Community Preservation Committee - Regular Meeting

Uh good evening everyone. This is the community preservation committee our um meeting on June 18th, 2025. We have a quorum. We'll open our meeting now. Um, I have some agendas up here if anybody would like more here if anyone wants my phone. So, we'll start off with um some administrative um news and mail minutes. I just want to uh welcome I welcome everyone back. into Linda. I feel like it's been forever since we've been together. We only missed one month, but it it does seem like a long time ago. I want to welcome Kate Jacobson, who will be the um park and wreck representative for us this year. Um we want to thank Saul Marini if he's out there watching for um was a great great addition to the to the group, but we welcome Kate. Um let's see. Um, we I did send out some minutes. I'd like to get those done so we make sure that we get them done if anyone had any. And this was for the um April meeting. That was our short short meeting. We have a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of April 16th, 2025. Second. Motion by Linda, second by Sam. Um we'll do roll call since we have two remote

attendees. Um Kate say Linda. Yes. Carolyn, yes. Sam, yes. Andrew, yes. And Bartlett, yes. 601. Great. Thank you. Um, one other we need to do is um Oh, actually, I'm going to wait on the signitories until we see who's going to be in what positions. Um, anyone else have anything that we've Oh, Tom meeting did I have that off? Um, Tom meeting was easy. Thanks for everyone for sitting through it all and then not to have any questions which, um, is is good, I guess. Um, hopefully that means that everybody read them ahead of time and please, but um, we had 12 projects this year and they all passed. So, thank you, Littleton. Um, is there any public input that doesn't pertain to any one of our items before we get started? [Music] Um, why don't we uh do affordable housing trust afterwards because Anna couldn't make it tonight. So, um, we'll work with our our audience. Um, we have the clean lakes here, I think, for two different projects. So, John, I think you're up first about um the law one of the Long Lake projects. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Um first off, I'd like to thank you for the uh uh for funding our our projects uh past projects. We've been doing this for uh two years now and uh some good results. Um the question I have tonight pertains to uh $50,000 that was allocated to the clean lakes committee. uh for the removal of some floating uh

debris islands uh that were on Long Lake. And uh the work was done last uh I believe it was first week in September uh and was very successful. They took out about 100 cubic yards of uh of debris. Uh turns out it was uh predominantly uh deteriorating uh plant matter from uh from I guess uh mostly uh deadly pads. Um we've never seen that sort of thing happened before where all that just sort of came to the surface, but uh uh after talking to some of the state authorities, we find that that does happen from time to time. Uh the work was done. Uh the $50,000 uh was not used in full. we only needed uh $33,000 of it. Uh and so the $17,000 we were wondering if we could apply that to uh some of our current projects. Uh we're looking at Long Lake uh this year uh not so much for uh for eagle harvesting. Backtrack just a little bit. Um we uh our permits expired last year and we found that uh the state is uh is uh having us apply for actually a small dredging permit to continue on with the ecoh harvesting uh the removal of mechanical removal of of herbicide or of uh of invasive plants and so on. Uh so this year we find ourselves looking at uh herbicide treatments uh for for the lake if needed uh but also plant surveys to find out if uh if we do have an infestation. It doesn't seem as though we have as bad an infestation as we had anticipated. Uh and we're trying to reserve the funds that we had allocated for equal harvesting. Uh and we're thinking if we could in fact apply uh the remaining $17,000 towards uh

towards activities we have this year uh that would be uh that would be to our liking of course and uh uh kind of in tune with uh the lakes uh well they they have a they have sort of a whim. We don't always anticipate exactly what what's needed. Uh but I was wondering if those funds that are remaining could be applied uh to uh to current projects. So I tried to do a little bit of research and I didn't have a lot of luck finding that exact question. Um, I have the the application up here in front of us all and it this really states, you know, pretty clearly if I can highlight it um for the permitting and removal of the floating islands. So, you know, unlike, you know, job description where you have and all other projects as as um required. So, I'm not sure. I mean, we voted for the the islands themselves. if it were more islands, you know, certainly. Um, well, as I alluded to in a letter that I wrote to you last month, uh, just just after you postpone your meeting. I know. I know what the timing that was. I nailed it. I was thinking, uh, most everything we do, again, it kind of comes back to the whole notion of of lakes not really being covered as a specific item. Uh, with the, uh, Community Preservation Act, uh, it talks about conservation land. It talks about restoration and talks about uh projects that would enhance uh the ecology and what have you, but it never mentions lakes. And lakes, well, we we're starting to look at it as the applications we've made in the past are far too specific. Uh and

it's kind of hard to unwind that right now. But I think the lake is the project. The lake maintaining the lake and it's not maintenance. It's just dealing with the things that come up. We don't know from year to year exactly how things are going to be. Um, Forge Pond is having a terrible time with invasive species. Long Lake is not this year to the that it's hard to explain. I think it's really good that we had uh well what we call a normal winter. We had good ice coverage. We had 2 feet of ice at one point in time. We had snow coverage on top of the ice. So it was dark and that suppresses uh the amount of sunlight of course that can get to spur in invasive growth even early on in uh in in the spring. So, you know, a real plus. Uh, we find ourselves with a with a surplus of funds right now that you granted us for for eco harvesting, but we can't touch those because of the fact that we don't have the proper permit in place. And, uh, and we had thought we were going to take care of that from last fall through this winter, be ready this spring, but as it turns out, we can't even start the process until, say, like next month when there's fresh growth. We take that growth and we say we do lab tests on that. A brave new world for all of us. But what do the lab tests show? The lab tests are actually to examine uh the invasive plants that we plan to remove and uh and one of the things they measure is the VOCC's, the volatile organic compounds uh that that they emit. Um they're also looking at outfalls that come into each lake. uh whether or not there's any kind of uh of pollution that's coming into the lake, any kind of seepage, anything that would disrupt the ecology.

