Community Preservation Committee - Regular Meeting

[Music] Okay. Um, I think we have an uh quorum, so I'll call the meeting to order. Um, and I need to do a roll call. Um, Jan, yes. Kirst Kristen, she may not be coming. Sandy, Justin present, Paul here, Colleen here, Jack here, and Ken

here. Okay, so we will move forward. Um the agenda tonight is to discuss the three parcels on Providence Road that the board of selectmen have um drafted a warrant article and submitted a um project um application to CPC. And so um this is going to be kind of tricky because we're all in different places. And um is uh Justin kind of running the show? Mhm. The Zoom. Okay. So Justin,

if you see hands or if you see whatever if you guys um so we don't talk on over each other. If you could do the little raise your hand button and Justin will tell me so and so if if I can't see you um is raising your hand. Um that way everybody has a chance to speak and we're not talking over each other. So would somebody like to start the discussion? It's Can I make a Colleen to the heart of the matter? Yeah. Can I can I make a motion? Are you ready to accept a motion? No, we're not ready.

I think we need to have it. We Evan is here to answer any questions if people have questions. So, I want to make sure that people that have their questions answered. So, I think we're a little early on a motion. Um, so I will decline your offer of a motion right now. So, I'll ask again. Does someone would someone like to Is there discussion? Ken has his hand up. Yep. Ken has his hand up. Okay. Ken.

Okay. First, I'd like to mention that the motion as written I think looks really good. the structure of the motion and uh you know the only thing that I question and it's I have a serious reservation about the appraisal and I I think the appraisal the appraiser made an assumption that the property is developable for residential uh development and I think he made a mistake and the The reason I say that is that there was a second professional uh appraisal made by the land trust uh in the spring when the land trust was uh considering buying the property. And that appraisal w came uh was resulted in the determination that the property was not developable and the uh the value came in much different. it was $126,000. And I have a couple of points to make in this discussion. So, I'm going to try to share uh a couple of bullet points uh about uh my thoughts on that. And that is not it. Hang on a second. Sorry about this. I thought it was just going to come up. Okay, let me try one more time. Uh, almost there.

I apologize. Microsoft. Okay, we're there. Um, what I have here is a uh a couple of bullet points about the appraisals that were done. Uh, two Can you see this everybody? Yes. Yes.

Okay. two two different apprais you know two vastly different fully professional appraisals have been made for these properties. Uh one was made for the town appraised at $455,000. One was was done for the Grafton Land Trust which came to a vastly different $126,000 and that's a $329,000 difference which is material to say the least. And the primary factor responsible for the difference is whether or not this 41 a half acre parcel is developable for residential use. And I'm I'm going to um make the proposal that additional due diligence be uh done to factually resolve the competing assessments before the committee approves the grant for per purchase. So uh speaking to the first point uh the two vastly different but full but but but professional appraisals have been made and the difference is uh more than three times it's like three and a half times different and the I I know that the that the lower value appraisal was done by a highly experienced appraiser. It's an appraiser with what's known as an MAI certification. Now an MAI certification, well that stands for member appraisal institute, which is a prestigious designation for real estate appraisers who have completed advanced education and experience requirements in commercial property valuation and the certification indicates that they are have a high level of expertise and professionalism in all types of appraisals. For instance, according to the appraisal institute, there's 8,000 MAI appraisers out of 93,000 total active appraisers. So, it's it's an exclusive group. And

so, this appraisal cannot be dismissed without rigorous due diligence. The CPC's got a fiduciary responsibility to the town for CP fun for community preservation funds and we just can't overlook this. it would not be responsible. The primary factor responsible for the difference is whether or not the parcels are developable for residential use or not. The lower appraisal which you which you all have a copy of it's in the packet. The lower appraisal notes that most of the parcels are designated FEMA flood hazard zone AE which greatly increases the cost of development and and ownership of such properties. And in addition, much of the parcels are also designated subtype regulatory floodway which severely limits development. Uh is Sandy on is Sandy here yet?

