Community Preservation Committee Meeting - March 17, 2026

Okay. What we're going to do today is um get through the rest of the proposals with any recommendations that we want to be making for town meeting. Um and we've got our administrative budget warrant article and any project reserves. So, we'll we'll touch base on those. And that's that's the only that's that's our business for tonight. No.

All right. Um and should we start with uh Thank you.

I hope they work.

Okay.

Are they the same?

No, I don't know what they are. I just have a whole bunch of them.

As long as I look good on television.

Remind folks we're being reminds everyone we're being recorded by DCTV.

So please uh the microphones are on so please mind side conversations.

Um all right very good. Um the DCTV renovations.

Um

got a request.

I'll make a motion we fund the uh DCTV requesting in its entirety at U 461,394 all coming from the um historic um fund.

Second.

Right. Any uh discussion comments?

Yes. I have a sound like um Senator from Maine. I'm concerned um uh I'm concerned about uh PCTV is an enterprise fund and um and what we learned last week was that uh the enterprise fund retained earning balance. That's that's basically money they've taken in which they might spend someday is $900,000 and it was approximately $900,000.

And I'm I'm puzzled that in, you know, they have a million dollar a year take from um from the the from basically Comcast and they can't find any more than $8,000 in it for maintaining their building.

And so they managed to squirrel away $900,000 in in in the till. and um and they're they're expecting us to fund all the all the maintenance on the building that they haven't done over the years.

Um, so I mean I'd love to take a a deeper deeper bite out of um the retained earnings there unless somebody convinces me that they're going to need it in this in this period or other some other thoughts on that.

John, you had some you know extended comments about who skin in the game. Um, yeah, I think it's important to have skin in the game, but it hasn't been a must for us.

Um, you know, there's been a lot of applications that we haven't had uh people haven't had uh skin in the game.

Um, to me it's it's a town building. Even though DCTV um is in the facility, it's a town building that, you know, I grew up in. I you know I remember that building when it was the town hall and temporary police station and you know I've seen you know the alumni association have spaghetti dinners there and had family events there. So, um, to me it's a building worth, uh, preserving and, uh, funding

and I get, you know, they're an enterprise fund. Um, but as, uh, Peter mentioned, the, um, cable TV um, in Dartmouth is going down.

you know, they're getting less and less every year because um you know, they're pricing themselves out of the market. It's not Peter's fault, but you know, cable TV is pricing themselves out of the market and everybody's going to streaming so they get what they deserve, but it affects Peter's budget. The money's just not there from uh from Xfinity, Comcast.

So, that's my take.

That's yeah, Susie me.

Sorry, late to the game here. Um, I I feel like we've over the course of time established that this building is incredibly important to the town and that the services that DC TV provides to a variety between meetings, concerts for the kids, everything that they do for this town. I think we've established that everyone really appreciates those services and everyone benefits. And then I think the third thing that we've

established that a lot of the um disrepair happened quite a while ago and that it's built up and built up and we're dealing with a situation that um you know would be would have been better if we dealt with it a while ago but through a number of different reasons it didn't happen. And to me that and and the due diligence. I mean DCTV answered their questions that you sent them right away. Very responsive. And I

I was really impressed with their answers, the thoughtfulness um that they gave to all the questions.

And I I just think this is really worthy, you know, for all these reasons.

It's an important building, important services, and like a lot of that damage wasn't their fault. like predated them and so I don't feel like they should be um not punished but that they should have to pay for all that when a lot of that damage didn't happen under their watch for my thoughts.

Yes.

And also please pass the chocolates if they if they're being shared.

Oh sorry down that way. I'm sorry.

