Are they identified? It's Lev from the Surveillance Center. Okay. I know a few other people asked about it. So I'm anticipating some more would. We'll join. Okay. Not right now. I'm going to share the, uh, share the agenda. I can find it. Yeah. Um, The comments from the public hearing where they sent out. Uh, no, no, I didn't type up the minutes yet. I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. No, I mean, just, I think everyone was here for most of it. Um, you know, we had that survey results that I sent out. And, um, Is the problem with the hyperlink that there's just not a space after the two and before and. Um, I inserted a space before I cut. Yeah. Where did you put the space. Before the two. A lot of times word will automatically recognize it. If you, I was taking it from the heading. I don't know. I just think I, my 29 year old is at home to help me. I'm not sure what, yeah. Sorry, I apologize. I was, I was on the markets. 57, but didn't get there. Um, so are we ready? I think so. Yeah. I think that was, um, She was on the last call, but, um, maybe quickly, we can just go around and introduce ourselves for anybody else that may have hopped on at the last moment. So go ahead, Nathaniel. Hi, I'm Nate Malloy, a planner with the town. Um, Gail Lansky. I have this committee. Lucas. Uh, yes, Lucas Hanscom. Um, and I got cut off last week. Sorry about that. I didn't think to call back in until around nine 15. Then I realized I could probably have used my phone, but by that point it was, I think it was too late. So sorry about that. Becky. Hi, I'm Becky Michaels. Also a new member. Right. Not. All cool. Hi, I'm Matt. I'm Matt Larson as indicated on my zoom profile. And this is my second year going through this process. I'm just going down the, down what's on my screen. Rika. Oh, you're silenced. I think. Rika Clement. Um, maybe soon to be a member. Welcome. Andrew. Andrew grand Thomas. I guess that makes me a middle age member. And we have Ben, Ben. Yep. Ben Bregger. I'm a planner with the town. Okay. So, um, we're going to just jump in and review the comments from the public hearing. And, uh, there were additional comments. Added to the online survey. Quite a number of them, uh, many with comments. And so we can take some time. To discuss the additional comments on this survey. Okay. I, anybody wants, I have a lot to say, but I'll let other people go first. So, uh, comments from the last meeting. Hearing. Okay. Yeah, actually, if you don't mind, um, the, I was when I was watching it there, you guys talked a little bit about the formation of a ranking system. And I just, I wanted to just say that I think that would be just a can of worms for people to come back and, you know, sort of try to say that we did or did not do the right thing because of the math as opposed to just letting it play out. Do you mean a ranking system for as we create the priorities? Right. The weight, like the waiting for the rankings and all that. I like math and I like using it in a, in a use, and it could be useful, but I just, I, when I've, whenever you assign numbers from our end to things, I think it gets, it gets problematic. Cause then people expect everything else to follow. Thank you. Does anybody else want to add anything to Lucas's comment about, um, ranking the activities as we touched upon a little bit at the last meeting. The only, um, I'll just offer a little, uh, description of the way we've used the numbers, Lucas, um, and others, other newbies, um, um, broadly speaking, I think what we've done is to use the numbers, uh, and our rankings, the committee members rankings to determine essentially the ones that are clearly ranked very high. Hold on. Hold on. I think, I think Lucas is talking about the priorities, not the score sheet. Is that right? Lucas, about the priorities that. Yeah. I was talking about our own priorities as far as like our, our rankings for things. Like you, I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question for. Yeah. So for this where it says, you know, Yeah. And not, not for the. Not for this. Not for the matrix. Yeah. Not for the matrix. I didn't need to, I didn't need to cut you off, Andrew. Sorry. Right. I'm just going to, it says type of activity. I can share that when we get there. So. Okay. I can do a new share the, um, I can share that. I can share that. I can share that. So for, um, We usually have, um, You know, the social service priorities. And so. In years past we have had, you know, six or so. So last year it was. Here it is household. These few right here. And so we, we, we've been working with development and on and on. So we were had brushed upon the possibility of ranking those. And Lucas is saying he doesn't think it was a good idea. Nate has ever, have we ever done it a prior to my time on the, on committee? Have they been ranked? No, nothing I'm aware of. I think, you know, I agree there could be some difficulty. For instance, if we have one or two as the most important, you know, We have to come up with that. How would we factor that into a score when we do a proposal review? And maybe we could, it's just.  Other categories. And so. Um, I was going to say, I just have such a newbie question, which has probably been answered in one of my other sessions, the types of activities where that, does that list come from? Where does that list come from? The activity is like the project or the program. That is doing. So let's say the survival centers. Let's say food pantry. They want additional funding to open longer hours on Saturday. That would be the activity. Right. But my question is where. So the type of active, I mean, there are obviously other types of activities that organizations do. So that would maybe go under other, but the list that we have here, is that one that's provided to us. By. That we've developed as what we see needing, you know, as priorities in the community. Okay. And then they also are, um, You know, verified by DCD. So, you know, they fit nicely into the categories that DCD. Has. So, you know, if there's some, some other one, if there's an other, then that usually means, you know, if we recommend it, I'd have to just run it by. You know, the program reps to see if it