Uh and as a public, we do a pretty good job of disrupting lake ecology. So again, these things we feel responsible for, but these things we feel like we can address. Uh but uh but I was wondering if there was any kind of leverage uh for the remaining funds here that we could use this year uh towards uh hopefully the prevention of uh of more floating island uh through the uh through the action of uh of a plant survey uh which is about $5,000 uh and then perhaps any uh remedial work that needs to be done uh this year before we put that to bed. again just an appeal. Uh if there's no wiggle room at all, uh we'll be far more generic in our applications in the future. So I think I agree with Carolyn. It's hard to make this application more general at this point in time. However, I'm one and I think we should deal with the more generality of it going forward. Maybe next meeting or something we could talk about that. Um, I'm wondering if this is a compromise if you could if if we if we vote no, we can't generalize beyond what this application says. If you could submit a new application, right, soon and we could vote on it maybe at the next meeting. It's got to go through town meeting. Oh, it has to go through town. That's the catch. That's that's the problem, right? And again when we started this this was one of the first applications we made uh as a committee uh to your group and uh and we found uh well of course it made a big impression on us that you want to do capital improvement projects and again I think I think a lake is an awkward fit

for that um because well it's not like restoring a steeple or cleaning up a a cemetery or something or what what uh you know numerous projects that you take on acquiring conservation land. We have the lake, but but it needs attention. You know, it needs we're doing an awful lot in terms of storm drainage and and so on to make sure we're filling it in as rapidly as possible. Uh we're trying to counteract that and we're trying to address these things uh that uh that will prevent uh further problems. Will it prevent boring islands? Perhaps. um our activities this year would would would uh would address that, but it's not the symptom that we have more floating island and we need to remove them. So So quite literally, I'm not trying to get away with something here, but I'm just wondering if we're leaving money on the table and something we could we could take advantage of. a bit. It's a bit tough since P specific floating islands were the initial object of this grant. Um, in other cases, it seems to me we've allocated, I could be wrong, we've allocated money that was left over to new project or new and we never did that. I don't think you've ever done that. Usually what we'll do is like if this project were finished and you say, "Okay, no more floating islands." We would just turn that money back into the the bucket that it came from and then that money would be there for future projects. Andrew, oh, I'm sorry. Andrew, can you guys hear me? Um, so yeah, John, what I would suggest because it does sound like we're we might be handcuffed with this project, uh, just because it's a little

more specific, but perhaps maybe in the fall, um, you know, the October town meeting, we could get another application in and make it a little more general towards, you know, either invasive plant control or, you know, some of the other factors um, you know, leading up to the islands and and I mean, you guys would have funding available that spring and uh, be able to do a little more work to that end, But but yeah, unfortunately I think we might be handcuffed uh this time around. We need to keep it away from maintenance. Yeah. Yeah. That's the kind of thing I mean you you alluded to it, John. CPA is kind of project based. I mean, that's, you know, we're and I think the spirit of CPA is project based above what the town would normally, you know, funds. Of course, Clean Lakes is kind of in a strange position because you haven't been funded. I know you have a little bit of funding now. So, um, but certainly not enough to do everything you want. Yeah, I I find myself a little bit stuck. Um, I I think because I was looking to be project based, I made it as specific as possible. Um, I talked with Jim Dugen and he said, "By all means, make it as generic as possible." I said, "Well, that's not it's not going to it's not going to sell." Essentially, I had to convince you that this was worth uh the the monies that that you have available. And uh so I my fault perhaps uh in in just starting out, but uh is there any way that we could take some of those monies for a plant survey so that we can find out what we've got going on under the service? I don't know what people think.

I mean, I guess I would I would not be in favor of it. Andrew Barla, do you agree? Yeah, I'm I'm a I'm in favor of sort of being liberal in our interpretation of of invasive control and and I' I'd like to allow us to expand that definition a little bit. So, I'd be in favor of transferring um you know using that the the remaining what is it $17,000. Yeah. So, could you could you um verbalize what your rationale would be? The the project title is ecoh harvesting of inwater invasive plants in Long Lake. How would you justify? This is a I think I may have sent out the wrong one. Is that the right one? Oh, yeah. I meant to say that again. We We've done a plan survey on that, but we haven't done that project yet. Yeah, this is a floating islands. I Yeah, this one. So, that one is specifically for Yeah, I know. We had there were so many of them. Um, so this one is specifically for floating islands. Charlie Bartlett, does that change your Well, that's a little bit stricter. Um, I'm I would like to find a way to use the money, but um the floating islands are are a a byproduct of invasive plants. Um, I mean, that would be one direction to go in. It's kind of a stretch.