Sorry you weren't here. Um, I was just going to say that, you know, I think that DCTV with their retain earnings, right, they're probably looking to use those revenues, especially as Comcast revenues are going down for things that are going to fund their operations, equipment and such things where we can't fund those things. CPA funds are not eligible for those kinds of expenditures. So they

should keep their powder dry, use their funds for what they are supposed to be using at FA to make DCTV uh you know a community asset. While the funds that we do have and we control that's what our funds are supposed to be used for community preservation, historic preservation and it fits that profile. So, I think that we should leverage these dollars to do the repairs on the building so they can use their

dollars for what they're supposed to be doing dayto-day operationally.

Just looking at their one of their written responses um they say they when they acknowledge that there's a $900,000 balance in retain earnings.

um after I'm reading from their response after planned capital projects and this renovation the balance is projected to decrease to approximately 550,000 uh we must also plan for future replacement of aging HVAC equipment computer workstations and servers so it is going to it is going to draw down um to 550 plus um any other comments Um, I'll just say that they did a very nice presentation to the historical

commission and it's been they seem to be kind of on the front foot there. They're taking the initiative to make sure that they're doing things right. It's not wherehounding them to make sure that they have they're interested in doing it um with our guidance and you know using standards etc. That's been impressive.

Um, we ready to take a vote on this? Are there any other further discussion?

I I just think they're an important asset to the town.

They really are an asset to this town.

Uh, opposed? One opposed. Uh, abstensions.

Okay. Very good.

You need it right in your in your language there, buddy.

I think you did.

Oh, you did. You read it.

Okay. Sorry.

Oh, no. That's that's important.

Okay, we have the Deval field uh application that there it is.

The uh amount requested is 575,000.

It's a purchase of a property at four tannery I think Lane it is. um and um demolish the existing uh residential structure and maintain the property for public access as open space um for um passive recreation.

Um thoughts about this proposal?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at my You want to ignore me, huh? Okay.

Looking down.

I apologize.

That's all right.

Spilling over on you, too.

Well, no. I've thought I've thought about this uh and I feel that I did a little I think we have a lot of open space in that area. The DNRT Ottabon Mass Conservative uh land trust has land commonwealth of Massachusetts has wildlife management. We've got over 2,000 acres of land there. I hate to see for two 2.2 acres or 2.5 acres to knock that house down and make uh another open

space when we have Parson's reserve. We have the the balls, the little pot down there that everybody goes to and the kids play and you can do your canoes, put your canoes out. I'm opposed to it.

And other comments and thoughts on this?

Yes.

Um I I favor it. Um it it fills in the gap between or it goes away toward filling in the gap between the the landing site and going around to the pond. Um I take um I don't have a lot of heartburn about disu uh just demolition of of the building because I take at face value um the projections that um uh storm surge in in that location make that building in the long term untenable.

Um I I I think there's a decent prospect that the building could be moved to a different site and certainly there'll be less uh um not a major problem in finding a piece of open land in that part of the town to to move it to. So I I'm in support of this.

Other comments?

Uh yes.

Yeah. I um I see it as kind of a a different type of uh land acquisition. I know there are other parcels, but it's an open space with grass. You got the landing there that has very little. Um it's mostly parking lot and playground and so to kind um this would add an open area where you could have a picnic where you could it it's just better open space. It would connect to Parson's connects to the

spillway and gives a better view of that. Um, and although it would be great to save that house because there's nothing wrong with it, I agree that eventually it's going to be a flooded, you know, it could be susceptible to flooding. Um, but I see it as a nice kind of a a bridge parcel that would enhance all the other pieces and kind of provide a type of land that

um is not in existence in that area.

Other thoughts? Uh, yes, Joe.

Uh, I guess it's more of a question. I said the only concern that I have is that there was some talk about not sure not not sure who if they're going to be able to acquire the property if they sell if they cannot demolish the house. And that's unclear to me. Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of the on of this board, but that's concerning to me. Uh if the project does

not go through, if they cannot purchase the land, then what happens? I don't, you know, don't know.

Mhm.