actually. Is something that's eligible. You know, so I've been talking to staff and, you know, for instance, they've been talking about like, oh, could, could like a taxi service for low income individuals or seniors be eligible. And maybe, but it's a little difficult. You know, so for instance, like that, you know, that could be something that, you know, if that was recommended or a proposal we received, it would be under other, and then I'd have to make sure that it's actually an eligible activity depending on how they describe it. I thought this also is a really newbie question. I thought the community was giving us their input on what they thought the priorities should be. Well, they are. That's what that. Survey online. So what are we talking about doing? Setting separate. We kind of go off of the prior year. And then we either, you know, adapt them to according to what people have suggested. Like we've never, this is the first year we've done this survey. So we're gathering information now to see if we want to take the priorities that we've listed. The prior years would be added to or edited according to what has come in on the survey. Like for example, somebody in the new, the additional entries that came in since somebody listed that we should help fund the common share food co-op in town. But immediately I thought, well, that's for everybody. That's not necessarily for low and moderate income people. So how would that work? So how would you list that? Where would that come under? I guess food and nutrition. But anyway, so we, we take what these activities that are here, we, I guess we're using the word activity in there. We're using it as activity. And we're also calling it priorities. And I think maybe that's where the confusion is. Right. I think it's both. And some of it is DHT, you know, for a social service, we only find an activity. So an organization may have many activities. So I think that's where the confusion is. Right. So, you know, for a social service, we only find an activity. So an organization may have many activities, right? They may do a few different things, but they can only apply for one specific activity. They couldn't do, you know, healthcare and then also job training. That's actually two activities. We could take up two of the five. You know, recommended proposals. So yeah, I mean, we're taking what we hear from individuals, what you know of the community, and then, you know, distilling it and, you know, putting it into what we think are priorities. And then those become the activities. So.  Sometimes we have fewer. So, so we could add, I mean, so for example, next year, we could add in mental health services or racial justice work or some, I mean, there, there's. I guess I'm sort of, that's what I was trying to figure out is, I mean, I, when we put in the types of activities, the types of activities we're suggesting to the community, what we think their priorities would be. Well, and will be right. And will be, and based on your knowledge from the year before and right, what they will be going forward. So people have to come up on their own. If they have an idea of something else that would be there, they'd have to come up with it on their own. And then one person had social, you know, send social workers with police. So they came up with that on their own, but that's not going to end up being sort of fitting into necessarily one of the things that we've suggested as a priority. Right. And we could extrapolate that and say, you know, is right, social service support or something, you know, is that part of a bigger priority? Right. So, and we could put that as a, you know, an activity of priority here. So, you know, if there's other comments about, you know, that type of social service support is not necessarily keeping people in housing, but it's a different type of either mental health or response to a need. We could, we could put that here as a priority. It may be that then, no one actually submits an active, you know, submit a proposal for it, but we've identified it. And so, you know, even here we have more than five. So we, you know, it's difficult. You know, I think last year what we did though was, you know, if there's a range of proposals, it may help to say, okay, well, you know, are we spreading the funding to the different priorities, you know, or are we really putting them all in one, one category? So it does help sometimes just, you know, in terms of that review. And like, for example, this year, there have been a few requests for transportation or people that living in low income housing there, you know, it's a mile to the grocery store and there's nothing really here that would fit under that request. So, you know, should we consider, I know I'm jumping ahead to number two, but should we consider maybe adding transportation for low and high income families? And that, that would be an additional activity that we could, we could consider. So we have another question. Do we only look at the social service applications? Because I, I mean, that's right. That's 20% of the grant we get, right? And then the rest is infrastructure. Right. No, we also, we also look at the capital project. So, you know, social services are usually just more competitive. And so we start with this, and then there's a non-social service request for proposal that has priorities in it too.  