No, she's not. But she

I was hoping Sandy could explain to us what uh these FEMA designations mean. Uh without her, I'll I'll try to say that FEMA AE has restrictions on what on the types of construction that can be had and requirements for flood insurance in order to get mortgages. And it makes the flood insurance is very expensive because it says that basically it's they say that there's a 1% chance of it being flooded in a hundred years. And the floodway designation is a subtype of AE and it indicates that almost nothing can be built on the property and nothing that will impede the flow of rushing flood water because flood water will come and so flood flood the floodway means that you can't build anything on it. And the of the three lots there, 324 is the little one. That's the 2acre one. And that one has is 66% AE and not in the floodway. But 66% of a of a 2 and a half acre plot is like 0.9 acres that isn't in AE. And that 0 point and so 30 334R is the one of the 20 acre ones. It's the one in the middle. And that one's 17% AE and 79% floodway. And so of that 20 acres in the middle, only less than one acre of it is not in either of those zones. And the third parcel to the south is another 20 acre parcel and it's 39% AE and 61% floodway. And there's no parts of that property that are not in the flood zone. So the restrictions on these are very strong and the this appraisal the lower

appraisal says that's bad news.

The lower appraisal also notes that based on their visual inspection and Grafton GIS maps that the parcels have extensive water wetlands in addition to the FEMA designations. And that appraiser further notes that the site initially slopes downward, this is a quote, initially slopes downward 20 to 30 ft from the road all along the 324 Providence Road parcel's entire frontage. And I went out there and measured it. The slope is actually 20 to 30 degrees and the slope begins right at the guard rail off the highway and then it drops down 20 to 30 feet very sharply and it ends abruptly on flat land and the flat land is wet. The flat land is a wetland. So it drops from the guardrail to a a wetland and it's in fact it's this it's and it's this slope area that really constitutes most of the 324 Providence Road land that is not in the flood the flood zones and so the only part that's not in a flood zone is really steep

and so it the that lower appraisal concludes and this is a quote that the initial slope the wetlands and the flood zone AE status make it highly unlikely the site can be developed and this is the opposite of the higher appraisal's determination that the highest and best use would be for sale to an investor or developer for residential development on the surface that doesn't make sense Just to call it out for John's sake, there are two hands right now and one is calling. Okay, I have one one more I have one more minute to go. One more minute.

And so my my recommendation is that additional due diligence is required to factually resolve these competing assessments before the CPC approves the grant for purchase. The town has in-house expertise that can validate these assessments. The building department should be asked to review the parcels via GIS and on the ground site inspection to determine if the viability of building a road or driveway from the frontage anywhere on route anywhere on the frontage on 324 Proidence Road to dry land to the dry land below and otherwise determine if any of the parcel contains potentially buildable lots. They do that. The building department will do that for any land owner in town. You can ask them, you can tell them, I've got this piece of property. Can you, you know, give me an assessment if it's buildable? And they will, and if it's wet, they'll tell you it isn't. And furthermore, the conservation commission has the expertise and should be asked to review the parcels via GIS and on the ground inspection to determine how much they think, how much buildable land is on those parcels that is not in the FEMA floodway and is accessible from the frontage on 324 Proidence Road. the town has these expertise and that and they can be used to validate uh and to figure out what you know what's what they can figure out if it's buildable or not and if it is it's buildable if it isn't it isn't so action on this grant should be postponed until the results of these inspections are known there's no rush

the seller privately shopped it to the GLT whose appraisal they rejected then to the town but it He he's the developer is the owner has never publicly listed the property for sale or otherwise marketed it. It's not going anywhere. So, no other buyer will make an offer without carefully looking at the FEMA and other developability challenges. And it will still be there in May for ATM consideration at that time. Okay, let me um had the hand up first. Was it Colleen? Let