Now, if the committee was just hypothetically say yes to that thought, would that have to go back through a town meeting to move to or is it just because the money's already in the bucket? I guess if we could stretch the definition and say yes, that would be acceptable under this project, then we wouldn't have to go back to town meeting. Okay. But someone could say, well, that's not what the project is for. And that's kind of what the the sticking point is, right? Um, you know, so like the historical society, you know, with the windows, if we then said, well, can we use the rest of it for the doors? Well, we asked for windows. We shouldn't be able to use it on yours too. So I mean this is kind of different but similar I mean I feel your pain. I do. question. Um, yeah, John, we we would love to, you know, support the, you know, the, you know, the uh the islands project and and uh the byproducts, but I think we might be um kind of painted into a corner here. Now, you could keep this money on the books for a couple more years in case your floating islands come back. I always say I think we have uh this year coming up and then the following year to uh to monitor things. So yeah, but but thank you and and again I just I asked this because I don't want to run a follow of rules and regulations and uh so I I thank you for for hearing me out and the feedback. Okay. So I guess Oh yes, Mr. Bar. So uh

yeah, Dave Baron, um just generally speaking, not you know, but um does the CBA also include a directive to preserve um open space? That is one of the one of one of the categories of preserving open space. Yes. Um so uh the ongoing utrification of lakes uh degrades them to the point where you know a lake becomes a a swamp. lake becomes a marsh becomes a wet meadow becomes so this has happened in the mil pond where a 12ft lake over the course of just a couple decades it's now a three-foot uh sort of eyesore I mean it's still a lake but it's just not the vibrancy that was and um these processes I normally take thousands of years and the lakes are surrounded by development regions with development. Uh it can happen in 100 years in decades which milk pond was decades. So, uh, I just, yeah, not I understand that that doesn't really apply to this specific request, but, um, you know, it was mentioned that we need to stay away from maintenance and, um, I would advocate that, uh, keeping the lakes from utrifying and becoming no longer a resource that they are now, uh, is preserv observation

and that has to be done actively in the current environment just in general just a comment I'm trying to find like a definition here space to but not following yep ocean river stream lake and pond frontage fresh and saltwater marshes and other wetlands um acquisition, creation and preservation of open space, rehabilitation or restoration of any open space that has been acquired using CPA funds which wouldn't hold for any of the lakes. We don't need to answer right now, but something to think about. So it says frontage but not the actual water. Well, it does say fresh and saltwater marshes and other wetlands. Doesn't coastal lands land for recre. Yeah, that'll be interesting. We should get a definition of We like to think of ponds as some of the best open space. Right. Right. It can't be built on. They say they haven't figured out how centuries hopefully. Um All right. Yeah, we'll um see if we can get some answers. Maybe the coalition can help us with that. Yeah, sorry, John. Oh, no, no, fine. It's a clarification. Yeah. So then we have a similar um another party here another lake curve front um this is forge pond

Mr. Bar you have a similar request for you and this was the eco harvesting one correct right? Yeah. And this was a project for $80,000. Mhm. And what would you like to Yeah. Um Yeah. I don't know if there's a I don't need a microphone, but more confidence. Okay. Um Yeah. So, uh thank you at town meeting. U the owl's making noise. Oh, I see. Um, the town approved your uh request for $80,000 for echo harvesting on Lake Malawani/port pond. Um, we um have been fighting uification on the lake for the last decade using draw downs and um we find that with the warmer winters they're not as effective as they were. And so we're looking at uh other ways to to mitigate and uh we've been trying to explore echo harvesting for the previous two summers and we were hindered in doing that by various issues that limited the size of the treatments and delayed them until um late August. is talking. I know that's I wonder if it's too loud. I'm afraid I don't know if like one of your meetings you just had it was like it sounded awful when you listened to it. I don't know if he has volume.

hear okay online. Okay. What did it sound funny before or was it okay? It it was a little echoey before. It actually sounds better now. Okay. It must have been up too loud. Okay. So at the time that we came and requested the funding, we knew that uh we had uh that D was classifying uh echo harvesting as dredging. So we needed have a dredging permit in order to do it. And uh the plan was to Clean Lakes Committee was uh moving ahead with getting a dredging request and the expectation was that we would have one by now uh and that we could do the echo harvesting this summer. Um and we requested funding for a large um treatment so that we could access and we could have it early enough and large enough that we could really assess whether this is an effective way to uh mitigate to eliminate the invasive plants. Um it uh turned out that uh D told us we couldn't really start the process uh for applying for the uh dredging permit until uh like now uh we wanted to one of the first steps is uh har is collecting plants and sediments for analysis as Don referred to earlier and uh the plants and the sediment was there last fall and we said let's collect it now and they said no you have to wait until u early summer to do it and so it takes months and months to do the whole process. So

uh we are holding the funding and we're going to use it next year. Um but since uh we weren't able to do anything this year uh we um and we had uh $18,000 that was allocated by the water department for echoh harvesting last year which wasn't spent because we were constrained to only remove 100 cubic yards. We had $18,500 left over. We requested uh we requested from the water department whether we could apply that to doing herbicide treatments this year. Uh and they said that was okay. Um the the plan is to uh use the herbicides this year to reduce invasive plants um this summer and expect some carryover next year. uh which we're hoping will improve the effectiveness of the echoh harvesting next year because there'll be fewer plants to deal with and maybe this on off alternating cycle is more effective than just doing the echo harvesting. So, uh, we thought this was, uh, silver lining in the fact that we couldn't do the harvesting this year and we'd see, you know, uh, the the like the plan was to apply systemic herbicides to some of the areas where we have uh, invasive plants. And that is a herbicide that has a longerlasting effect. It it takes longer for it to take effect. might not actually uh show up affecting the plants until