There could be, you know, last year and then this year there is some more for like, you know, business support or, you know, technical support for businesses. So that could become a priority. Right. Transportation fall under that or no. No, because it's not a, you know, it's, that's more of a service as, you know, if you're providing transportation, you know, rise of people, that's a, I mean, that's more of a service. It's not a, you know, capital project. Okay. And those, those numbers aren't, they're non-fuggable. They're not decided by us. What numbers? The non-social services versus social service funding. So, you know, that's the, the percentage of the grant you mean. Yeah. You know, that's a, those are the maximum. So, okay. You know, we don't have to recommend any social services. It could be all a capital, but we can recommend up to five activities or 20% of the grant amount. Okay. There is a cap. Yeah. And I'm glad that everybody's asking so many questions because it is, it is confusing at first. It really is. And I'm glad that everybody's asking. I'm glad that everybody's asking. I'm glad that everybody's asking. I'm glad that everybody's asking. I'm glad that everybody takes one round to kind of get it under your belt. So we've kind of jumped over one. No, comments from the public hearing and online survey. So like the transportation, some of these things overlap. So like this survival center might do a proposal. That includes transportation. I mean that, that's, you know, possibility. It depends on who's writing, you know, which proposal and if they feel it fits in. And it would be under other at this, if we look at last year's priorities that are up on the screen, because we don't have necessarily have anything there that would apply for to transportation. Well, what I'm saying is, is that it might be a component to the. Food. Proposal to provide food for people. I mean, there could be like, right. An ancillary piece of that is transportation. But when I hear, say, for instance, and what some of the comments in the survey, if I hear transportation services, I'm actually thinking like a van service, you know, or some service that is specifically bringing people to, whether it's, you know, to the store, to medical appointment. So it's not necessarily providing food to them. It's, you know, providing them transportation to and from places. But I agree that some transportation could be part of, you know, some of the, you know, some of the transportation services that are being built into some of these other activities. Support for senior services for seniors, for example. Right. There's a lot of the, a lot of the transportation. You know, commercial. Transportation services in the area have been cut back or stopped completely. So that that's why it's becoming a bigger issue. All right. Okay. So that's a quick comment. I'm going to go back to two without saying, are we all through with number one, which nobody had any additional, no comments about the additional. Responses to the survey that came in. Anybody want to discuss it? I had a quick comment. And it's, I guess it probably then. Segway is directly into number two anyway, which is that. Like, do we, where do we think we're going to be in a year for now? I mean, I know that this is a really good snapshot. The, you know, the, the reviews, the comments from the public of what, what's necessary right now. And from them, my take is that. Food stability is there is the main. Hands down winner. With shelter sort of being a secondary one. But it seems like that. The food stuff is particularly on the rise, but do we have any kind of consensus as to where we think we're going to be any year from now? You talk, be more specific. Well, because I mean, this is, this is a kind of an unusual. Year last year, we would never have anticipated. Where we are now, you know, basically waiting with baited breath for, for a vaccine. Whereas a year from now, you know, like you mentioned in the meeting last time, we might be getting a vaccine in July for a broad distribution. That could change the entire picture of where things are. I mean, I still think food stability is probably a very large. So it's still very highly ranked, but perhaps. Shelter might not be as much. You know, or maybe it will be more or maybe youth development will be more important next year because every, all these kids have been locked inside for a year and a half. I mean, it's kind of a moving ball. I just wanted to see if anybody had any ideas about where. Where do we think we're going to be? Wish I knew. Yeah, I would say, I would say it's hard to know, but the reality is that will be, or that the proposals will come in in December. Right. And then we'll make our decisions in January. Right. So in a sense, we won't really. I think the conditions under which we'll review and make those decisions. The conditions won't really be very different from where we are today. Right. And we're sort of limited by what. Proposals come in. So we'll just have to make a decision at that point. And if we look at the proposals that come in and, you know, based on those, we think that there will be things that will be more or less important. In, you know, six months from that point, we can. I think address that at that point, but, but, um, you know, the reality is we don't have that much control over what proposals come in. Yeah. Yeah. And we do want some continuity so that these, all the programs don't just, you know, have to fluctuate wildly, but their budgets, right? Right. Right. All right. Good discussion. Thank you for all your contributions. So, um, let's. Continue the discussion on priorities. Um, and, and, um, nothing, you'll put everything up on the screen so you can see where we were for 2020. Uh, and so let's talk about what we feel might be edits or additions for 21. Going forward. Well, one thing I wonder, and this is more a question, it really goes back to Lucas's question, which I misunderstood. Sorry about that, Lucas, but, um, I didn't fully understand what was going on anyway. It was good to be clarified. I'm in that club too. Um, so. But this question of. So Lucas, I understood your point, you know, that. Essentially it's not the cons outweigh the pros of declaring our own priorities. Right. Is what you were suggesting. And. In a somewhat similar way. And this is a thing that, you know, in different ways that committee has gone around on, I think. Yeah. Last time or two, but this question of. How do we want? How do we weigh. Um, the community's priorities, right? In our own deliberations. Right. So yeah, we have some very clear and it's sort of related to the, even this issue of. Right. How do we think to what extent do we essentially have to go down the rabbit hole? And how do we go down the rabbit hole? And how do we go down the rabbit hole? We've been running 60 in six months or a year. Right. For what the community names of the priority now. And here, and again, we don't, we really have been around this in different ways, the committee. So I'm not