Colleen go first. Okay, Colleen. Um, so I'm just going to say there is a rush. We did enter into a purchase and sales agreement based on the unanimous vote this committee took. Um, our role as CPC is to determine if this project is eligible and then have it go to town meeting for people to discuss the merits um like Ken is doing right now. So I I would like to still see this project move forward. And we spent $775,000 on Silver Lake properties for about 16 acres. And this is $450,000 or 55,000 when we add in the ancillary costs for 42 acres. This seems quite in line with, you know, wet property in Grafton and it seems like a steal based off the Silver Lake money um properties. So um Ken, I know you have very strong feelings about this as a member of the Grafton Land Trust who was previously involved in trying to potentially purchase this land. I just hope it's not um clouding your judgment when it comes to to this potential proposal.

Okay. Um I want to make a comment. The the difference between the two pieces of parcel the parcels is that um the Silver Lake property is in an ACE and so that's area of critical environmental concern. So that is much more significant in terms of the impact on the quality of the water. And so that's why I think those partials were have been purchased all all along because of the significant importance of that. Not to dismiss the the canal and the Blackstone River um but our water supply and then Lake Silver Lake water would have been impacted if they if there were houses or other development there. So that's the difference between those two and um and the other it was just that well they were buildable lots and that's why the prices were were higher that you could build a house um I guess NOI or whatever you call it so that they could just say okay here we go you can build a house

they had ANR a lots approved lots approved on them okay um was it Justin I have my hand up and Ken did raise his hand while was talking I don't know if you want how you want to you want me to go, John? Um, go ahead, Justice. Go ahead.

So, my my takeway is very similar to to Colleen's. I think not giving the town the ability to debate the merits and decide whether they want to pursue and move forward with this purchase of sale agreement based on the the assessed price assessed value and the merits thereof for this land and the and at that price that is something that I think is worth bringing to the town in general. does it is a higher value in terms of assessment than I initially anticipated and what some others have thought but it does the idea of purchasing this land does align with the CPC values that we've been doing with the town and I do have one question for Evan offhand I know the developer the owner rejected the land trust assessment assess value because he thought it was worth significantly more. That's why we the town got another assessment that came back at the 450, you know, plus 5,000. Did the did the owner ever share or get their own independent assessment be prior to the town doing one? And if so, do you know what that value was? Evan,

Mr. Chair, through you. So, um, we we don't know if they got an appraisal. Um, I would suspect that they did only because their asking price is in line with what the appraised value came back at from our appraisal process. So, but that's speculation and they're as the seller, they don't have to provide us with that documentation. The law just says that we have to get our own appraisal. Okay. Um, thank you. Um Ken, did you have a followup?

Right. Um you know, I'd like to speak to the responsibilities of the committee visav particular grants. I think it's not just whether we think it's a good grant. Uh and even if it was, you know, the value, the price of a grant, this cost of a grant is part of the assessment of whether it's a good grant uh for the CPC. I think that this it will be a really tough sell in the town meeting. I think that people are going to say this is way too much for that. Uh the town's people will know there were two valid, you know, two, you know, professional assessments and they're going to question how much due diligence was done by the committee or the the the um you know, or by the town to figure out which of them is right. The town has the ability to figure it out. It has the responsibility to figure it out. and the town has time. It doesn't need to be done in this meeting. Uh it will the property will still be there six months from now. And from you know speaking as the treasurer I I can't vote for this because I don't feel that it meets you our fiduciary responsibility. we have a completely different facts in front of us and we have the ability to determine which of those facts are correct and if we don't do it we aren't doing our job. Um, one question I'll ask Evan um because the board the select board is um the the applicant. Will you or a member of the one of the selectman speak at

town meeting because we the onus is on the proponent to answer questions. Ours is more process to say yes we discussed this. Yes, we voted X to X and we approved it and moved it on forward to um town meeting. But whatever questions regarding the details of the project need to be answered by proponent by the proponent will do you know will you answer those questions? Will one of the selectmen or a combination of both? Just also just an understanding that you know you guys have to be the ones that answer those type of questions at town meeting. Uh yes, I'll I'll be the one to answer questions. I'm going to assume obviously the board that's their prerogative, but generally speaking, it winds up being me.