Yeah. It wasn't um it sounded like um if they were prevented from demolishing the house um I guess by the historical commission because they filed they're filing for that uh permit or or for the demolition review. Um it sound like that would be a no-go for the project. They didn't if I understood their response they didn't have an alternative for that pro for that structure on the property. So they

would not go forward. So yeah, but we don't know. Right. Then the present owner is one who bought it with the sole sounded like the sole purpose of selling it for to Buzzards Bay for this purpose.

Um they had stepped in and just as a matter of um um um prudence and timing um purchased it from the private owner.

So yeah, I don't know what then what would h what happens if if Buzzard's Bay doesn't go through. We really didn't have the party who could answer that.

That's a good point. Yeah, John. Um so what I heard from the applicant was their first uh priority would be is to try to uh find somebody to purchase the building and move one. Although they did indicate that's highly unlikely giving um the expense of uh moving the building uh especially a building that's it's it's not historic. It's quite small.

It's it doesn't meet today's standards of living. When someone thinks of building house, it's a very small uh house and it was only built in 1980 I think it was. Um the uh thought of the historic commission in Russell's Mills preventing demolition.

The historic commission Russell Smith does not have the authority of the teeth to prevent any building from being demolished in uh in Russell Mills.

And no, it would be the town's historical commission. So yeah, right.

Right.

You know, I would hate to see it get demolished. I hope it gets reused, but um you know, I fully predict that uh it's it's going to come down and there's not going to get hung up and we just wouldn't um put any fund towards it if they didn't come through with what they said they were going to do. So, we got we got some safeguards um there. this project to me. Um, you

know, anytime we can buy a piece of land, um, and with partners like the DNRT and Buzzes Bay Coalition and others who put big skin in the game, which I love, uh, because it's a it's a good return for the taxpayer versus dollar for dollar, for an example, at DCTV here, they're funding uh, 25% or 30%, whatever it is. Um, so that's a good deal for the uh for the taxpayer and uh

so I'm in I'm in favor of it. Um I'm just not sure um how we divide the um the funding. So I would make a motion we fund the we approved the $575,000 request and I'm thinking maybe a h 100,000 from open space and the remaining coming from unrestricted. I'll throw that out there for discussion.

and uh a second on this motion.

Okay. Uh further discussion.

Second.

Was that a second, Jim?

Um my only question on discussion is um I can't remember last week was it one the 15 that we approved for the agricultural fund.

Yeah. Uh, was that all out of restricted?

That was all out of unrestricted.

Oh, so okay. So that so that doesn't impact the um what's that?

So this because this would be under open space right?

Right. But we don't have the funds in open space to to fund the the in its entirety. And I Yeah, I'm just throwing that out there.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm trying to I'll amend it if someone's got a better idea on how we divide it, but I just threw that out there for discussion that we at least take something from open space. We got three something in there, right? Yeah, we like I think it's like 2 212 or 219 something.

212. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Uh so we deplete almost half going half, right?

Yep.

And I was just trying to bring up for context what we approved last week for um whether it was open space or unrestricted. I can't remember. I think it was restricted for what theulture unrestricted.

Yeah.

Yeah. I think um uh I think it's a a viable proposal and I think it it does make sense is consistent with I think our goals which were reflected by the town's kind of open space plan. Um so I think it fits all of that. Uh, you know, I would like to see if there's something some option that they might be able to come up with for the house, but I don't

think that precludes, you know, the project being an open space project. And if they if that ends up demolishing it, I you know that I wish there was a better alternative, but if that's what has to happen, I think I can I can understand that for what being in the flood plane and for what it's proposed. Um and I think this is one of those as we talked about big picture kind of uh

views last um last week. There are some some points at which I think really belong the decision belongs at town meeting and I think this is one in this sense of there there will be people who um will have a have an issue with the house being torn down and I get that. I totally get that. But I think this is a viable project in in line with the town's goals and town meeting ought to

have that opportunity to weigh in on that aspect of it. Um yes. Um so Bernie Gford was the executive of the estate and I can't think of the I didn't know the people. They were wellliked and well known. Um he was the fire chief. John, what's that?