suggesting we necessarily go down the rabbit hole, but especially with new members. It does get into, I think the question that. The very practical question it raises is. Is each of us making our own judgment about how to weigh that. Um, How do we weigh those priorities? Or do we want to have some sort of something closer to consensus? And how much we weigh those priorities, especially since. Thanks to that. That's good work. It suggests that right. There's some pretty. Pretty clear ones. And again, just picking up your point, Lucas. I mean. Right. To the extent that we depart and diverge in some way. From what, you know, especially those survey results showed. You know, that we're not doing a disservice to the process, right? Or are we inviting people like, why would we ask people to share their priorities? Have some pretty, you know, pretty. Clear hierarchy with some gaps again, as Nets sort of analysis suggests. And depart from that. Can I ask a question related to that? I'm curious about how many people. The survey represents. I mean, I know there's a lot of rows, but I don't have a sense of how many people are, what percentage of our population are weighing in on that. No, yeah, there's no, right? Yeah. We, right. So someone could submit. Multiple surveys or, you know, they could let all their friends know or submit multiple survey. So, you know, it is a, you know, it's a pretty good response, but it is a small sample. And it could be that. You know, if certain people got the word out, then, you know, some people may not have heard about it or. Right. Yeah.  Or do we just have them be weighted equally? So when reviewing a proposal, something for support services for homelessness is the same as youth development. And, you know, we're not internal internally. Saying, okay, well, when I'm reading these, I think youth development is more important. So I'm going to give it higher scores really then. Every, every proposal we're reviewing is then. Essentially considered important. And it's really just those review, you know, that review matrix we're using. And it's a comparative review across proposals. You know, if we do think that one or two or three, you know, priorities are the highest, you know, do we then. Automatically give those a higher score in a category. And then that fact may, may factor into how the committee reviews them. And I think that's really the ultimate decision is how, you know, how do you want to set that? Is there a way to set that up? If we want to do that. I guess I need to Andrew's comment that are we, are we individually. Using our own judgment of our priorities, or are we accepting the communities? Maybe I misunderstood. That's what I thought he was asking. Accepting the community's ranking. And I don't have a sense of how broad the community is represented in the data. Yeah. I don't think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. Yeah. I don't think that community, I wouldn't guess that the community is very broadly represented, but I would say that the people who are actually paying attention to this are the people who probably know a fair bit about it. And they're probably the ones weighing in as well. You know, and it does seem to match what the people said. You know, the survival center lady said that they're seeing, they're expecting from feeding America. It says their food security will rise by 56%. And they're seeing those numbers actually fleshing out and food security will rise by 56%. And they're seeing those numbers fleshing out and food security will rise by 56%. And they're seeing those numbers fleshing out and food security will just be the highest priority. So I mean, it does match up a little bit. So I think you should, we should rely on it to some extent, but it's also, I think I'm a newbie.  And see, you know, try to balance some of the other forces that might be, you know, coming down the pike that is, you know, something that might change or get a little bit of information into them. Yeah. Okay. Now, I was just going to ask you before you jump in, if you mean you did a summer, a summer of a summary of the data from last week at the meeting. And I'm not sure if Lucas was on the call when you shared it. So if you want to give a review, a quick thumbnail of what you, the data that you've gathered that might be instructive. Well, basically I just tried to take each individual response. People were all like ones and twos and others might be all threes and fours. It was hard to just take a simple average. And so I tried to take how each individual ranked each item higher or lower than their own average. And then aggregated that and then expanded it to a no one to five scale. And so on that basis, you know, and I actually updated it a little bit with the latest numbers that Nate shared. You can see, but basically, it's the, you know, food was still, you know, much, much higher than anything else. And there were some, you know, minor changes, but I think, you know, Lucas's main takeaway was correct that that's what the community came back with on this survey. And I guess my, my experience on this committee is that, you know, we don't make the final decisions right the town manager makes the final decisions. So we in a sense are providing feedback or, you know, kind of the community view to the town manager.  And I guess I don't see that because of limitations and how the survey is conducted. I don't see our role as, you know, simply, you know, kind of copying and pasting what the, you know, what the survey has shown. This is the first year we've done that. I think it's really helpful. But I don't think that's the, you know, the end of our inquiry. And I will say too that the state is not asking necessarily communities to do this. It's something, you know, we do locally to help with the project review. It's not, you know, some communities might say they only have one priority. And it's like really direct like a food pantry or the senior, you know, council on aging and senior center and it's like, okay, can't really vary from that much. You know, these priorities are somewhat broad, but they also fit into, you know, projects that DCD would recommend in that, you know, inherently serve lower modern income individuals and households so, you know, I think like for instance transportation is one that you know, is it has it been mentioned enough that it would be a priority that we put on here to encourage that type of proposal.  