52any thoughts on this?

36:56>> Um I guess I would Mr. Chairman, I guess

36:58I'd say I mean you're correct that we've

37:01we've had phone calls. We've had emails.

37:03We had a meeting. We walked them through

37:05the process. Um

37:08it we didn't hear from them for a while.

37:10They followed up with a letter. We

37:11responded to the letter.

37:13>> Um there was additional emails. We've

37:16tried to work with them and basically

37:18tried to convince them to take the,

37:21>> you know, the full amount for two rounds

37:23of funding, saying that it's in the long

37:26run, it it's, you know, beneficial for

37:27you to take this. Nothing's changing.

37:29Um, they're just not comfortable with

37:31doing that. Um, I don't know what else

37:34really could be said at this point

37:38except for them to come in and just

37:39explain their concern about the um the,

37:42you know, petrol restriction. I'd

37:44rather, you know, for me, I'd rather

37:47them send us a note or something. I

37:49don't know that we gain a lot by having

37:50a very public discussion on this, but

37:53obviously whatever the committee wants

37:55to do on this. Um, but I I look at this

37:59as they asked us for 700 and something

38:01thousand. We offered them 700 and

38:03something thousand. Now they're telling

38:04us they'd rather prefer 249,000.

38:07That puts us, frankly, as much as I

38:10shaking my head about this, it gives us

38:12an additional $400,000 to play with in

38:14the next round and look for somebody who

38:16actually wants it.

38:18>> So, the the followup question I guess

38:20I'd have about that too is um you said

38:23that basically if they were to request

38:24another dollar at any point moving

38:27forward that essentially they they

38:29couldn't without putting on the

38:31conservation restriction. Is that

38:32correct?

38:32>> Exactly. Yes. Yep. And then the followup

38:35I guess I'd also have with this is that

38:37whatever agreement they're signing um

38:40would still include those clawback

38:42provisions that we've discussed where

38:44you know they cannot sell this building

38:47um for I think we had sort of said you

38:49know typically 10 years or they're given

38:51the money back. Um is that also correct?

38:54>> That's correct.

38:56>> So can we do a little math? I know it's

38:59always our specialty here at the CPA is

39:01math. Yeah. So we know 489,020.04

39:08is the second award and then it's

39:11273,00025

39:13minus $24999.

39:15So, can we come up with what what the

39:17actual is coming back to us here if we

39:19vote the $24999 so that we can then make

39:23a combined motion to approve an award

39:26for $249.99

39:28and to put the remaining amount into the

39:32third round funding. Does that make

39:35sense,

39:38Eric? Does that make sense to you?

39:39Marissa, make sense, Anthony?

39:44That made sense to me.

39:46>> So,

39:46>> yes, sir.

39:48>> Wow.

39:49>> That amount is $512,464.

39:56>> 512,

39:58>> $464.

40:01>> So,

40:05you ready?

40:06>> Sure. So,

40:07>> um I'd like to make a motion that uh we

40:10uh accept the changes uh that are

40:12requested by Veterans Inc. for u for a

40:16smaller amount of in the range of

40:19$249,000

40:20and that the committee puts in back into

40:23the fund $512,464

40:27>> for round three.

40:28>> For round three,

40:29>> do I have a second?

40:30>> Second.

40:31>> It was the only uh excuse Mr. Chairman,

40:33I believe Mr. Calh said 249,000 rather

40:36than $24999

40:39>> unless you wanted it at 249.

40:40>> I didn't put in the the latter part.

40:42>> If you want to that's fine.

40:43>> That's fine.

40:44>> 9999499.

40:46>> It's up to you.

40:48>> Okay. So, uh discussion on the motion

40:53hearing none. All those in favor say I.

40:55I.

40:55>> Iain because I wasn't.

40:57>> Yes. I'll go I'm gonna go uh online.

41:01Marissa,

41:04>> thank you.

41:05>> I I will I will vote in support. Um

41:09although again, you know, my concerns

41:11have been voiced.

41:12>> All right. So, Anthony, you good?

41:15>> Yes.

41:16>> So, we are all those opposed.

41:20Any abstensions?

41:22>> So, we will be let the recorded vote be

41:25I vote I uh six in affirmative with none

41:28in the negative and one abstension.

41:31Okay, next up is

41:36um an overview of the request. So we

41:39just did that request. So number four,

41:42overview of the 2026. I'm going to take

41:44collectively four and six together. So

41:48let's do overview of the 26 fall

41:51application changes and an overview of

41:53the 26 community preservation plan

41:56annual update. Does that make sense,

41:57Susan?