Okay. And Mr. Chair, hands that been raised is Jack, then Evan, and Ken, you raise his hand. Okay. Um, Jack,

I just want to point out as we're talking about due diligence, uh, in both reports, I found that in the appraisal prepared by Howard Dono, they had about seven pages of sales comparison approach going in depth about each of the compared sales they went to. And by the end of it once it came to reconciliation there was no uh comments made about the comparable site. Whereas in the reconciliation of the original uh or not original but the land trusts appraisal there was a statement here I found interesting. Uh research was conducted in Grafton and extended market area for sales of unbuildable lots. Data was very limited because of the lack of comparable comparables in the town of Grafton. tales were used from the towns of Lunenburgg, Shirley, Berlin, and Ashurn. And then all the all comparables are the best and most similar ones found. Uh they were all unbuildable. All the sites that they looked at as completely unbuildable. Um so I just if we're doing due diligence, I'd like to just show that this appraisal goes out of its way to to specify how limited the data of its scope was. So that would question uh color my opinion of that appraisal. That's all I wanted to point out.

Okay. Um thank you. Uh you said Evan had a question or comment. Yes. Go ahead. Um if you want to take other folks first. I just wanted to kind of run through maybe how we got here and conversation that I had with the appraiser. Um and maybe that would be helpful. Um, but I'm certainly not going to jump ahead of any committee members that you may want to have questions from. I think he said Ken, did you have another question or comment?

Yes, it's getting back to due diligence. Uh, I'm wondering if any of the town bodies or anybody in the town at all went to that property and investigated it personally on the ground and, you know, look looked at it from one side to the other and one corner to, you know, from corner to corner. I'm wondering if anybody has personal experience with what's on the ground there. like um if Sy's not at the meeting, she would that our committee would have been one that might have done that. Um I don't know Justin any um Benny on planning have any opportunity to do anything regarding this or

nothing that I have heard about. Okay. And so I would say I'll let Evan if he wants to address that and then if if others don't have questions or comments, I'll let Evan um have the floor. Okay. Do you want me to just jump in now? Yeah.

So, um I have been to the site. Um the site is listed as developable and taxed as developable by the assessor's office. Uh has been for years and that's generally the basis that an appraiser will use. Uh appraisers are not supposed to be speculative uh in nature and they're supposed to use the facts that they have available. Um, so just to go over kind of the timeline, I'd like people to understand um how we got to where we are. Um, on July 28th, that was my initial meeting with the Grafton Land Trust and the seller. Um, so the Grafton Land Trust brought that seller to us. Um, at the time I was told that the reason that the town uh was being brought into this is because it might be of interest uh for conservation purposes and a myriad of other reasons. um but also that the price was likely too expensive for the land trust. Um so on the 12th of August, I brought this before the select board and asked if they had interest in pursuing this project and they unanimously said that they did. On the 28th of August, I came to CPC. Uh CPC, as you know, is your CPC. Um unanimously supported um this purchase. And uh if you go back and watch that meeting, we do talk substantially about the appraisal process as well as the um potential price of $450,000. Um the chair discusses uh whether or not we have enough you have enough money to do that. Uh, and Mr. Hullberger said that if we had to, we would just, um, I think it was pay and gag or something to that effect. I can't remember exactly, but um, I left that meeting with a pretty fair directive that we were going to