I don't, you know, I think I want to make sure we don't you know I'd like to finish this tonight. Finish this tonight, because I want to get the RFPs ready by the end of the week to give people time to, you know, submit application so unless, you know, it's really the committee's decision but I want to make sure we're not a laboring it because if you know we could we could take a straw pole do we want to wait them and say okay we're going to put one or two up top, are we going to keep them all equal weight. And then while we review proposals we're not going to individually say okay well I think this type of activities more important the other essentially then that we're just saying that they're all equal, equal in terms of their, you know, their category. Yeah, I think it was a good question that that Andrew raised and I think my perspective on that is in January when we actually read the proposals and we know rank each of them. So that the first one on the list is consistency with community priorities. And so, you know, we might have different views on that, you know, and frankly, even if there's something that's about food and nutrition, maybe that particular activity that someone is proposing isn't maybe exactly what we think is the most relevant, you know, to addressing that issue. So we might say well even though it isn't the, you know, food nutrition category. I wouldn't rate that very highly on the community priorities list, or someone else might rate it more highly so I think we do end up with individual variation how we view it. And that comes in the after we read the proposals and we start ranking them. Right, or, you know, I think to Andrew's point that like some people might say okay well food is really high so then they give the relative scores for every review criteria higher because they think food security is more important but I think. Now the way you explain it is, you know, your score would just be for that criteria would be higher compared to others, and the rest of just, you know, it's a comparative review so then, you know, the other review criteria would just be looked at. You know, committee members would review those, you know, if for instance is the finance and budget. So good it's not necessarily you make it give it a higher score because it's a better you know it's for food, a food category you would review the budget, you know, across the, what we're expecting to be submitted for that. Let me offer just one more thought. I guess that, yeah, the way we actually have done in the past that it's, we're fine. And which is this and this actually goes back to the mistaken explanation that I was going to offer you Lucas about the process which is, you know, we, we the committee members rank order them.  There are a few typically that cluster is being relatively lowly ranked, and that allows us to concentrate the conversation on the ones in the middle. And we typically I think draw the one right define the middle pretty widely. And then all of these sorts of considerations and the differences and you know how we prioritize not issues but criteria, you know and how we read different that all comes out. It's a very robust discussion, where again all of these different ways of thinking about things get out there in the middle of the table, and we hash it out. And that's probably inevitable. Probably, and I think probably more worthwhile use of time in the end, then really trying to, you know, detail how or get on the exact same page about about how we arrive at our judgments. Now, ahead of ahead of the factory. That's a really good point, Andrew. So, given everybody's input, and we have up on the screen on the types of activities that were priorities for last year. Do we want to keep again with this now this discussion has felt pretty thorough. Is there anything that we would like to change, which we just go through them. We want to make sure that we have a stable family and individual stabilization. And I'm sorry just to be clear when you say change what we're really talking as would we take them off the list, or right or. In the past, in the past we've sort of rephrase them a little bit to be more clear. We added the health services insurance navigation based on comments from the senior center I think we did not get any proposals about that but we added that as a no mental activity and support services for seniors as well I think was new last year. So those were two new to additional. Yes, Becky to add or change. So anybody want to throw out anything that they would like to let's let's leave it as it is for now and talk about any additional activities that we would like to add after having had time to think about this discussion and review the survey which I thought the survey was a great idea. So I think that transportation came up a few times in the survey. And now do you have any summary on your on the on the math that you did about transportation before I pushed my point. No, just because that wasn't something that you know everyone responded to. So those are just kind of additional comments so there were some things that came in. You know as additional transportation or mental health or I saw you know kind of career employment help some of those things were we're throwing out there as well as, as well as in various forms, kind of a, you know racial equity concept, you know those sorts of things were were comments but it was hard to, at least for me to quantify those in any any real way. Does anybody else feel about that transportation is something that would be worthy of listing it would be exceedingly beneficial for those who need it but then somebody would have to come forth with a with you know a nonprofit would have to come forth with a program slash activity for it would be added in. You know the transportation is a really big issue around people getting their food, and the creepy added like next to other in parentheses, because we have adult education next to economic itself and