>> Yeah. But also for me I even remember in the beginning when we were talking about the process even I had very I was I had what's the word I'm looking for? your concerns. >> I had concerns from the very beginning about the process because it didn't 100% make sense to me the first day we were talking about it. It didn't really make much sense to me the second time, but now I'm kind of getting because I even said I don't know how this is going to look in action and I had concerns, but now I'm starting to see how it's going to look in actions. And I know at this point we can't change it. It is what it is. But I would like to talk with my teams to make sure that we that I have the same understanding of what's going to happen going forward as they do.
But um what I would recommend if you're actually Why don't I just go through the three items? >> Go. >> Um next would be a community the to help fund the community center renovation. It's true that uh we're 86% of the funds are not not taxpayer funds. There's still some like local revolving funds being used. Um so, you know, any additional funding we get for that would offset um offset any local funds that we have. Um and uh that is moving along. Katherine's going to give more of an update about that. And then um last is just uh funding for downtown parking and transportation improvements. uh kept it pretty general, but you know, we were able to get uh some, you know, funding from 10 to 60 main for parking improvements. You know, we could maybe combine things and look at, you know, if you want to move forward with the police station and and um demoing that and and creating like, you know, a public parking >> type of scenario or maybe um you know, infrastructure or maybe Tilton.
I just need three minutes. >> Okay. Everybody okay with another caucus? Okay. 3 minutes. It's 10:44. We'll see you at 10. It's 10:45. We'll see you at 10:48. So I think there's some um better guidelines around process needing better understanding also understanding that how how we're facilitating that How I'm facilitating IBM this year is different than in years past. Uh how we use consensus and thumbs is different than in years past. Items coming here from out from Triad perhaps. Um feeling like there, you know, it's it's here and there hasn't been a process like we've been doing about the some of the options um with folks. So there's just a little bit of unease around that and I think better process clarification uh moving forward but I don't want I don't want to speak for the group. Um I think there's concern about items coming at this time.
>> Um but uh that would be a resource. So those are the three um and you know what I'd recommend is if you're aidable that I work with Superintendent Adams on a couple specific items for number one and um if you're good I'll I'll submit a request for all three. >> I'll open it up to the board. Your thoughts? >> I think that I think that works. Also, I just want to take back what I said before because I've been corrected about the 12 million in capital projects within the school budget. Like, we're still figuring there's there's >> you're getting an I saw Paul jump on. I think he was getting ready to correct us and then we walked away from it. So, >> I I was going to be very surprised that they were be going to be willing to take that much money >> considering they don't have any real capital.
Can more items come? It's my understanding. I don't know how much more after what we have on the agenda for today is going to come. The idea is there is a feeling, not a feeling that things are happening behind closed doors. Um, and maybe there hasn't been enough time to process and better understand or have information like has happened previously where you said, "Okay, can you go cost this out?" sort of thing or get information. The FDIC thing, I'll say, is a completely I would have never thought of that different thing. So I don't know if that is pretty much capturing its process, its deadlines for bringing things. It's understanding uh how items get here from a triad group versus a committee. Um what am I missing, Kelly? >> I think to me it was ultimately the same questions that we brought the first caucus in.
Well, we'll I'm sure we'll talk about this more on Tuesday, but I just wanted to do a miaulpa and say sorry. Um I misspoke. So, sorry, Paul. I know you're listening. Anyway, um I'm I'm good with I'm good with this list and I'm and I would say, you know, let's we can p I'm happy to prioritize the school's capital improvements as sort of like the the first >> items on the list. Would it behoo us to invite uh Jim at our at our next meeting uh with uh Karen? >> I was going to see if you wanted to invite the school committee um and and Jim as part of that. >> What do you think? Why not? It can hurt. >> And they always we I don't know that Karen and and Jack go to the schools. Yeah. >> So certainly to invite them while they're here.
I just think it's going to the wave needs to wash over a few times as I like to say. So um yeah, I think we'll get there. >> Okay. Yeah, let me try to answer the question about the numbering system. Is there a threshold? No. >> I will tell you in my in other work that I've done, I usually have a same number of classified, same number of certified, same number administrators at the table and they get to each score. And so that's pretty much the only difference. The numbers are the numbers. Um I in those other things we do it equitably to make sure each person is getting or each group is having equal representation when it gets to the scoring but you guys are wallto-wall. So that's why I asked everybody to provide their score. I also clarified that scores have to be objective.