41:59>> Yes. actually Paul's.

42:00>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I'm

42:02going to I'm going to start and let

42:04Susan jump in. She can kick me under the

42:07table if I say something that's

42:08inaccurate.

42:09>> Can we watch that? Give us Can you give

42:10us a little warning so we can all cheer

42:12when we do this?

42:14>> Um, so I wanted I wanted to start and

42:16just just recognize Miss Ellie. She did

42:19a phenomenal job on this update. Um so

42:22basically she took the plan that Miss

42:25Burmeister did which was obviously a

42:27great plan as well and as a requirement

42:29of the CPA um it needs to be updated

42:33every year and um she uh looked at the

42:37original plan um kind of reviewed what

42:40was the projects that were funded some

42:42of the things we've heard a lot of the

42:43items we discussed last April have now

42:46been um added to this update and I

42:50realiz iz that everybody just got this I

42:53think yesterday morning. So, I'm going

42:55to take the opportunity to kind of walk

42:57everyone through it. So, please ask

43:00questions. Um if you have any concerns,

43:02let us know. Um you'll see as we go

43:05through this that it also has um the

43:08dates for the upcoming cycle that we'd

43:10like everyone to just kind of confirm

43:12that we're actually followed last year's

43:13cycle and um and other um new um

43:19regulations I guess or requirements as

43:21well as descriptions and um a funding

43:25opportunity and and historic resources

43:27for housing. So, um, if you first jump

43:31to

43:33page 11,

43:36you'll see that it starts with chapter 2

43:38where we provide the activity summary

43:40for 2025. A lot of that is um, a lot of

43:45the information that Miss Daily just

43:47went over where it lists the projects

43:49and the funding award. The difference in

43:50our presentation earlier was it it gives

43:52the current status, but this is a recap

43:54of the funding and a breakdown of um all

43:58of the awards by category, including a

44:01list of the projects that were funded

44:03through the affordable housing trust

44:05fund. And then jumping to

44:10page

44:12I wasn't going to go through the whole

44:13thing. So, but jumping to page 27.

44:18Um this has the preservation plan

44:23updates that we had talked about last

44:26April. Um the first one is that

44:29religious buildings will be eligible to

44:31receive CPA funding for exterior

44:33preservation restor restoration only.

44:36However, the CPP staff will review any

44:39multi-purpose religious building seeking

44:41funding for interior work prior to

44:43notifying the CPC. So this goes back to

44:46Mr. Stratton's example of if if a

44:48religious um organization or building is

44:52also serving as some type of shelter and

44:54it's in need of some type of um you know

44:58upgrades of heating system or something

45:00that is um holding the the uh the

45:04building back from being utilized as a

45:07shelter. They could potentially seek

45:08funding. Those would be looked at on a

45:11case-byase basis as well by the uh by

45:14the city staff before presenting them to

45:16the committee. The next one is um

45:21that the

45:23so let me back up a little bit on this

45:26community housing funding um and

45:28actually we need to change that the the

45:30um

45:32historic resources right

45:34so let me back up. So on page 25 and Mr.

45:37Caroline had a question about this

45:38earlier. Um,

45:41>> under the current uh community

45:44preservation act, funding cannot be used

45:47to restore or rehabilitate housing that

45:49serves lower to moderate income

45:51individuals or families unless the

45:53housing was originally acquired or

45:55created with CPA funds. That's on the

45:57top of page 25. That is under the

46:00community housing category. So, as you

46:03know, right now with um under the

46:06community housing category, we're

46:07providing funding to the affordable

46:09housing trust fund that they are um

46:12reviewing and selecting projects that

46:14are creating new housing, affordable

46:18housing units. Um what the committee

46:21talked about last April based on some um

46:27interest in the community seeking

46:29funding.

46:30>> That's not here.

46:31>> That's not it. is to um under the

46:35historic resources category be able to

46:39get CPA funding to um renovate historic

46:46um owner occupied

46:48units or houses that will provide

46:51affordable um rental units. So in that

46:55case through historic resources we will

46:57be able to give them CPA funding and

47:00again it's going to be multifamily owner

47:02occupied historic houses or buildings

47:05that providing affordable housing. Um

47:08and with that funding we would um have a

47:13historic preservation restriction, an

47:16affordable housing restriction as well

47:18as the clawback clause. So that's

47:20something that um we touch on later in

47:22here. Um and in those cases,

47:26um if they are coming forward seeking

47:29those renovation dollars for historic

47:31houses or buildings, we before we make

47:34them eligible for the historic resource

47:36category, they would have to be that we

47:39would speak to the housing division to

47:41see if they have any existing funding

47:43through their programs that could pay

47:46for that that um rehabilitation rather

47:49than use the CPA funding because we

47:51don't want to duplicate um the city's

47:53already existing housing programs. So,

47:55does that make sense? Was that Oh, okay.