efficiency and increased, but it's somewhere in a parentheses or with an asterisk explaining it because a lot of the issues that people have maintained their home employment, who does have a relationship to their ability to get really to get. Yeah, I'm just going to clarify that adult education I just want to. I mean I think it's more than that. You know for economic self sufficient. I do think transportation though Paul like I mentioned earlier I think it's different than just for food I think it could be, you know, rides to medical appointments rides to just, you know, not just get food but go to other errands or different travel so. You know I know that the senior center has, you know, is, you know, they, you know, Mary Beth has mentioned as a priority and I know others have said it as a priority, maybe as you said because other ride sharing services are not in service right now so in the last six months the you know the resources that are a lot fewer. That's why it's putting it in parentheses, thanks to other little explanation. Anybody that has something that doesn't fit into any of these would, would they still be able to check other if we have transportation one parentheses next to other or do we just add it and just say transportation. I have another question about it philosophically adding activities seems to me to encourage people to think about this issue and see if they want to tackle it so I don't see. Unless we are bound to not have a lot why wouldn't we add transportation I mean it's okay if we don't get an application for it, but if it's recognized as a possible. Why not add it to the list I don't quite understand if we're feeling like no we don't want the list to get too long or what what what that's about. I think it's a really good point Rika that it creates awareness of the need in the community. I think it's a good point to advocate for adding transportation. I don't know if we have to be more specific than that. Transportation services. You know, I guess that's up to the committee. Are people on board with that. No objection. Andrew. Yeah, that's fine. I'm fine. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. I also did think that that it did seem like the focus was on transportation to get food I mean I agree there's lots of needs for other kinds of transportation but I did I was just reviewing the survey to try to remind myself, and also partly I think from the, the presentation from the from the embers mobile market, which really is almost a form of transportation bringing food to neighborhoods. So I think we can classify it unless we would say transportation services including, like it almost feels like transportation should be also included in food and you know food and nutrition, including transportation, specifically to get food. What if you need transportation to get to a job interview. Yeah, but that's a different thing that I think there was a lot of sort of specifics around transportation around food and maybe somebody can apply. But I think, but I think to me that's food and nutrition is the major part of that activity. So, you know, if they can't, you know they have to there is some delivery mechanism there right whether it's the mobile market or having a van that has a drop offs or other things so to me it's still really a food and nutrition activity. And part of the delivery of it is transportation. And so, but I would say the venue is not the delivery of the people need to get to pick up like at the bus and me that's not, I guess the difference is I wouldn't, I wouldn't expect a survival center to then run a van service, necessarily for people to get to them unless they want to but there could be a transportation service available that does all types of transportation that could do that. And so I, you know I think it's a little bit different. They deliver food. What's this. I don't think anybody is going to do just a proposal around transportation. We don't know. We don't know they could. Who could go. I don't know. That's not for us to worry about. What if for instance PVTA wants to, what if they are say okay well we can, you know, repurpose paratransit and use a van service in Amherst for 20,000 a year and they're going to run a pilot, and they're going to see what kind of rides they get. I mean we I don't right I mean I don't know either necessarily but or what if one of the existing agencies decided that they wanted to do a transportation proposal, right because they self select and they could go into a new area if they wanted if that was seen as and we saw that as an issue for the community. It could be something like family outreach if they have families going to housing court and they have families going to other to guidance counselor appointments when the world I'm saying like when the world opens up again, it could be. I don't know, theoretically it could be something that they do so I don't want to wordsmith it too much, but we're good with transportation services just. That's it two words transportation services. Are we all in nod your head. Yes, I don't erase this one other one. You know, I won't advocate for it too strongly, not least because I don't know what, you know, the sort of facts on the ground are here in Amherst specifically but one person mentioned childcare specifically in the context of you know low income families. If I remember right there was a second person who mentioned something that sounded like it could be a reference to childcare in the survey I'm not sure I can look it up. That's certainly you know we know I assume that was true across the country is true in Amherst as well which is there is a significant need for childcare especially again for low income families. So again, I don't, I don't have the data we don't have the data to, and it clearly wasn't named by many people again I remember one specifically but I'll throw it out there as a possibility. I mean do we nuance or change youth development to include childcare I mean as youth is youth development really mean what you know is it. I guess if I read that I think of like enrichment programs or things that are maybe different than childcare but could they be kind of the same. So how do you say youth