later in the summer. Uh but it has a longer effect because it gets down into the roots and it kills the roots as well as the rest of the plant and so it can have an effect for a couple of years before you know more plants come in come back. Uh so we plan we plan to use dependent herbicides on some of the areas what they call contact herbicides on other areas which as the name implies uh whatever part of the plant is contacted dies. Um and that happens pretty quickly within a week or two. uh but uh it's only the part that's contacted and since the roots are in contacted the roots remain and they so the plant is uh gone for for all practical purposes now but it can come back from the roots depending what kind of plant and that kind of thing. So uh we would the plan is to use systemic uh herbicides in some of the of the plant acreage, contact herbicides on other parts of the plant acreage and no herbicide treatments on other parts. Uh and uh a big park that will get no herbicides is the Westside Lake because um the Westford this year is not providing funding for um anything other they are funding our plant surveys from Lake Manaki for the whole lake for this year. We're all getting back and forth. This year they're doing the plant surveys. Um, interestingly enough, uh, when I was talking to this the conservation commission, uh, to get approval for the herbicides, uh, we were encouraged to go back to Westford, uh, CPC and request

funding for echo harvesting for next year. Uh so uh and I was there three times to get the approval for the herbicides and every time I was you know it would suggest I do that. So we will and so it's uh it's possible that we would be able to do you know they would fund their side and we use your funding little side. we'd be able to do the whole lake which would be great but like I said uh for sure that half of the lake won't have any herbicide treatments and depending on how far our funding goes and uh what tomorrow we're doing plant survey and we'll see you know based on that what the recommendations are in terms of what areas need to be need to be done and we would uh allocate our any funding we have uh to you know systemic and um contact and there may be parts on the little side of lake that we can't do either because we have enough money. Um but that's uh that's that's the plan and we can see you know to what extent do these three different kinds of situations affect the echoh harvesting effectiveness uh next year. Um, we uh, like I said, we applied for and got the permits for the herbicides from both Littleton Conservation Commission, Western Conservation Commission because we haven't done herbicides on the lake for decades. Um and uh and um so there were a couple of things happened um uh in the process of getting the permits and doing the getting the contracts for the herbicide treatments which have resulted in uh the So

Our understanding from guidance we received was that we wouldn't need to be bidding it just need to get quotes. Um as it turned out because of a number of things bids were required and uh there were uh some delays in the pipeline up upstream of in terms of the permitting process and um so those two combined together uh mean that um there's a possibility rather strong possibility that we won't be able to use the water department funding for the herbicides because the bids won't become won't be opened until the 30th. Uh we're working with the um uh expected vendor uh to uh get things lined up ahead of time. Like I said, we're doing the plan survey tomorrow and then based on that, we'd come up with a plan and if they're willing to uh have the uh treatment uh staged and ready to go on the 30th, assuming that uh you know the contract can be signed that day, which the water department says it it's possible as long as there aren't any problems. uh then we could do the project and have it funded with water department funding uh by the end of June. But there's also a lot of things that could happen that would prevent that from happening. So uh it was suggested that we come and request from you uh that possibly uh some of the money that's allocated to the uh echoh harvesting could that be used for

herbicide treatment this year um and the rest of it be used for the the the echo harvesting next year. So you won't have access to the 18,000 after that truck the year. So that's correct. The the um local water department funding for that is part of FY 2025 and the work has to be done by the end of June in order to use it for that. And if it's not uh done by then then the uh funding would go back and we we wouldn't have access to it. Yeah. Um so um our intent in doing the herbicides was to see well here's the silver lining like I said uh can we see how this uh these different approaches affect the effectiveness of the echo harvesting next year and um so I don't know whether you see that to be uh a appropriate link uh for the you know the the money was allocated by town meeting for echo of the harvesting um so I don't know um if you see that as still being in the same for the same purpose or or not. So I just want to read something from your application that I just saw while you were talking on page six under potential delays. The last two sentences say and talks about the permit delays that we talked about um and and other delays in echo harvesting says in the case of these delays we will consider more traditional alternatives for the 2025 season. This could potentially include a single time use of herbicides blah blah blah. Um if

the 2025 invas plant growth continues to increase it may be wise to dampen that increase with with her herbicide treatment. So there is some reference to that in this application. So it's not totally out of the picture. Mhm. What where was you said that was page six? It's the end of that potential police paragraph. Why so slow? receiving permit said we will preserve the funds to perform the work in the subsequent season. The benefits at this time we will not proceed with echo harvesting late in the season as we have been forced to do before as we recognize early treatments are more effective. Instead we will preserve the funds to perform the work and evaluation in the subsequent season. In this case, we will consider more traditional alternatives. Like we hadn't put that sentence in before, [Music] Andrew Bartlett, I think what we might be running into is uh you know a similar situation as the uh the long leak application. Fortunately, I'm looking for any little wiggle room. I can, you know, kind of get this for you, Dave. Um, and in looking at it, yeah, it's a shame, like Carolyn said, that first sentence wasn't included because then we could wrap around and say, well, okay, A failed, so we can we have to jump into B and it's included within your scope. Um, but in this case, it

looks like it was um, you know, this specifically or um or nothing. Um, but yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how we could All right. Could you say that again? I'm not following you. Oh, can you guys hear me? My my phone might be a little garbled. No, we can hear you. Oh, I just I'm just not following your train of thought. Oh. Oh, so um so the the sentence that Linda had uh read out loud previously uh basically stating you know if we're unable to perform the eco-h harvesting u within the scope of this application um we'll return to more traditional methods herbicides etc. But then with that sentence that Carolyn read um uh essentially going before that saying you know if if we're unable to perform eco-h harvesting due to you know permitting issues or other issues that may come up uh you know we will reserve the funds you know given uh by CPC and then um you know proceed with traditional methods. Um, so it's kind of it it makes it sound like it's outside of the scope of the application. Um, can I clarify what we meant there? Sure. So, the intent of that sentence is uh that we would not go ahead with uh a treatment uh late in the season like we have in the past. uh that if if permits were delayed and we were um uh not able to get a permit until later uh we wouldn't do the echo harvesting late in the season. We would uh want to do it the next year uh in 2026. Um so we're still doing that. We're preserving the uh funds to do the