47:58>> Okay, that makes sense. That works.

48:02>> Okay, great.

48:03>> Yep.

48:03>> All right. So, um and then the CPP staff

48:09will review whether applicants are

48:10current on their taxes and water so

48:12bills before allowing them to move

48:14forward with the submitting an

48:15application. And in addition, after they

48:18submit the application, if the committee

48:20approves a project prior to executing an

48:23agreement, we will check again to make

48:25sure they're current on the on the real

48:28estate taxes as well as water and so

48:30bills. And then the last one that um is

48:33now part of the plan is we've changed

48:36the what was called that emergency

48:38application to an out of cycle

48:40application where um if somebody has

48:45interest in trying to secure the CPA

48:47funding for it could be for the purchase

48:51of lands or um say there's a some type

48:56of like a pipe burst or something else

48:58that occurs in historic building that

49:00could damage that building or property

49:02long term. They could approach um the

49:05city staff about seeking funding through

49:08this autocycle application and and city

49:11staff would review that and vet it

49:12before submitting any recommendations or

49:15not recommendations about submitting any

49:16applications to the committee.

49:20>> And then Paul before you turn the page.

49:22>> Yes. On uh page 27, we're going to need

49:26to amend

49:28number uh chapter 7 uh subsection three.

49:33We're going to need to add how much

49:35Frank? 512,000

49:37or whatever the heck that number was.

49:40um to that

49:41>> 12464

49:42>> to the that to the addition of 3.53944

49:50>> work for you guys.

49:52>> Yeah.

49:52>> Okay. Sorry Paul. That's fine.

49:59>> And then M. Jim, if I can just ask a

50:01question for the committee. So that's

50:03for the the money from the Veterans Inc.

50:06>> Yes.

50:06>> project. the other dollars like we had

50:08talked about for example Green Hill Park

50:10that are not doing the the litter boxes

50:12and other funding. Should we just in

50:14those smaller cases just put them into

50:16the reserve?

50:17>> I guess I don't know where else we would

50:19put them. I guess that's where we go.

50:21The $4,000 and whatever else there is

50:22out there

50:23>> and then we can look at that at a future

50:25date as far as putting in maybe for the

50:27following round.

50:27>> Yeah. What was it like $900 in the Green

50:29Hill thing?

50:30>> Yeah. But there could be other projects

50:31as well that could come in on the

50:32budget. It could be like an ongoing

50:33thing. So

50:34>> Okay.

50:35>> Okay.

50:37Um

50:39>> obviously when you do that you on the

50:41next agenda you'll note the the

50:42committee that the the reversion of puns

50:46>> I'm sorry Mr.

50:47>> on the as you as that happens on a

50:50rolling basis just make a note to put on

50:52the next agenda that there was

50:54>> the reversion from a certain specific

50:56item.

50:57>> Okay. And then um let me actually sign

51:00on page number. So if you So that that's

51:04all I was going to cover on the the

51:06actual plan update and now I'm going to

51:08start with appendix A on the application

51:10guidance. So I don't know if anybody had

51:11any questions at the first 32 pages.

51:14>> So I know we have two votes. Do you want

51:17us to take them both together at the end

51:19or do you want us to is is this do we

51:22need to take have a discussion on the

51:25plan right now and then vote that and

51:28then have a discussion on the

51:29application and vote that? What is the

51:30process the city would like us to take?

51:32>> Um, Mr. Chairman, you're right. It will

51:34be two different votes, but I think

51:35maybe we should wait in case the

51:37guidance, you know, we start talking

51:40about an item that all of a sudden can

51:42change the actual plan update.

51:45>> Um,

51:45>> so the application process,

51:47>> yes. So on the application guidance,

51:51if you go to the fourth page,

51:54>> the fourth page,

51:54>> there's a under t for table two, it's at

51:57the top of the fourth page.

51:58>> Looks like this here.

52:00>> Oh, sorry. There's no page numbers on

52:02the in the uh guidance.

52:05>> Okay, gotcha.

52:07>> Table two.

52:08So, um, can I put Oh, yes.