pursue this parcel and that the price could be, uh, as high as 450,000 depending on what the appraisal came back with. Um, I then went in the beginning of September, September 9th to the select board. Select board entered into a purchase and sale agreement for $450,000. Uh, with the caveat that if the appraisal was lower, um, the the only price that we could pay, the highest price we could pay was that appraisal price. Um, I did at that meeting specify to the select board that they should be thinking about this property as conservation only and decide whether or not they thought $450,000 was a fair price to purchase the land and protect that section of the Blackstone River, which I believe by their unanimous vote and signature on the PNS that that is what they decided to do. Um, on September 11th, I hired the appraiser, um, M, uh, the office of, uh, Donos. Uh, Jason Donos is, uh, he's a Grafton resident and we've used him many times on many different projects and always have respected his work product. Um, then on September 21st, Ken and the Grafted Land Trust decided to share an appraisal that they had been sitting on since June. None of that was disclosed to the town when they brought the project to us. Um, and quite frankly, I I I can't imagine, you know, it was just it was was stated that this was a conflict of interest that they were concerned about. I can't imagine what that conflict would be. Um, they didn't even mention that an appraisal had been done or existed. So, even if you as a partner of another organization knew you had an appraisal, um I think the approach could be I have an appraisal. Um but I don't know if I can give that to you. I have to consult counsel or whatever has to happen. But

we didn't even know that any of this due diligence had been done. Um and then uh so it was last Friday, I think Ken had called me with concerns about not our our appraiser missing that it was in the regulatory floodway. So, I reached out and had a a conversation uh with our appraiser. The appraiser noted that he did understand that this is in the flood uh zone AE as well as the regulatory floodway. However, since the town has listed this property and appraised this property as developable, he could not in good conscious make any other determination. Um, he also stated that the reason that you come up with the $450,000 is that the frontage being vastly more valuable than the back land that is in the regulatory floodway pumps up that price for two reasons. One is because obviously the land is front-loaded with with value. And two, um, the backland does serve some purposes uh when it comes to having open space uh within our zoning. So he had looked at at both of those things. Um at the end of the day uh you know this is the Grafton residents decision to make. It's your decision to make. Um I wanted to demonstrate that we followed the process that we are supposed to follow. uh we did so in good faith and um that there's no reason to dispute whether or not our appraiser uh did things correctly because one, he's a licensed appraiser. Uh and two um the the appraisal done by the graph the land trust uh is one not our document

and two uh obviously divulged way too late too late to be actionable for us in in really any substantial way. So um I I I'm not here to try to sway you one way or another. I think you'll all make your own decisions. Um my job is to bring this before the select board, you folks, and you know, ultimately town meeting if that's where it goes. Um and I'll be happy to answer any questions at town meeting uh should the board choose to have me do that. And that's all I have to say about that.

Thank you. Okay, that was very helpful um to get that timeline. Um any other questions, concerns that need to be addressed because we did say this was not going to be a long meeting. This was uh intended to be a fairly brief meeting for us to vote on the application. Ken does have his hand up again.

Ken and then Paul. Yeah, I would just like to say that the land trust did receive advice from their council that there might there could have a conflict by disclosing that and so they did not. But at a subsequent board meeting, the land trust decided to overrule the advice of council and that's when the document was disclosed and passed over immediately to the town. And it was 10 days after the appraisal started quite a long time before the appraisal was finished. And so it's not, you know, question about whether it's too late or not. It's a I don't see why it's too late. But the fact remains that we have two professional appraisals that come to completely different conclusions.

Okay. I don't due diligence due diligence is required and that's uh you know I feel strongly that because this is supposed to be a meeting I don't want to rehash things that have already been discussed. Sorry to cut you off. Paul, Miss Evan, can you clarify for me why we need to move forward with this now and why we couldn't do due diligence? I know Colleen um mentioned some of that, but uh I'd just like to understand that rationale better.

Yeah. Yeah. So, the the only I think time pressure is that we're we've entered into a purchase and sale based upon um you know, good faith vote from both CPC and the select board. Um and then once that if this uh agreement is nullified by inaction um we don't know what happens next. You know Ken has said that it'll be around and available. Um and maybe that's maybe that's true but um you know I I followed the way that we're supposed to procure land which is to enter into the purchase and sale and do an appraisal. So, um, you know, maybe maybe this all falls apart and then you get it at a steel later or maybe it all falls apart and, uh, you wind up with development on the frontage there. Um, I think that, you know, it's it's hard to say that for sure how that'll work. So, I I'm I'm well, I think I've already said it. Uh my job is to bring it before you folks and then bring it to to town meeting and that's all I'm all I'm trying to do.