Dval was the fire chief.

Yeah, he was the fire chief.

Mr. Dval was the fire chief.

Is that his what? Is that his name?

Raymond. Raymond Dval. Raymond.

Um, so anyway, I I didn't know them.

Bernie spoke very highly and Bernie was telling me that they would be ecstatic over this project. Um, and Bernie obviously the executive and very familiar with the with the project. He was he was more concerned about the garage. He says, "Oh my god, that garage is beautiful. I wish I had that garage on my property." But I think they mentioned they're keeping the garage and they're doing away with the house. He had no

uh concerns of the uh house and being in a historic district. And anybody who knows Bernie, Bernie's u an historic preservationist big time.

Uh Bernie's my age and you talk to Bernie and you think you're talking to 120 year old Yankee when you listen talk about history of Dartmouth and uh Westport. Um, so and he had no concerns over the uh house being moved to tomorrow. It was good to hear uh and that he was happy that because it had been a while, I don't know how long, but he was happy that um Buzz's Bay is

coming through with their promise that this is what they were going to do and that they were going to name the park after them. So, he was he was very happy. Just a side note on great other um comments where Yeah, I um I think this is a great conservation project. I have heard concern I I've mentioned it to um a couple people that live in that area. I have heard concern about the you know

people who've been there for a long time about the house. I do agree that this is, you know, a town meeting, possibly a town meeting decision. I'm a little disappointed in some of the um and I get these projects are like moving fast and it doesn't make sense to to wait to the next cycle, but you know, the fact that they didn't like give us written answers to all the questions you

asked and some of the due diligence and checking the boxes. So, as long as we can put checks and balances in there that make sure that that due diligence is done um before so you know putting those concerns into this proposal so that they all that due diligence is done um before any money is awarded and due diligence say a little bit more about like a well because they're in the process of I

mean they haven't actually put in the application right to the historic right they haven't you know, they said they had, but they haven't. Like there's certain things there that I just and I get it's like a lot of these projects, they're moving parts.

Um, I just want to make sure that, you know, we are, you know, ensuring that all of that gets done properly in a timely fashion before it hits town meeting so that when it gets to town meeting, they're discussing the merits of it and not whether they have the answer to all those questions. Mhm.

Mhm. Great. Um just you know in terms of the point that you raised about you know all the pieces of these projects how do we get assurance that they all are going to come together. I think that's one of the reasons why we have this wholeou grant agreement structure because if town meeting you know town meeting approves of uh committing funds then we have a structure in which to provide the

kind of oversight including conditions on when funds can be released um and things like that because I think that is an important point u in some of these projects just all the pieces don't come together sometimes they can't come together because everybody's got to know the town meeting actually approves it before the other players, the other partners and other parts of our project can actually go

forward. Um, but the the grant agreement structure is is how we try to do that.

Um, but I can also uh carry forward to uh to Buzzard's Bay about our concern and need to have this the the demolition piece of this um approval squared away before town meeting because that is one of those things that obviously in in trying to offer or bring forward to do the due diligence and bringing forward a propo um a warrant article for town meeting to consider. You know, we wanted

to know that if town meeting wanted to do this project and approved it, it actually was set to go forward. So, we definitely wouldn't want to be in a position where um town meeting approves it and then then they find out that they can't take the house down and they don't want to do the project. So, we definitely want to avoid that. Um, we ready to vote? Um, and John, do you have

that template? Just make sure we're doing this this uh the motion.

What do I do with it?

Yes.

Yes. I need to talk to you about that.

Appropriate $575,000.

Um All right. It doesn't say uh then I think I want to split it up.

Yeah. Well, you can just say that. So from to see if the time of appropriate $575 uh $575,000 for the purchase of uh Deval failed um in accordance with terms and conditions you would say and the Oh, you've got that in another section, the funding, right?