52:11>> So, Miss Dailyaly, um, looked at this

52:14table and to be honest, it was a little

52:17the original one was a little bit

52:18confusing that was in the plan. So, we

52:21tried to change it a little bit by

52:24making it clear, more clear on the

52:28actual um, restriction terms as well as

52:31the clawback clause um, length. And we

52:35also change.

52:37>> Hey Paul, can you hold on one second?

52:38>> I want to make sure that Marissa, Eric,

52:40and Anthony are where we all are on the

52:43same document.

52:45>> Are you guys good where what what chart

52:48we're talking about on what page?

52:51>> Yes, I'm good.

52:52>> Okay, great.

52:53>> I'm looking at table two.

52:54>> Great. Sure. Great. So and then we also

52:57u made it a little bit more clear on the

53:00funding amounts or the the funding

53:02trigger amounts that um will require

53:05which restriction and which length of

53:07the clawback clause. So for example,

53:09less than 1999 and then it jumps to

53:12200,000 to 499,999

53:16and then the greater than

53:20and that's under the building structure

53:22and property and then um the vessel

53:24document and artifact that that say the

53:27same. Correct.

53:28>> Um little lowered

53:29>> a little lower

53:30>> for the clawback.

53:31>> Yeah. Yeah.

53:34So, it's we made it clearer and we

53:36believe we made it stronger as far as

53:38the ability to do restrictions and

53:40clawback

53:41>> at a lower amount.

53:42>> Terrific.

53:43>> Okay. And then the next page, sorry, my

53:47font's different than what you guys are

53:48looking at, but the next page, the

53:51table, um, we added a little bit more,

53:54um, detailed breakdown between the

53:56standard application,

53:58uh, the out of cycle application, and

54:00then the affordable housing trust fund

54:02application. And those are then

54:04described in more detail in the

54:06following narrative.

54:12Yeah, you can see in that first

54:13paragraph below that table where we um

54:17indicate that applicants looking to

54:19rehabilitate res preserve historic

54:21multif family home may use that standard

54:24application track which would be again

54:25under that historic resource category

54:27not community housing and we also put

54:30that requirement that um the home must

54:33be own the historic home must be owner

54:35occupied tenants must be at or below 80%

54:38AMI and um and the rents This must be

54:41affordable.

54:44In AM, I'm sorry. AMI is the area medium

54:46income.

54:49All right.

54:51So, we the reason we did this is as Mr.

54:53Chairman, as you were saying at the

54:54beginning of the meeting, over the last

54:56uh the first two rounds, we had a couple

54:58individuals coming in for looking for

55:00funding for um either market rate

55:03housing, single family home, or um or um

55:07really one didn't really have plans at

55:10that time, so we couldn't commit to

55:11anything. So,

55:14and then this is going to be tough. Um,

55:18so if you flip through another one, two,

55:22three, four, five pages under step seven

55:27where it says reporting and monitoring,

55:30the top of the page is step six, grant

55:32agreements.

55:34Is everyone good with that?

55:37Um, so under step seven, reporting and

55:39monitoring where it says item five,

55:41standard application and funding

55:43timeline. So, Miss Dailyy updated the

55:46date. Why am I speaking for you, by the

55:47way? So, uh she updated all of the all

55:52of the dates um and the funding

55:54timeline. So, again, it follows the

55:57similar schedule as last year. We're

55:58trying to kind of keep it the same. So,

56:01we we get in that cycle and and the

56:03general public's aware of the cycle,

56:04too, as we move forward. So, if anybody

56:07has any questions on that, um

56:12>> this is Marissa. So, I have a clarifying

56:13question about the reporting

56:15requirement.

56:17Um,

56:18is there a standardized reporting form

56:21that all the grantees use so that we're

56:24getting like similar like consistent

56:26quality and information or is it like

56:29they submit however they want to do the

56:32report?

56:33>> Uh, no, good question through chair.

56:34There is a standard form. It's actually

56:36included in every every um agreement,

56:38every contract

56:40they get.

56:40>> Okay, awesome. Thank you.

56:43And then

56:46you want to take it from

56:48>> the last one.

56:49>> I have a question as well.

56:51>> Sure.

56:53>> Sorry. Sure.

56:53>> Uh, so my question Oh, not sorry. Not

56:56not worry. I just want to make sure did

56:58that address Marissa's question.

57:01>> Yes. I just couldn't remember if it was

57:03standardized.

57:04>> No, no sweat. I just I just wanted to

57:05make sure there wasn't something else we

57:07were kind of looking for or addressing

57:08on there. Um the question I guess I'd

57:10have with this too is um with regards to

57:12the different steps and the reporting

57:14and the updates um is there any kind of

57:17uh you know and forgive me I'm sort of

57:19trying to balance like you know reading

57:21through the you know like you know

57:22rereading through the document to try

57:23and find this and I just don't recall.