treatment in 2026. And you know, we specifically say that we would uh consider doing uh herbicides uh for um to dampen the increase uh until we um so so using herbicides together with the echo harvesting. I think where it says preserve the funds, I think that's where we're tripping up. That's what's kind of getting me because because I could see it just and then here's the the the project here and it just talks about a survey and then I mean you're talking about machine days of eco harvesting. You know, I don't have the documents in front of me, but I'm from what Linda read, it sounded like um echo harvesting is as a way of getting rid of the invasives and um that I would interpret that in this situation a herbicide would be an alternate way of getting rid of invasives. And I I I I don't I I'm not see I don't have the documents, so I'm not quite sure what I would be looking at if I had them. Are you watching us or are you just listening to us? Well, I'm watching I see. So this is what she's talking about here. And then if you read the sentence before it says instead I'm pointing like he'll see me. Instead we will preserve the funds to perform the work in evaluation talking about the eco harvesting which we still plan to do. We will be preserving uh a lot of funding for echo

harvesting next season but not the entire 80,000. So I definitely see both sides. However, I mean, if this paragraph of potential delays wasn't in here, I would say no. But because this paragraph is in here, it's a contingency plan almost. I might vote to allow it. If it wasn't here, I wouldn't. And I I think the key sentence or phrase in this is in this case, we will consider more traditional alternatives. So, they're saying if I'm reading this, I would read it as you'll preserve basically the majority of the funds, although it doesn't say that because you weren't sure. Save money to be able to do this in the next season, but spend some money for that single time use of herbicides. If consultation with like management professionals says this is a good approach. It's just like maybe one word missing and it would be a no-brainer. I could see how it could be read as yeah, you know, we're you know we can't do that. So in this case, we're going to move forward with alternative methods, but I'm not a legal ease stickler. Well, that's certainly the way I would like to interpret it. I think that, you know, invasives are a serious enough problem that, you know, any steps that are possible should be taken to treat them. And I would completely agree. I just want to make sure that we're within the scope that the town's people approved a town meeting. How much money are we talking about for the overight treatment? Oh, um

suggestion is uh 20,000. Mhm. So, we still have 60,000 left, which would uh give us 10 uh days, 10 machine days of of harvesting, which uh compares to uh in 2023, we had two days on Littleton. In 2024, we had three days on Littleton. So with 60, uh, we'd have 10 days, which is over three times as much as we had last year, five times as much as we had the year before. So the 185 that you'll lose on June 30th, does that go back into just a general fund? Do you have to request that again or is it lost to you after it? it it's lost shorelines. I would I would think that the town meeting would say we voted to to get rid of the invasive plants and one way is the same as another way. I mean that's I think some lawyers would argue with that but I think the town meeting sense is the the invasives are a problem and anything we can do to get rid of them is is a good idea. The project title Bartlett is echo harvesting of invasive aquatic plants and right but because of the idiotic people in the state we can't we can't do that. So we're proposing an alternate means and I think um I don't think we should be bound by the morons in Boston. We're gonna quote you on that. Okay. I'm sorry Mr. You had that on. I just wanted to attempt to clarify. My understanding is the 185 that's the water department's funds, right? Yeah.

So that's where I I as a resident I'm not a member of Clean Lakes. So I attend their meetings as I attend your meetings pretty frequently. So I follow this and try to speak up and advocate for it. And in this instance, I'm aware that the water department has effectively said, "We're going to lose it. you use it or lose it. there is no and they don't like to have like you know hump ears you know that sort of that that's one point the other part that I could just offer you up as a resident who watch this um because I meet with these folks you know in meetings and offline to try to strategize I can just offer you up my personal um representation for what it's worth that the language that lived identified in fact was very deliberate with regard to providing an expansive, you know, more expansive than just the eco-h harvesting because at the time that it was being prepared the application, there was an awareness of uhoh with regard to the state's uh determination of dredging permits. But that's all that I can offer you up and I think you're saying correctly. You can at least there's a hope there. But whether it's adequate, I leave that to you. Thank you. Vote yes. No, I think on this Yeah. I mean, we didn't really vote on the last one, but I think we were pretty much in consensus. We didn't vote, but we didn't really technically vote on on not on on Oh, that we didn't vote. Yeah, but this one, I don't know. I'm not comfortable with it. I guess I'd rather vote so that I could. And I I appreciate what you guys are trying to do. I do. And I, you know, um