development, including childcare or youth youth and your youth or childcare support. Maybe a youth services including childcare. There was actually one person who said that they thought there should be more in youth development but didn't really know what we meant by that so they were worried about putting it as a priority so it probably would be helpful to flush out what we mean by it. Right, maybe we could keep this same format. So I think youth services including childcare is fits for those of the others that have been on the committee. It's typically big brothers big sisters and the boys and girls club that apply for youth development so it would still. I think services and develop services still encapsulates what those organizations the activities of those organizations do so I don't think they would be questioning like oh my goodness what happened to youth development. I think youth services would still be there is that Nate went away and on that. No, I agree. I agree I don't. I mean I don't. You know if they're confused by they can always ask but I think, you know, if someone checked other and then explain what they're doing I mean we can do the committee can say actually I think this is a youth service activity even if they describe it and they thought it was something else I mean I'm, you know, we're not. We're not doing these activities to help sort out proposals but I'm not you know someone. You know if we think it's something else the committee can change it I'm not, you know, not that rigid about it. Actually I just found the comment where it was somebody said youth development is the number one priority but I did not select it because I'm concerned on how the town will develop youth and who will benefit from these programs. It's different than not knowing what it is but the you know childcare is interesting we have funded childcare and after school programs. Before, and it's just it hasn't happened. In a few years but that for a while it had been, you know, a regular activity that was being proposed. So instead of development we describe it as you know childcare after school teen support. That's really what we're talking about a routine support. That's my dad. That describes what we've done in the past I think I like that also because it really runs the from the you know smallest child all the way through. You even have it in the right order, they're just growing through that can you say it again, what you just repeat yourself. Oh, it just the way it's the way it's it is right now is what I was describing. But the phrase again just what you had just said about childcare and I think I again I changed the document right here. Oh okay I have it really minimize because I'd rather see your faces then see the I like it now because you know I'm just doing it live so it's easy just as we speak and you're smaller but okay. I have a really big computer monitor so. Lucky you. All right, use services childcare after school teen support. I think that's really work that's workable. Right. Yeah I think Rika when you said you know why not have more activities to me, because we have more than five priorities will call them. It's a reason then not to wait them because what we're really doing is trying to encourage different proposals and then as Andrew and that have said the way we use review criteria it's going to kind of play out there. It's nice, you know, to have, you know, we can only fund five services or five activities, you know, to me it's like then we shouldn't have more than five priorities, unless unless we want you know I think it would be hard because we're going to have a score the rank score would be. It's hard to use there but I think having. I like the idea of having these be almost like an awareness piece to like, can someone come up with a creative idea and if not this year that maybe it's next year but it's. I think we should stop on that because when we're evaluating the proposals, we're not evaluating the youth services only against the youth services we're evaluating them all against, all of them against each other. Yes. Right. Okay. I mean there's the there is the piece with like the mental health services I don't know if it's the same as racial equity or there are comments in the survey and so, you know, are those other priorities or activities we want to list I'm just looking at the list. You know like health services and insurance navigation is somewhat different. It's just, you know, do we add one or two more priorities to this, or is that are we getting kind of long winded here but does mental health come under health services slash insurance navigation if somebody really pushed it. That's what I was thinking but I don't you know, I guess that you know I guess like I was saying if someone wasn't sure and they put other and they described it. I mean I feel like that's fine right we have the other category in case we don't really we can't capture it. Right. I think, I mean I think that I probably inclined to leave it as is the, I mean I think what we have down here is clearly include enough and a wide enough range that I think was sent the signal that we're pretty inclusive. Right. In what we would consider and obviously you have the other as well. Yeah. Are we all fine with this. Nice work everybody. Right. You want to talk about target areas, we don't. I can fold the map that that'll lead us to the capital project review. So, you know, looking at the map here, the, I don't know how, how visible it is but the green areas are income eligible block groups that you know it's already been determined to have a majority lower income households or working age population and then the outlines and red, orange and I guess we can call that purple are the target areas and so. Oh Ben you're being pet that's so nice reassuring hand. Nice every so often. It's a reverse of having a cat in your lap. You know so DHCD really wants the community to have like two target areas we stretch it with three, and we can always change this so one of the reasons we have a public hearing when we discuss proposal recommendations could be what if we get a lot of interest in North Amherst or something and you know North Amherst is in a priority right now