57:25Um can you remind me is there something

57:27in there regarding you know if they

57:29don't use the funds within a certain

57:30period of time that we they may get

57:32rescended um because again this kind of

57:35draws back to my concern that you know I

57:37want to make sure these projects are

57:38moving forward and that there are not

57:40just you know people sitting on them

57:42saying oh hey we secured secured this

57:45money it's sitting there but not

57:47actually using it and putting into what

57:48they need to do and I realize that that

57:51can vary on a lot of different factors

57:52including how quickly the city can get

57:54the grants through and and out. But I'm

57:56curious if uh there there's, you know,

57:59language in there that kind of maybe

58:02expresses that that is a possibility.

58:04>> Eric, I know in the first two rounds we

58:06were hesitant to do that given the the

58:09issues with contracts getting out. Um

58:13you know, the

58:15I mean, we still don't have all

58:17contracts out, so I'm I'm a little

58:19hesitant. I mean, I guess the question,

58:21what's the city's thinking on this at

58:23this point?

58:23>> Yeah. So So, Mr. chairman that what your

58:25comments are accurate. So, um we

58:28originally were hesitant and then what

58:29we did is because those contracts did

58:32take a long time to to get out. We um

58:35looked at the original drafts and then

58:38looked at the date and then said okay it

58:40was like for example the first round I

58:42think they were approved by city council

58:44in what June or July of 20

58:48>> 25. So we looked at that and said okay

58:51we're only signing it now what based on

58:53that on the you know specific project

58:56what's a realistic timeline. So in the

58:58contract we put an expiration date or a

59:00deadline of say 12 months 18 months 24

59:03months depending on the project but most

59:05of them probably in that 12 to 18 month

59:07range from signing the contract. Yeah, I

59:10I I get Eric. I get the the frustration

59:14and I think we all shared a little bit

59:15that this has gone slower than I think

59:18any of us originally thought. Um it's

59:21hard to penalize applicants until this

59:25process is seamless as it moves through

59:26the city. Yeah,

59:28>> I guess what I'm getting at with that is

59:30maybe maybe just thinking of once the

59:32contract is signed um you know obviously

59:35if it's if it's a delay on our end like

59:37on the city's end I I don't want to

59:39penalize anyone for that. Um I I think

59:41perhaps you know having that if it is 12

59:43months or 18 months that that's

59:45perfectly sufficient by me even saying

59:48hey it's this much and that it can be

59:50extended but you know again give us give

59:54us a reason why you want to get it

59:56extended if it's just oh we haven't had

59:58time to do it that's that's not

1:00:00sufficient in my opinion when we're

1:00:02giving people you know a quarter of a

1:00:04million dollars for a project. Um, you

1:00:06know, if there's a genuine reason of,

1:00:07hey, we have to wait for the spring and,

1:00:10you know, then then we had to get the

1:00:13contractor to come out and do it, that

1:00:14totally makes sense to me. I just, you

1:00:16know, and and again, realistic timelines

1:00:18on this, you know, I I get construction

1:00:19projects can take a long time. I just

1:00:21want to make sure that things are not uh

1:00:23being artificially held up

1:00:26>> through the chair. I I did want to say

1:00:28that um we do have a termination clause

1:00:31in the contracts and one of the things

1:00:35that um a contract can be terminated for

1:00:37is if they're not doing work in a timely

1:00:40fashion. So it is in the in the um

1:00:44contracts.

1:00:45>> Terrific. Um and then just want to point

1:00:47out at the bottom of that same page

1:00:49where it was step seven reporting and

1:00:51monitoring um you'll see section six out

1:00:54of cycle application step. So we

1:00:57provided some narrative on that process

1:01:00um which I um gave an overview a few

1:01:03minutes ago. Um and then if you flip two

1:01:08pages over

1:01:10to on the top of page it says uh section

1:01:13one project summary. So this is the

1:01:15actual questions and the

1:01:16pre-application.

1:01:19>> Where are you?

1:01:20>> Says pre-application.

1:01:23So, um, so here we were with the dates

1:01:26and then one page over.

1:01:28>> So, it's, uh, says appendix A

1:01:30pre-application form questions and then

1:01:32section one project summary.

1:01:35>> Okay, everybody good? Oh, Mr. Strap, you

1:01:38have a question.

1:01:41>> Got it.