Thank you. Thank John. That's right. Who who me? Okay, Justin.

Um so my only additional comment here is I think even at 450 I still think it's a fair price for this parcel. you know, even everything that was said, I also feel like if the if we do bring it to town meeting and as Ken predicts, it's doesn't pass a town meeting because of the concerns on the two appraisals, then there's an opportunity for the select board and the town in general to determine what, if anything, they want to do in terms of pursuing this land for a potential May town meeting. You bring back at a different price. that is something that could be done, but I as far as I understand it. And then I think the other thing I want to say is I feel like the rest of the that others on the committee is have probably made up their mind on how they were are going to vote on a motion coming up. So that's my opinion. And having said that, we have Colleen and Evan with their hands back up.

Okay. Um Colleen, I'm prepared to make a motion. So, if you want to hear from Evan first, I will. Yeah, let me um let Evan speak and then I'll come back to you. Sorry, just real quick. I I I did want to just clarify, and maybe this is semantics to to folks, but that we don't have two appraisals. We have one appraisal. We hired an appraiser and had an appraisal done. The land trust followed whatever process the land trust follows and did a previous

appraisal. So, while they are different and disperate, one is not the town's work product. So, um I don't think we should dis I'm not saying dismiss it out of hand. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Thank you. I I appreciate that when I said two president. I meant this committee has two that they've seen is is what I meant. The town has just the one. Okay, that understood. He was just trying to make it clear. So, I I understand what Evan's saying, too. It's the the one that counts as the one that the town paid for because they paid for it. Um, back to Colleen.

I move that the CPC uh votes to support this project on Providence Road for the three parcels totaling 4 or 41.47 47 acres um to move forward to town meeting for the price of $455,000 to include $5,000 for ancillary fees um including a conservation restriction and um baseline report from have a motion. I have a motion undesated fund. Yeah, from the um undesated reserve fund. Please

second. Okay, I have a motion um to purchase the property for $455,000 uh cost included, including a conservation restriction uh funding from the UN designated reserve fund. And I have a second by Justin. Yes. To be clear, John, it also includes funding for a baseline report, too. So, that won't have to come back in the spring. That the $5,000 includes the baseline. It's like three and two or split one.

Okay, gotcha check. Okay. Um, so have a motion and a second and any further discussion? Hearing none. Is this going to be a roll call vote? Jan, I'm going to abstain right now. Is that okay? Thank you. I guess so. Never had to. I'm processing. I'm processing. Okay, that's fine. Um, well, I'll come back to you in case you have a and I'll just Yep.

a change of if you have a decision. Kristen is still not here. How about Sandy? Is also absent. Okay. Um, Justin, hi. Paul, I'm sorry. Nay. Okay. Jack, I um Ken, no. And Colleen, sorry, didn't hear you, Colleen. Can't hear you, Colleen. Colleen, hi. Okay.

So, I have three in favor. Sy's here. Oh, Sandy. I I am so sorry. I I Whatever.

That's okay. No problem. We We unfortunately or fortunately for you, we're at the vote at this point. We've discussed the some of the concerns that Kin had regarding the land trust uh appraisal versus the appraisal done by the town whether we need to do additional due diligence. And so we voted um that we're at the point of voting uh to purchase the property for $455,000. And I don't know if you have enough information to vote or not. Yeah, I really got on because I totally spaced and I wasn't home at the time. But um but anyways, uh yeah, I will probably abstained. I really got on to just say I'm sorry.

I don't think I have enough information. I looked I even read the stuff today. I'm sorry. So that was more just an apology for me. Okay, that's all right. Um, so Justin, Colleen, and Jack are voting yes. Paul and Ken are voting no. We have Jan and Sandy abstaining. So, it's 3 to two. Uh, the the motion will move forward to town meeting. So, did you vote yes? How are you voting? How are you voting, John?