Yeah. So you would I think you would say like to see if the town will vote to appropriate $575,000 and I think to because it's two things probably with $100,000 from the open space reserve and $475,000 from unrestricted. Is that what you were proposing? Yeah. to the town of Dartmouth to purchase a permanent conservation restriction for the Deval Field property located at Fort Tannery Lane, Dartmouth. Assessor's map

74, lot 74, 7677 as part of the Devolve Field Conservation Project. all in accordance with the terms and conditions of the community preservation grant and referenced in the community preservation fiscal year 2027 budget or take any action relative there too.

That's your motion.

Yes, sir.

So move.

All in favor?

Need a second.

I uh opposed. One opposed. 71.

Thank you. It is a mouthful. It really is a mouthful, but um Okay.

And then we have the um Crapo field uh lighting.

um comments on this project.

Uh, I'm in favor of this project. Um, my son played ball there. It's a good wonderful project to have the kids do all this and play ball. I I served hot dogs out of that building.

Uh, they do need better light, better lighting there. They always have. So, I'm for this project.

Yeah.

I'd like to comment as well. I think that it's important. uh we don't have a lot in this town for our youth. Uh it's also a safety concern for our youth. So that's, you know, that's important to me in my profession. And um, you know, I just I think that we need to, you know, we need to support our youth and and if the lights are going to make their

have an enjoyable and be able to extend their baseball season, I think it's important for them.

Other thoughts? Yes, Chris. Um, all those I agree with all those points and I also think it's great that the new technology is going to allow less light pollution.

I I have one concern. Um uh last week John said it better than I could that the approach that they've taken to uh determining what lights to put up has not been perhaps the most appropriate one. And it that the estimate should be developed from the standards for how much light is on the field back to how much what fixtures are can produce that rather than making a judgment of well if

it was so many watts of the existing technology it's probably less of the newer one. Um, so I I I'm certainly in support of relighting the field and I like hot dogs, too. Um, but I I would love to go one more go around another round with them and have them engage a lighting engineer who will work from the standards that John is familiar with um up to a specification of the lights

that's based on those standards of what light is required.

Um, and so if can can we say we we we would either require them to do that and re redo the specification of the project um um before we give it the full the full blessing.

Um all right. Yeah. There's two two points of which we can if there's a condition that we need to to have settled. Um one is if it's a condition that influences whether or not we feel we can take something to town meeting. So that's something then we'd have to we would um postpone any recommendation uh on a project and then try to get the further information and get that squared away. The other is

um it's a it's an issue that um won't change whether or not it's a project to recommend the town meeting, but it's something that we would want to make sure was squared away for the project in terms of how it is how it proceeds. that is something we would we could we address by putting a condition on the on the grant agreement. So for instance in this case it might be the

grant agreement condition is that there is a final confirmation that that analysis of lumens on the field and what do you really need for lighting is is finalized. Um, and I might suggest that that's probably the appropriate place for it because the the lumens on the field question probably isn't one that meeting the project is viable for town meeting is in the balance around that. No, I I

just think that we're we're not doing our um uh doing what we can to get the best possible project by not saying let's take the the more appropriate um calculation to determine what the lighting need is.

And um could save us some money. Mhm.

I think that's probably one that we could address as a condition on the grant agreement if the town meeting wanted to do the project.

What was that, buddy? Great. um a condition on the the what Jim is raising that get get the confirmation that this analysis has been completed and confirmed that the lighting and the lumens on the ground that has that has been looked at and confirmed and they just in terms of where they are in the project just haven't gotten that.

They've talked to you know the pro u vendors and stuff like that. Yeah, I I'm in favor of the project. My concern and my emphasis was and I was trying to give him the hint because it appears to me and I don't know if I'm right, the people doing the engineering I think are selling them the fixtures.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So, typically with this new technology, it's it's usually not fixture for fixture. Usually you can reduce the amount of fixtures.