1:01:45Eric,

1:01:49>> I'm sorry. Could you repeat that kindly?

1:01:52Did you have a question, Eric?

1:01:56>> No, I think I just forgot to lower my

1:01:58hand.

1:01:59>> Okay, no problem. Um, so again, in this

1:02:02for the uh in the pre section one

1:02:05project summary, you'll see number five

1:02:07that again we're um asking them to make

1:02:11to confirm they're current on all taxes

1:02:13and water and so bills. And then number

1:02:17seven, um this was talked about by the

1:02:20committee as well as the parks

1:02:22department. Just um if the if their

1:02:25project involves doing something on city

1:02:27parkland, um we just ask that they

1:02:30provide written permission by the

1:02:32property owner for submission of this

1:02:33application. Um, for example, the city

1:02:37parkland would be something from from

1:02:39Rob Antonelli or someone on his team

1:02:41saying that they're aware of the project

1:02:42and approve of it before submitting.

1:02:45>> So, that's that's a it's a sizable So,

1:02:49let's let's just talk about that for a

1:02:50second. So, we've had multiple whether

1:02:54it be the Kendrick projects, the the

1:02:57street hockey project. So, do they need

1:03:00to consult with the Department of Parks

1:03:03and Recreation or do they need approval

1:03:05by the parks?

1:03:07>> I would sh Miss Miss Dailyy said under

1:03:10her breath both. I would uh I would

1:03:13agree with both. So initially they need

1:03:15to get uh approval to submit and then

1:03:19with those projects you mentioned what

1:03:21we've done is after they were approved

1:03:23by the committee even before we um

1:03:26executed any grant agreements we had a

1:03:29meeting with the project applicants and

1:03:32a project manager from the parks

1:03:33department to go over everything that

1:03:36the parks department is going to need

1:03:37for that project. Um and and then we've

1:03:41worked out um I guess the logistics for

1:03:45um project oversight which will be Miss

1:03:47Daily and and the project manager for

1:03:49parks going to to review the the ongoing

1:03:52construction and and making sure that

1:03:54you know all permits and paperwork are

1:03:56in place.

1:03:59>> Okay. U any questions, thoughts?

1:04:03Waiting for the parks representative.

1:04:05>> I I support that from a parks Yeah, from

1:04:07a parks perspective. I support that and

1:04:08and generally we have had people coming

1:04:10to the parks department uh seeking sort

1:04:13of you know review or approval for these

1:04:15and some of these projects too have come

1:04:16from parks where they're asking parks to

1:04:20do something but unfortunately parks

1:04:21just simply doesn't have the funding. So

1:04:22I would absolutely support you know

1:04:24having this kind of go to to parks for

1:04:26review and sign off uh through uh

1:04:29commissioner Antonelli.

1:04:30>> Sure.

1:04:32I have a question and maybe Eric you

1:04:34might know more about this than me. Um,

1:04:37but based on my experience with parks

1:04:40just as like a person asking for

1:04:43assistance with things, my only concern

1:04:46with this and I don't know if there's

1:04:50like a way around this really because I

1:04:51also agree that like parks should be on

1:04:53board for projects happening in in

1:04:55parks. um is that they seem really

1:04:58capacity strapped and I would worry that

1:05:01good projects are going to them and they

1:05:03just like simply don't have the like

1:05:05manpower capacity to like support good

1:05:08projects. I don't know the solution to

1:05:11that, but I would hate to see projects

1:05:13getting turned down just because of

1:05:15that.