I feel very strongly about the lakes in the water, too. It's just seeing that what we have, you know, with my CPC hat on. I I just I feel like this is the same as the the last one, but it's different because they have that paragraph of potential delays. Talk about the alternative. Anyway, yeah, title of the title of the application is then it gets broken down. I mean, frankly, so you had are expecting at least aware of possible delays and trying to cover it. I I would suggest that 99% of the people that voted for it have no idea what echo harvesting is. Um, and they know that we're removing plants on the lake and there's a lot that goes into the applications that meeting is not fully aware of. But you could say that for every article that comes. Um, I'm just saying that that the spe the details in the in the application may matter. So, you Yeah, I'm I just have a question. We're We are talking about $20,000 of CPC money in this case. Yes. 20 of the 80,000. Of the 80,000. And And that 20 is intended to add on to the 18,000 from the water department. No. if if we're able to uh get everything lined up and the stars all align uh and are able to do the treatment on June 30th, we wouldn't need to do this. We would just use the water

department's funds. Uh our expectation is that that's uh got a it's quite possible that something will come up the the gears and that and we aren't able to do on 30th in which case we were looking to do this as a another way to to do it. So if we if we if we use the water department's funding, we wouldn't use the CPC funding for the site. Well, I guess if if we want to vote on it, if it goes favorable, I'd like to ask some questions. Just be on the safe side. [Music] Do we want to vote on it? Do you want to maybe go around the room and just kind of give some final thoughts? And because I feel like we'd get more out of that than just kind of going yay or nay on it. So, Andrew, do you have some final thoughts? I mean, I I want to buy into this clause idea. I really do because I mean, Dave, I want to get this moving. I'm just not 100% certain that we can hang our hat on it um as being as part you know part of the scope of the project that was approved um cuz essentially it is saying we're going to do ecoh harvesting up until the very end and then if not we'll use we'll reserve that money and then um you know do herbicides. So, I mean, I want to hang my hat on it, but I'm just not sure if it's under the same scope. Do you have any final thoughts? Well, yeah. For for me, it's it's it's close

enough. I mean there is that I mean it is yes it does say eco-h harvesting but there is you know a mention of of using herbicides if for some reason they can't do the echo harvesting. So for me it's a I I mean I'm I I would I'm in favor of making that decision that it that it's it's okay to allocate the 20,000 right in between as I like to continue the project or get the project up to get going in regardless of the or taking in account that the permitting process is slow and this would produce hopefully some positive results before the eco. Would you be feel comfortable if we said yes, go ahead and use 20,000 for herbicide? I think so. I'm with Angelo. I I guess I would not be Linda. You seem to be Yeah, I would vote to allow the 20,000 to be used for the century. Kate, do you have a I know you kind of come in the middle of all this, but that's an outside opinion might be good. So, it's interesting coming into the middle of all this. I from a citizen point of view looking at it in this way I would read this as well yeah they're they're going to need to go with the single time use of herbicides and so I would vote favorably because of that clause I think part of the problem is that the people I mean the state has defined eco-h harvesting as dredging because mud comes up with the roots And I think

that's a totally ridiculous decision on the state's part. There's very little mud that comes up. Actually, uh most of the plants don't come up by the roots. Most of them are broken. Yeah. So there's very, you know, it's hard to figure. I think it's all on Sam. Well, I think he was comfortable at least. Oh, he was comfortable. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I think at the end he I see. So, it sounds like the it's close enough people have it. I I will ask some questions, but um questions of me. No, from like the um coalition that oversees the community preservation to see if if um how how we how much of a stickler we should be. Um and I'll do that tomorrow. That's a good idea. I think that's fair. You know, just in case that works. and and then we can come back next month and um you know perhaps officially vote um you know to uh to uh allow the feel like my mic is like failing here. Oh no, you sound fine. I think it might be the or something. So but do you need to you would need to know before the end of the month, right? Oh, that's Oh, I'm sorry, Dave. I forgot about that part. Um we are working with um the water department. We're working with the expected vendor. Uh we're working with the company that's doing those plan surveys to

try to facilitate a June 30th treatment. Um, if that doesn't happen, then we are either out of luck or we might be able to use this. Okay. So, if we couldn't I mean that if we can till July 4th, you could still go ahead with whatever you continue. I'm sure we I'm it won't take them that long. They're really good about getting back to us. Okay. And if if that is favor favorable news, you would not need to put it to a vote with us or would you have to wait till the next meeting? I maybe we could vote on it pending pending the outcome of a question. That way if if they say no, it's fine. It would just go through. If not, then I'll have to let you know and we'll be back to square one. Is that is everyone okay with that? Okay with that. Yeah, I think that works because it gives this project I guess you know a shot at going forward. Um you know pending of course coalition input you know if they come back and say this is like hey you guys can't do this then um you know at least we'll have that kind of guard rail. Okay. Um, so someone want to make a motion to accept the U proposal from the Clean Lakes Committee that way. I'll make a motion to accept the proposal from the Cleveland committee to um if necessary use $20,000 of the funds approved at town meeting for the Lake Maki ecoh harvesting project uh to be used towards one-time herbicide treatment if

needed. I'll I'll second that. All right. Uh, we'll do a roll call since we have um remote members. Andrew, uh, yes. You're yes. Uh, yeah. Okay. Um, Bartlett, yes. Sam, yes. Carolyn is a no. Linda, yes. And Kate, yes. Okay. Okay. I will be in touch and let you know what we hear. Okay. Okay. Um there's enough gray area in CPA that you might be okay. Okay. If we've learned anything over the years, we've learned that. Um that was five. H one, two, three, four, five. Yes. You're right. Oh, I even put five little stints down and then I counted it as one. Thank you. Right. Thank you very much. Okay. So, and it's based on that that one phrase. That's why his application was doing differently. Correct. Well, it was not it was the whole paragraph that potential delays paragraph. Yeah. I think that's the key thing is to point to page six, potential delays. Really noting the D permit administrative delays could throw a wrench out of this. Thank you. All right. Thank you, John. Sorry, John. Thank you, John. Thank you, Dave. Thank you. Um the next thing we have is the uh planning board affordable housing truck. Oh,