Why not? >> Makes sense. >> It can't hurt to ask. >> Just do it. >> Then invite them. >> Yeah. Do you want to send that email? I'd be happy to do it. What do you want to do? >> Susan, can we can we um make sure we do that? >> Invite the school community right now. >> And I also support this this letter to >> Yep. >> to request earmarks. I think it's good. I think it's three positive things that would be very beneficial for the community. >> We don't need to take a vote on that, right? We can just say go ahead, Mike. And you got it. >> If you're good with it. Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. Okay. Uh discuss the comments regarding uh housing production plan. So I will it was a good meeting. I I what I saw was it was a very good meeting.
This is a rubric if you will of standards. You can't just say something is zero because you're trying to crash and burn the option. if that makes sense. Right? You can't say this is a zero on legal just because you don't like it. If it's legal, it's legal, right? Um so I don't know, >> but that's where more clarification is helpful in the beginning to Dorothy's point, like there needs to be more discussion before we get to those numbers so that people feel really confident saying like, "Okay, yeah, I know." because her question specifically is about fiscal responsibility and how much money is it going to cost the district which may have impacted her number that she voted had she known like oh you know what this is actually more of an impact or I'm not explaining why >> I think mate I think the point was if we there was more information about parts of it right and when you get to consensus you're not just doing this because you're trying to because you're positional is that you really have all the information so you can be here or here in this case.
Um a lot of a lot of good points and stuff. So I'll shall I hand it over to you before. Um, so just as a reminder, I'm not involved with this year's housing production plan, but I do have comments. So, >> um, let me pull up the document that um that Jasmine sent us. And I had some questions. >> Did did anybody comment uh and provide to Jasmine? I know that she she was >> I think I think we were going to we were going to talk about it tonight and then we were going to get any kind of comments to her after the meeting I think today. But >> um I I think there there are a couple of things I mean as you're pulling up Brandy I think there were a couple of things that kind of piqued my my my some questions for me when we were discussing housing production.
Dorothy's question was around how much would this really generate in revenue save if you will based on prior retirement uh numbers if that makes sense. So I think there's a a desire to have some of that information prior to the presentation that happened here today. Is that >> accurate? Okay. And then um was there some did I answer all the questions? Do go to a deadline on the when option there to be brought >> I here I don't are there other triad groups out there okay are there other other than what you have today for compression pay for performance insurance is there anything else >> not that I can speak to um I think the the things that we've identified like >> um Eve was mentioning in the previous session or previous part of the morning when we identify things in triad that should be taken to meet and confer that's when it gets moved over right >> uh we do have those committees that are making recommendations but that's based on previous work as you mentioned >> right >> um >> quick process question and I didn't know if this was if I'm overstepping but we haven't heard from the group that was not out of the room conversation about the consensus about the um caucus.
I don't know if this is on your list as well, but um I am kind of curious about the process when we were talk identifying, you know, parcels of land. >> Uh I'm not clear on on how that was done and um you know, we very clearly saw that some of those parcels wouldn't be appropriate for development. Yeah. >> Um, you know, so I I mean I do have a little concerns. I do have some concerns there and I actually want to find out how do we proceed, you know, in identifying those parcels in in an appropriate manner. I think that's a key concern that I walked out of that meeting with the other night. Um, I have a couple other comments, but I think you you've got your notes up, so I'll let you ask your questions. I'll jump in later. >> So, I guess um Okay.
So, I didn't know if that was going to be an opportunity for that group to address their >> Yeah. >> conversation as well. >> Okay. Uh with the first group that I went out with, have we captured everything that was discussed and then we'll come back to this group? >> Yes. I just wanted to clarify for so if there is a another issue topic interest that comes up in a triad meeting or something else moving forward can we just add it to like a table list or a look at next year >> type of yes >> document so that it can be captured but can't be added now further because we're too far along in the process as of today. Okay, >> agreed. Well, I think an unintended outcome of of that of putting something like that in place would be because they didn't have to bring this to meet and confer.
Let's see. Um, so just going through on on page 12 of the document where we list the strategies. Strategy number 11 where it says preserve existing affordable housing stock and it says um part of it is like a you know establish a monitoring system for expiring affordability restrictions blah blah blah. Mhm. >> Create a townfunded preservation fund to purchase and renew restrictions or facilitate nonprofit acquisition of at risk properties. Isn't that what the >> housing housing trust is? Like that's already a thing. >> Yes, that's exactly what it does. >> So, >> yes. >> So, that's probably not something that needs to be >> in there or they replace it with >> Right. It just seemed like a >> it's redundant. >> Well, yeah. I mean Yeah. And and I think >> or maybe maybe instead of create a town funding president, maybe enhance the >> enhance or utilize.