1:05:17So I think with some of that um some of

1:05:19the projects that have come through are

1:05:22things where um parks may not have the

1:05:24capacity to do it but they may be able

1:05:25to give the okay for someone else who is

1:05:28willing to or putting in the the effort

1:05:30or labor. Um so and we've seen this with

1:05:32projects before that have I think taken

1:05:34place on like uh you know Newton Hill or

1:05:36Greenh Hill Park where people are

1:05:37installing you know benches or you know

1:05:39building you know working on trail

1:05:40maintenance things like that. Um so they

1:05:42have a number of organizations that they

1:05:43currently do work with who help them uh

1:05:46in a number of different capacities in

1:05:48in parks. Um I don't think we've seen

1:05:51projects that have not sort of you know

1:05:54that that sort of have not happened

1:05:56because of uh you know parks not signing

1:06:00off on things going to CPC. Um if that

1:06:04makes sense. Um there are some

1:06:06limitations on the park side. people

1:06:07will come to them, you know, come come

1:06:08to our commission and ask for something

1:06:10and quite frankly, uh it it just may not

1:06:13be in the budget. Um and we usually

1:06:15advocate that they should go to city

1:06:17council and advocate for for for

1:06:20budgeting for for the you know uh more

1:06:23things that they want to see. But um we

1:06:25are seeing things coming this way now

1:06:27where there are projects that we want to

1:06:28see happen that um and I think a good

1:06:30example was the street hockey league um

1:06:32that you know for that particular

1:06:34project it it was a big ask parks

1:06:36department didn't have the funding to do

1:06:37it but fully supported it um and you

1:06:41know fortunately it was a project that

1:06:42you know we we on our side uh saw fit to

1:06:45approve as well

1:06:48>> or recommend that.

1:06:48>> That's great. Yeah. I wasn't sure what

1:06:49the vibe was over there if they were

1:06:51more of a

1:06:52>> generally deal with it or like if

1:06:54somebody

1:06:55>> Generally I think they are very

1:06:56supportive of this. Um usually it's more

1:06:59of a logistics question. Um you know in

1:07:02terms of what is it you want to do? Um

1:07:04you know if I said hey I want to put a

1:07:06you know butterfly garden here. Parks

1:07:08department might say yeah that's

1:07:10wetland. We can't put it there. Um but

1:07:13you know here's here's a here's a

1:07:14different location. which is why I think

1:07:15it's important to have some of the parks

1:07:17uh input on that so that they're making

1:07:19sure that those types of considerations

1:07:20are being taken into account.

1:07:22>> Terrific.

1:07:22>> Okay, awesome. That was my concern.

1:07:25>> Mr. Chairman, almost almost done going

1:07:27through here. So, um one, two, and now

1:07:30three pages

1:07:34starting on top of page starts with C

1:07:37just says no and then D I don't know.

1:07:41>> So, it says no if checked.

1:07:44Yep.

1:07:44>> Okay. Everybody there?

1:07:46>> So, in the middle of the page in in the

1:07:48red uh font, it's um

1:07:51>> again, we just talk about if you're

1:07:52applying for interior work and religious

1:07:54building, contact the CPP staff. And

1:07:56then

1:07:57>> Paul, can you hold up one second?

1:07:59>> The other thing we added,

1:08:00>> Paul, can you hold up one second?

1:08:01>> Oh, I'm sorry. So page before page

1:08:04before the end

1:08:06>> page.

1:08:13So go back one.

1:08:23>> Yeah. Take mine.

1:08:24>> Okay.

1:08:25>> Apologize. We'll have page numbers next

1:08:27time.

1:08:28>> Yeah. Um, so, uh, in the middle of the

1:08:32page in red font, uh, again, we just put

1:08:34if you're applying for interior work and

1:08:36religious building, contact CPP staff

1:08:38prior to filling out the application

1:08:40just to confirm that it's an eligible

1:08:42project. And then we added um that

1:08:46you'll be required to upload a hazardous

1:08:48building material survey to the

1:08:50application if they have one at that

1:08:52time. If not, they will need to submit

1:08:54one at a future date with the with the

1:08:56full application just to make sure that

1:08:59we're not going to be funding a project

1:09:00that could be um disturbing or removing

1:09:04any type of hazardous building materials

1:09:05without going through the proper

1:09:07process.

1:09:09And

1:09:12um all right, this might get a little

1:09:14bit easier. So, one, two, three, four

1:09:17pages later, it starts with number nine

1:09:19up top.

1:09:23this one just a close

1:09:26um we just again confirm that um we want

1:09:31to highlight that three quotes required

1:09:32for all the CPA projects and again we

1:09:34talk about the has this building

1:09:36material survey and that is it

1:09:41>> sure as far as what I wanted to

1:09:42highlight and I'm not sure if anybody

1:09:43has any questions or comments concerns

1:09:49>> except for the lack of page numbers and

1:09:54Yep. Kristen,

1:09:55>> sorry. Is there um

1:09:58the three quotes, is there any wording

1:10:01anywhere about where the quotes, what

1:10:04vendors, what contractors are like if

1:10:07they have historic ex preservation

1:10:09experience or is there any

1:10:14>> uh that's

1:10:17through the chair? That's a really good

1:10:20question. Um

1:10:23the historic restoration we probably um

1:10:28we should probably add that to the

1:10:29application saying that um we you know I

1:10:33don't know if we can say require but

1:10:34would like to see experienced contact.