um, sewer hookups. Bartlet, this was something that you had proposed. You want to you want to drive this one? Um, yeah. Um, I don't know what's happening with that. Um there is going to be a hookup of the u housing authority Pine Tree Park to the sewer. Um it's going to require um digging a trench laying pipe um connecting the buildings and decommissioning the existing um septic systems, the leeching fields. So there's um you know engineering involved and a lot of work and I think they were talking about roughly $800,000 total. Um I know that the housing authority has applied to the state um to EOHLC and to other people for grants to cover this. Um I don't know the status of those grant applications. Um, so I'm not in a position to ask for a a hard sum of money at this point. Um, I just don't know um what is going to happen with the grants and um so I I you know I I really can't present very much. So, what would you need from us tonight then? And and okay, it sounds all right. Or do you want something definitive? No, I think I think something I mean it just, you know, if it sounds like something that I could I could

reasonably bring forward with, you know, I mean, something less than $800,000. Yeah. I mean, if if if I could feel comfortable going before you guys and asking for some sum of money for that purpose um for connecting the housing authority to the town sewer. Um I I I mean I I I would I might I might have to do that and I don't I just don't know yet. I know that they've applied for about I think close to $2 million in grants because there's a there's a $1 million or one and a4 million connection fee. Um and then there's the you know sort of $800,000 estimated engineering and construction um money to make that make it happen. So there I may I may come back with, you know, some a request for some part of that. So according to this email, you're you're looking to the CPC to consider the connection, the sewer connection to be in support of housing rather than rehabilitation. Is that kind of right? It's in it's in it's in support because it's a new system. It's not rehabilitating anything. It's connecting to a new sewer. M and you did talk to Chase at the community preservation coalition, but he just said it it's up to the local board's interpretation and to talk to Stuart if we want more information. Yeah. Um did you say it's behind F or near FA Park? Is that what you said? No, it's Pine Tree Park. It's it's the housing

the housing complex at the beginning of Shadic Street. Got it. Thank you. And there's I think 60ome units in there. So replacing or repairing the existing septic system is with a sewer nearby doesn't seem to make sense if it's equivalent in price or even well the the septic systems are in generally in a state of failure or near failure. So, um the the sewer is an absolute necessity for the housing authority to continue, but um I just don't know how I mean the grant this grant business is going to be playing out for the rest of the calendar year and I don't know how it it's going to end up. When do you have when when do they have to know that? I thought that was already all set. No, it's it's it's not it's not all set. I can I can um I mean they haven't as far as I know they haven't signed up anybody, you know, engineers to even look at it or I mean I I don't know of any steps that have been taken except that we know we're going to have to do it and it's going to cost a lot of money. That's really the state of my knowledge right now. So, you know, from what you've described, it looks like this is support for housing, which is one of the acceptable categories. It can't, like you said, it can't be re rehabilitation. There's nothing there in terms of the sewer, right?

So, it seems to fit. Well, I mean, I know that CPC contributed some towards a uh years ago we needed a new water meter and um I think community preservation um contributed some towards that and the water department did some free work for the housing authority. So, I mean I think a system like that is in support of the of the whole complex, right? Um I suppose it's something that we I don't know if we send the town council. I mean he said as long as it's the local board. Is he saying us as the local board or is that done? I guess I mean if you were creating a housing complex which you can do with CPA money you the sewer would be part of it. I mean that would all be right. And the the CPA has has um CPC has has given money for roof repairs and roof roof replacement which also qualify as being you know preserving the structure of the buildings. Actton paid for sewer betterments for three units. Um, wershed improvements evaluate and upgrade some store sewer. Oh, sewer lines. Um, here's Cockard. The buildings 100-year-old plumbing needs to be connected to the town sewer system. In

order to accomplish this, the bathrooms will need to be relocated. That's not all the same thing. Replacement of No, that's for pumping sewage to replace the sewer lateral to replace that means engineering studies. Sewer beds toward the town committed on the sale of a sewer. I don't know it kind of looks like people have done other sewer improvements. These monies will specifically go toward the inputting of a sewer line and the prepared work for this project. That was Franklin affordable housing. So I think you're right. If we call it in support, it's supporting the existing public housing. Andrew, do you have any thoughts? I I would generally agree that it's um you know, supporting housing. That category is uh very broad. So, I think um a lot of different things that would help uh you know, the goal of housing in town would probably qualify. So, Barbara, would you be looking for additional funding from us or is this going to be like the money that the affordable housing No, it's two separate things, right? Right. It's not the affordable housing trust. It's the No, this is Yeah, the housing authority. It's No, unrelated to the trust. That's right. I tripped over that with Anna. Authority. So, you would be looking would do you think you'd be looking for 800,000? Are you going to No, I don't I don't think so. I think there probably is going to

there's probably going to be major grants from the state or from somebody to do most of it. And I'm just thinking that there might be some small parts that aren't covered somehow. I guess I say continue and we can look into it a little bit more and um but to me it sounds like and support sounds like it fits. Yeah. Now you can't disclose pine tree park down because the septic systems are unrepairable, right? And with the sewer right out of jack street. I know. It would be stupid not to support the course seems valid. Yeah, it sounds like we're in consensus like that. You can move forward and thank you. It'll just be, you know, working with the affordable housing trust to see how much money is left or we do have some funds in um un on designated also. Right. But thank you. That's a pretty hefty thing. Yeah. Oh, yeah. But, you know, it's it's it's a big project. There's I think 60 units in there. Um I mean I mean we I mean this has been going on for a year and a half. Um you know a year ago in April we got a a a bill from the water department saying they they needed you know $120,000 and we didn't get that from the state until May this year. So they they have that but now they're looking for another million and a quarter to you know actually do the hookup. So, it's it's insanely expensive and it takes forever to get anything done. So, we'll have to see what happens. Yeah. All right. So, you have what you need from us for now and we'll I do. Thank