They could have just made the decision and moved forward with it and said, "We're doing this." And so, I appreciate it being brought forward to meet and confer so that we can hear about it. And I think if we say like, "Well, you can't bring it forward," then they could easily say, "Okay, we're going to do it." You know, if if we've done the research, we're going to make this decision. We we've heard that that happens in other districts. >> That's a trust, but >> I don't know that. Let's I want to be careful about that because it it can right if if you don't if it's how it's been sort of thing. Um I generally think people are not trying to do that, right? Sometimes, I mean, I've made mistakes where I didn't bring it to when I was a principal, forgot to run it through the committee, not because I was trying to usurp anyone's power.
So just say utilize it. I mean, you know, that's a recommendation, but not create >> better utilize perhaps um >> and put the affordable housing trust in there, which is weird because >> describe the affordable >> actually mentions the affordable housing trust item number. It says, >> "Yeah." >> So, I'm a little conf I'm actually a little confused now because I don't know what that's referring to. >> Yes. >> So, maybe we could get some clarification on that >> cuz number 10, it's right there on number 10 like strengthening the affordable housing trust >> because there is there is a barrel of CPC money directed to the affordable housing trust for that purpose. per yeah perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what the affordable housing trust what its function is. That's what I'm kind of reading from this document. So >> yeah, >> I could get that.
I just flat out was busy and forgot to do it and then had to go back. So, I just think this is intended to help build trust between all of the groups. I do not believe based on what I've heard and the little bit I know from having been here a few times is that this was done in a malicious intent. Um I think the idea was to try to help employees. Um and I think that's where that came from. But I want to go back to the the inside I'll call you the inside caucus group. Is there anyone else that has anything to share um besides Katie? >> Eve. >> Yeah. Um I think I think it's really >> sorry. >> I think it's really important that everybody's clear on the process so that we can continue to move forward. I am feeling a little um I guess frustrated is the accurate word.
That's easy to correct. >> Yeah. Statement from affordable housing trust because it's this describes everything they need. >> Well, maybe the way to re to update that is support the affordable housing trust commission in doing these things. >> All right. That's a another point. >> Yeah, that work. >> And then I was I put a note in here and now I'm like thinking I wrote the wrong number down, but the um it was I had number 15, but I don't think it's 15. >> What? >> Um, but it was talking about Oh, here we go. Yep. So, it says explore home home ownership support. It's on page 13. um support in partnership with regional organizations and it says and delivered in partnership with regional nonprofit housing organizations such as the Metro West Collaborative Department like is that >> was it the Metro West Collaborative Department is >> the idea >> maybe it's the Metro West Regional Collaborative but they don't >> Yeah, but the Metro West Regional Collaborative doesn't do >> I mean we talk about housing but it it's not like we'd be able to go to that organization and say, "Can you help us support?
Um because I feel like we're spending a lot of time talking about the process and each time we meet we're spending a lot of time talking about the process and we're not getting things done. And so I'm feeling frustrated with the lack of um I don't understanding or that we can't be like okay we get it that it's different. Change is hard now. let's make decisions because what's going to happen is we're we're now way behind schedule. We still haven't gotten to the compensation compression piece. We're still talking about something that should have been rather easy that like either this is a benefit that we're moving forward with or we're not. But now we're having multiple caucuses and we're not able to get the work done and now we're going to have to either have more meetings or not get any decisions made and it just feels like we're spinning our wheels and and that frustrates me.
>> Can you provide us funding?" >> Potentially MAPC, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, could help with some of that. Um, >> so I'm just flagging stuff. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. No. >> Um, and >> well, that that that kind of ties to like 18, right? Because like, you know, one of the recommendations there was like strengthen housing implementation through regional partnerships. Yeah, I I it seems like they're trying to advocate for like the creation of a of a body, but if there are existing if there existing bodies that or existing organizations that concentrate, they can be helpful in this regard like you know there's a way that we could assemble those sort of regional partnerships, right? >> And and and add that to line 18 and make a list of those agencies that are available. I mean, you know, I think, you know, it's mentioning like, you know, >> there's a Metro West collaborative development >> development.