1:10:36We can work with Michelle Johnstone on

1:10:38some language. That's a that's an

1:10:40excellent suggestion. Thank you. through

1:10:42the chair. We have um a few people that

1:10:44are doing historic projects have asked

1:10:46us for recommendations. So, we've had

1:10:49them contact Preservation Worcester to

1:10:51talk about different contractors who are

1:10:53good at historic restoration.

1:10:58>> Other questions, concerns, thoughts?

1:11:03>> Eric, Marissa, Anthony, anything?

1:11:08I think that was a really good

1:11:09recommendation regarding the historic

1:11:10preservation. Um I do think just as a

1:11:12note in the past most I want to say most

1:11:15of I feel like most of the quotes we've

1:11:17seen have had people who we kind of know

1:11:20to have experience but um it it would be

1:11:23good to maybe include that in there. Um,

1:11:27I I guess the question I would have

1:11:29having not had to deal with that is just

1:11:31the is there specific certification or

1:11:34documentation we'd be looking for or is

1:11:36it just sort of a letter explaining

1:11:38their experience in it?

1:11:40>> I I think it's that they have experience

1:11:42in these projects in the past.

1:11:49>> Perfect. Thank you.

1:11:52>> Terrific. Um, okay. So,

1:11:56hearing no other questions or concerns,

1:12:00we have two votes to take. Um, the first

1:12:04vote is to accept and approve the fall

1:12:08application changes uh to the plan. Um,

1:12:15actually, no, it's the application

1:12:16changes. So, motion will be so there's

1:12:18going to be two motions. First is going

1:12:19to be to accept the fall application

1:12:22changes the guidance and then the second

1:12:24will be to accept and approve the

1:12:26community preservation plan annual

1:12:28update.

1:12:30Okay. So the first the motion would be

1:12:34>> um motion to accept or so moved of what

1:12:38you just stated

1:12:38>> the fall application changes. Do I have

1:12:40a second?

1:12:41>> Second

1:12:42>> discussion

1:12:44hearing none. All those in favor say I.

1:12:46>> I. I. I

1:12:50>> I

1:12:51>> I

1:12:52>> nay. Any any neg any negative or any

1:12:56abstensions? So 7 nothing to approve the

1:13:00application changes. Motion

1:13:03to do to accept the um community

1:13:06preservation plan annual update.

1:13:09>> Second.

1:13:10>> No, no, I can't make the motion.

1:13:11>> So moved.

1:13:12>> Can I say so moved?

1:13:13>> Yes, sure.

1:13:15>> Second. Discussion

1:13:18hearing none. All those in favor say I.

1:13:21>> I.

1:13:21>> I.

1:13:22>> I.

1:13:23>> Extensions. None. Okay. Uh, terrific.

1:13:26>> In favor.

1:13:27>> Um, meeting schedule, gang. Um, I have

1:13:29in my calendar. I'm not sure it's any

1:13:31good anymore, but I had November 17th as

1:13:34our next meeting. Does that still make

1:13:36sense on the calendar? Uh, with the

1:13:38timeline that we just talked about,

1:13:40>> uh, Mr. Chairman, yes. So, uh, the next

1:13:45meeting is Tuesday, November 17th.

1:13:48That would be here. Um, then we'll look

1:13:52at a December meeting and then we'll

1:13:54move forward, you know, as the

1:13:56application process moves on and we'll

1:13:58start to plan out the January February

1:14:00schedule.

1:14:02Does that work? February.

1:14:04>> What was the December meeting?

1:14:06>> Sounds good to me.

1:14:08Um, I think we were talking December

1:14:1115th, but I don't know that we actually

1:14:13settled on that. Did we settle that?

1:14:17>> I don't I don't know that we did, but

1:14:19that to me that sounds like a good

1:14:21>> I don't want to get too close to the

1:14:22holidays. I know everybody has gets busy

1:14:24and but I think we're okay if we don't

1:14:27get much beyond the 15th.

1:14:29Um, does 15th work for the you guys,

1:14:32Anthony? So, November 17th and December

1:14:3515th. Anthony, Marissa, Eric,

1:14:39>> sounds good.

1:14:40>> Okay. And then we'll plot it out from

1:14:42there.

1:14:45Terrific.

1:14:49Any other new business?

1:14:54Hearing none on Lindsay's motion to

1:14:58adjourn.

1:15:00Second.

1:15:00>> Second. Second.

1:15:02>> Great. Uh discussion. Hearing none, we

1:15:04are adjourned. Thank you very much for

1:15:06being here tonight, folks. Thanks for

1:15:07>> everyone. Thanks for your

1:15:09>> Thank you all.

1:15:10>> Thanks.