I have to vote. I didn't I honestly didn't think I'd voted. I never vote. You're You're a vote. You're You're a vote for sure.

Um I think I'm going to I'm going to be a an abstainer as well. I mean, I'm I am in favor of this. I'm concerned about the price, but I feel like, you know, that moving forward is an opportunity for the town meeting to decide whether or not they like this. So, if they feel like they need more information, uh, the members of town meeting, then they'll vote no. And if they feel like we had enough opportunity to get the information, then they'll move forward. I don't want to be the one that stops this. I want town meeting to have that opportunity. So,

that's why I abstained. I think town meeting is a good forum for this, but I'm on the no side, but I'm gonna give it a chance. Right. Question kind of for um Justin. Yeah, I have a point of order question for Evan. And I just want to, you know, line my ducks up in a row for a motion on CPC to pass bring it to town meeting. Is that just a majority? Yes. Or it is does it need to be a majority of quorum?

They're the well they're the same thing. It's just the majority of whoever votes. Okay. uh there there is differences in some ways with planning board you need you know four yeses you no matter what sometimes so just wanted to verify that for us town meeting is simple majority and there's no requirement that you have to cast a vote okay so it that's why you see numbers kind of jump around at town meeting like there's 225 people in the room yeah I was meeting for this meeting in particular where I hadn't seen three abstain my time for CP DC. So that was the Gotcha. Okay. Surprise, but anyway.

Yeah. Then that's I've never I've never had a vote for anyone that maybe I I'm wrong, but I don't remember people abstaining either. But again, I think that it's a fair vote. It's it's that you don't have enough information to vote either way. And that way you're not tipping it either way. Oh, it's no concern for me on how people voted. It was in that it was just a wanted to make sure we were coming out of this with the right actual understanding is all I was asking. Okay. Decides. So that's fine.

Okay. So um this will move forward to town meeting next Monday. So I encourage everyone to attend the meeting at 7 o'clock on Monday.

Motion to objourn. Hey, I just have a a quick question because we are going to town meeting and this committee has voted to approve it going forward. So people speak at town meeting and identify themselves as a member of CPC. They have to acknowledge that the committee voted to move this forward, right? They can't try to undermine what the committee just did tonight. Correct. Um to me the the record will reflect that that the CPC voted in favor and if the vote is requested the vote of three to two in favor with three abstensions to move this in favor. So I mean that's those are the facts. Three to two in favor. also see after seeing Ken so passionately against this project tonight getting up there saying I'm the treasurer of CPC and I think this is a bad idea and that will hold weight in a way that I don't think is appropriate after already also saying as a treasurer that we have money to fund this project and this is an appropriate project to fund it with

Colleen I don't plan to say that okay I just I just want to be very clear because as treasur I'd only say that I would say that we have money to fund it Okay. But if asked about due diligence, I would have to respond, but otherwise I won't.

So I think you know if people do speak at town meeting because we have gotten away from that that we don't introduce these. This isn't even our warrant article um before and we did introduce these um that identify yourself as Colleen Roy of whatever address. You know, you don't I don't think it's important to say that you're a member of CPC. if especially if we're concerned about that that people but to me it's the vote was 3 to2 CPC voted to move this forward now I will second Paul's motion to adjurnn okay I have a motion colle right

I'm with it though so Colleen what did I do didn't you move to it wasn't made a motion. No, I jumped in and prevented it. Sorry. Hey, John. I made a motion. I knew somebody made it other than me. Somebody did. Ken moved to um adjourn and Justin to second. Yes. U Jan. Yes. The motion is to adjourn. Um Sandy. Uh yes. Apologies again. Again, no problem. Um Justin, hi Paul.

Hi Colleen. Hi Jack. Hi Ken. Hi John. I we are joured. Thank you very much.