So I if I'm selling fixtures, I want to sell the most fixtures. So I'm going to say you got 20 fixes, I'm going to replace them with 26 because in the end I make money on that. So that's the point I was trying to get to them because I, you know, make sure. So I think all we can do is um it used to be looming illuminating engineers society was the

standards and I don't know if it is anymore. I mean, we can just say that that that that the um it meets Bets Bets's practice. Uh, so I don't know if we have to take that up now, but if you could help us with that language, um, but it would be a condition on the agreement, I think, is the proper place for it, which is, you know, we're going to take this to town

meeting, but before you actually sign contracts and re release money, you want to make sure that this has been confirmed and certified.

Sign contracts, release money, or select a vendor. Yes, we'll have to go through a public bidding process. Yeah.

So, uh I have a couple thoughts. One, I think this is a great project. I, you know, I don't have a kid that plays baseball, but I have a kid that plays soccer. I I think these are all incredible opportunities for our children. So, I think it's a great project. I do have a couple concerns.

Um, one, uh, is the hold up on their lease, um, just a technicality or is there a chance that the through the RFR process that they wouldn't have um, they their lease wouldn't be renewed? Um, and so just being if they're agreeing to I I think it's amazing that they're taking on this large infrastructure project when they don't actually own the property and don't have a current lease. I think

that's amazing. But just like is there some is there a way to like find out about the lease? Okay. Um uh and then the other thing is there's obviously a huge conflict of interest because one of the board members is the person who owns the company that wants to do the work and I'm assuming that that will be addressed with going out to bid and I think going out to bid would solve a lot

of problems. I I uh I actually don't you know they are trying really hard to keep the price on this down in a time when prices are soaring. So I I understand why they haven't done the full-fledged potentially a full-fledged study. I just want to make sure that we're not putting a requirement on it that suddenly makes the price go really high because we've requested a study that we have no idea

of what the consequences of that are.

Um, and maybe it's the best thing to do, but maybe it's not. And and so like we're not the majority of us here are not the experts on this. And and to make to make that call right now to say like you're going to have to do this study without understanding the consequences of that, that worries me. Um, and I think going out, if they have to follow, you know, some sort of bid standards

where it's going out to bid, then I think some of that might be solved resolved that we're not just going with the the like it's going to solve the conflict of interest and potentially solve the like the people giving them information, also the people selling the fixtures.

Yeah. So on the on the question about getting clear and certified that that that independently this is the right amount of fixtures to purchase um to be looking for. We have we have a little bit of time on that I think because again that's something that's not going to come up probably until um they enter into the you know one they know they can go forward on the project

and then the bidding process u has to be followed. So I don't think we have to address that tonight. I think but and it's something that it sounds like it's pretty common standard and something you'd want to do anyway if you're going to put a project out for bid and say how many likes do I need um um to evaluate proposals you probably want to know that you got the same standard that you want

to apply to anybody who's going to give you a proposal and stuff. Um, and yes, the the public bidding, which is I think something that we've confirmed with them. Um, I wasn't sure if totally appreciated that either uh la last week what that means because you do have to have arms length uh relationships with people to run a um a fair uh public bidding um process. So, um I think that's where I

think we really got to look to the town.

Um it's their property and the town to really monitor if not assist with the public bidding aspect of it.

Other discussions on this proposal? Um, and is there following our template, is there a motion on this?

I'll take it.

All right.

All right. To see if the town will vote to appropriate 200 $221,928 from 230.

Oh, did I write down the run?

I believe it's 230. No, that's what's on the front of the check here.

Amount of funds requested 230.

230. Yep.

All right, let's do that again. See if the town will vote to appropriate $230,000 from open space.

um enough open space because we just um so I've been I've been trying to do the arithmetic as we're making our decisions. So there's 19,154 left in open space right now. Um so if you want to just make it round, you could do 100 from open space. Um there's 1.41 $1,441,78 in unrestricted.

Okay. So, to see if the town will vote to appropriate $230,000 with $100,000 coming from open space and $130,000 coming from unrestricted to the Dartmouth Youth Athletic Association for the Crapo Field Lighting Rehabilitation Project. All in accordance with the terms and conditions of the community preservation grant agreement and referenced in the community preservation fiscal year 2027 budget.