you. Continue to think about that. Um, one more little housekeeping is the grant agreement. We have to go back to this. This is um number four on our agenda. We skipped over. Um, we had worked this out last year with the affordable housing trust with the money that we give to them or we grant to them for the rental assistance program. Um it was another $106,000 uh at this year's town meeting. And so this is just um this year's grant agreement about and basically we use last year's as a template and switch the amount to $16,000 to be used or held by the trust and reserve for up to three years for the LRAP program. And um the date of transfer I we talked to Michelle Reynolds because they don't quite have 106 in the bucket right now, but it will be coming in. And so they um I think we we talked about getting some of the money now so that they would have it in their bank account so they could do some rental assistance. And then the it is about 90 90,000 I think or 80,000, right? So, it would just be a small amount that they would pay up to like the end of December. And I'll have to check with Anna. I thought she had sent me the updated one to see exactly what she said, but we'll we just change the the date to be um uh transfer funds by the end of 2025, right? Yeah. the the we discussed that at the housing trust meeting last night and um the trust has no problem with you know getting some of the money now and or soon and and the rest of it at the end of the year after the state

distribution. Um, and we we talked about 90,000 and and 16,000, but um I I don't think that, you know, whatever Michelle has for numbers, I think we can we can live with. Yeah. Yeah. Because in November, we get the state the state matches a portion of the revenue that we received. So, remember what it's 80,000 or something like that. So, we allocate that. We have an estimate estimated allocation we do at town meeting. So they are expecting that money. So it comes in usually in November. So by the end of the year they'll have that replenished so they'll be able to get the rest of the money. [Music] Does anyone else have any other questions on this document? It's pretty much the same that we did last year. Do you have a motion to accept? I make a motion to accept the grant grant dispersement schedule. Grant dispersement schedule for the affordable housing trust. Seconded. Um we'll do a roll call. Andrew, yes. Bartlet, yes. Dam. Yes. Caroline, yes. Linda, yes. And Kate, yes. Okay, great. Thank you. I will no and give it to the town clerk. Um the next thing on the list is reorganization of the committee. Um well currently I'm chair obviously Andrew is vice chair and Mitt is our clerk. If anyone wants to take a turn at being chair Bartlett Andrew. Oh, Carolyn, you do an amazing job. I'm just saying. Take a shot.

So, I think Caroline's done a phenomenal job and I hope she continues. I can do it for another year. Okay. Do I have to nominate you or can you just accept by acclamation? No. Yeah, we should do nomination. Should we nominate a whole slate and then just vote? And Andrew, are you still willing to be the VP? I'm still willing to be the vice. Good. Because I have this text, so I can do that. And Mitt's not here. Um, does anyone else want to be the clerk? Sorry, Mitt Wanzer. No, I will Mick Wanzer to be the clerk. I'll second that. you want to make a um a motion for the the slate of officers or the committee, whatever we call ourselves. I'll make a motion that um to nominate um Carolyn Mueller as the chair, Andrew Smarco as the vice chair, and Mid Wanzer as the clerk for the community preservation committee for fiscal year 2026. Second that. All right. Second for the slate of um um home officers on this room. Andrew, yes. Bartlett, yes. Sam, yes. Carolyn is yes. Linda, yes. And Gates, yes. So, then we have to talk about signitories. We got um anyone who's on the committee has probably heard this already. Um the annual signature authorizations. Um, it's time again for your respective boards to vote on your department's account payable bill signature approval process. Um, members must vote to

designate the number of signatures andor specific members required to sign and often approve the bills. This is only required if the board or committee is seeking less than a majority to authorize payments. Oh, so okay. But there's nine of us and trying to get and we have what one bill a year. I mean we basically we don't spend we give. So we do the coin that we've been talking about and I'll forward you that okay website because that's a good one. Um we pay dues to them and that's about the only bill. So, I don't know if we want to just have two signatures or one. I mean, I'd bring it to the board and I don't know how to do it. What do we have now? Two signatures. Andrew, is it you and and me that are signitories? I don't think we've ever actually had to sign anything. Um, I think it was just I think it was just me because it was always just Mitt when he was chair. Well, I it might be good to have two in case you're gone for some reason, then you could sign it. So, I would I'd make a motion that Carolyn and Andrew are the signitories for the CBC this year, meaning not both. It's one or the other. One or the other. Yeah. Right. Good clarification. Yes. I will second that. Okay. Um Andrew, yes. Bartlett, yes. Uh Sam, yes. Caroline is yes. Linda, yes. And Kate, yes. Okay, great. Let me send that off to Michelle. All right. [Music] Um upcoming year we'll talk about later. Just, you know, thinking of things ahead of time. Um future meeting schedule. So at this

time, why don't we plan on a July meeting? We may need it. Uh when July 16th would be our next meeting, which is the third Wednesday. Our third Wednesday is good for you, Kate. We're good. Seems to work well for us. And we've been having them hybrid. Um which we'll continue to do since we're allowed to. back. Um, so you can all zoom in if you want. And then um any last items? Nothing. No. All right. So that's all we have for this evening. Thanks everyone. Motion to adjourn. Make a motion to adjourn. Second. Barlet. Andrew. Uh, yes. And Barllet, yes. Sam, yes. Yes. Linda, yes. And Kate, yes. Great. Thank you everyone and good night.