A second.

Second. Oh, there second.

Right. All in favor?

Any oppose? Okay, that's unanimous.

Thank you.

Just keep up with this.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, let me do this arithmetic before we take up the next one.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, next is the um Dartmouth Cultural Center.

Uh comments on this project.

Make a motion. We um let's see if the time will vote to appropriate 853,300

600,000 coming from historic reserves and 153,300 coming from unrestricted uh to the Donald Cultural Center for Dmouth Cultural Center restoration and renovation projects. All in accordance with terms and conditions.

Okay.

Yeah. So the our current balance in historic so we've made the commitment with the DCTV. Our current balance is historic is 175 391. So if you want to make that around Oh, I'm sorry.

That's all right. That's uh I'm looking at the uh you want to make that around 175 coming from historic. Oh, I got 175 from historic. And then that would leave what?

678 678300 from unrestricted.

Mhm. My math correct?

Yep.

Mhm.

Okay.

Second.

Second. Okay. Um further discussion.

Discussion. Okay. Are we ready to vote on that?

All in favor?

I oppose. No, that's unanimous.

Um we've already um committed 1.5 million for the um agricultural preservation fund.

So we are done.

Um next uh let's take a look at um our reserves.

Um so we um we you know our our uh obligation is 10% of our projected revenue which is uh about $1,113,027.

Um 10% committed or reserved for each of the three purposes. So we've exceeded that for open space, we've exceeded that for historic preservation, and we haven't made any housing commitments.

So, um I think that leaves us to make uh and I think we make it I think a round number I would recommend is $112,000 um uh for the housing um fund. So, that's the minimum we need to do for reserves. So, some of that any discussion or questions about that or doing anything further with reserves?

Would someone like to make a motion?

Uh, and we have that little template there. Um, so the total that we're going to commit to reserve is 112,000 and it is only going to go to the community housing reserve.

Is that on the sheet?

It's a a second. Yeah. So, you could make it read, you know.

Oh, you don't have to have that list. You could just make it read the amount of 112,000 to V.

I'll make you take yours. I'll make a motion to see if the town will vote to appropriate uh a reserve or reserve for later appropriation monies from the fiscal year 2027 community preservation fund annual reserves in the amount of 112,000 um as referenced in the community preservation fiscal year 2027 budget to be allocated to the house um to the housing preserve community housing reserve.

or take any action relative there too.

Okay. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Any uh further discussion on that?

All right. All in favor?

Any opposed? No. That's unanimous.

And then we have a our annual administrative budget.

Um and we didn't get to that, did we? Hold on a second.

Let's see.

I thought they made copies for folks.

Um, oh, I did pass it around. We had approved um our budget. So now we need to um we approved our budget 35,000.

Um so now we just need to approve this warrant article language for our administrative budget.

Move to see if the town will vote to appropriate uh from fiscal year 2027 community preservation fund annual revenues in the amount of 35,000 for the administrative expense of as referenced in the community preservation fiscal year 2027 budget.

A second that second I discussion to all in favor I oppose. No, that is unanimous.

Motion to adjourn.

Um you had before do that um our April meeting is Oh yes.

And is it this it's the 7th or it's the se was that the second Tuesday?

Yeah.

14th.

14th.

Mhm.

And we we're good to go in that. We don't u when's the election? The election is the 7th.

Seventh.

The seventh.

But we should be good to go.

Great. So we we we plan to meet next on the 14th.

Um okay. There uh there's a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second?

Second.

Second. Should we discuss this for a while?

You can. I'll be honest.

I want to thank everybody for all of their hard work and on all of these proposals. Um, and I really appreciate um people's perspectives.

Thank you.

Favor to adjourn.

I I believe that was unanimous.

Thank you, whoever brought chocolate.

You're welcome. You're welcome.