but you know what if the town and the housing authority and some of them else says wow we really want to do work around. North Amherst library and that you know Sunderland road area, and then we can say okay well we missed it but you know we're required to target our capital projects so most capital projects have to be in a target area. And if they're not then you know we can tweak the boundaries a bit but really they have to be, you know, in these areas also because it serves low and moderate income individuals and households so. In North Amherst for instance it's hard to say that a sidewalk up there is going to serve lower moderate income individuals when it's not necessarily income eligible area. The library like just off the line. The, the, what library North Amherst. Yeah, if you would see my mic the cursor it's you know right here right there. So it's like right on the line practice please. You know bathroom, which has a pretty good impact. But that you know the library serves such a range of people we can't say that it serves a majority lower moderate population would be really difficult to. And there's plans to possibly have an addition to the library with a bathroom. Oh, okay. So we'll think of these target areas I mean they're somewhat, you know, somewhat odd in their shape. I just have a question. So, on the intersection of Pomeroy Lane and on those apartments that are kind of behind what used to be Cumberland's I'm not sure what it is anymore. The co op. The Pomeroy co op. Yeah, is that in here. It's the right here. Okay. Yeah, I mean, this is East Howley road right here, this boundary and then, you know, these are, you know, these are the, you know, the boulders and South Point here this is Hickory Ridge. And then, you know, this is the intersection. Okay.  So, you know, for the town, this is a target area where we're putting other investment in addition to block grant. It feels like we don't have a lot of sway with target areas, you know, No, but if you know, I think, you know, for instance, we do think if we think that some of them, you know, it could be fine for now and we could wait to see what proposals come in. So, you know, would be, you know, are we, we really think that some parts of town are, you know, we need to adjust this radically. I'm fine with it how it is anybody else want to weigh in. I think it's a practical matter. You know, it's really the town that's come up with proposals for infrastructure. And so unless, you know, Nate you're hearing something from the town that, you know, people want to do something outside of these areas. They seem like they work well in the past. You know, I mean the town, you know, we applied for a few grants for downtown to for sidewalk improvements and we're still looking at, you know, making more accessibility improvements downtown in the village center so it makes sense from a few standpoints I you know, in terms of what what proposals will get from outside organizations or the town I'm not aware right now. So should we leave them as is and see what comes in. Sure. Yeah. We all good with that.  All right, check out for the non social service proposal. Where am I. You share. Too many documents opens that the, you know, what we said before as the priority is to meet the goals of the communities master plan by focusing focusing efforts in the target areas. And so, you know, we don't really specify, you know, specific activities in part because there's not a lot that people can propose that are block grant eligible. And the good news now is that the council has actually approved the master plan. Right. Yep. Good news. And do we on meet on the types of activities on the non social service do we have to weigh in on those or is that those pretty much preset. Yeah, we can look at those I guess we can discuss those as well. Those are. Those are categories from the state. And so, you know, they, for instance, like a housing one, you know, they might be considered a rehabilitation, you know, so, for instance, the housing authority proposes, you know, block grant money or ask for a block grant money to fix up some of their properties that would just be under rehabilitation.  So these categories are what, what we have to apply under. It's really not a lot mean under other for instance, you know, Valley CDC apply for Mike or for business assistance last year, and it was an other and it's not, you know, it's in, you know, DC allows it but it's not one of their typical projects and so, you know, someone could come in with something that really isn't a social service and put it as other and then we could just review it. So what we do is call this non social service, it's not capital, it's just non social service so it's basically, there's a range of activities that could happen under here. And then we try to they try to squeeze them into these is like six categories. Obviously there's other to accommodate anybody, anything that doesn't fit into what's listed here. So, so, so I guess, are we okay with the non social service activity priorities. Everybody.  Well in the past. Don't fix it. Great. All right, and moving on. So you all received the RP that went out for last year. It's been tweaked over several years to make it a little shorter for us, the readers. The questions that are there, most of them are, we can't really. The questions are necessary, but we did change the page limit and some of the supporting attachments the limit to the amount of supporting attachment so if you want to start with talking about. Anybody have any edits or suggestions or anything with the social service RFP. Those of you who've done it before did the page lengths feel correct last year. Did you feel like you had enough information from the proposals that came in. I thought last year worked pretty well as a, you know, by limiting it. I think it was helpful to, you know, get rid of a lot of duplication but having said that there was still a lot of repetition, but, you know, I. But I think it worked well enough. I didn't feel like I wasted too much time. I will say to that, you know, the state has a page limit when we apply the town applies so for, you know, so even if an agency submitted a 40 page proposal these cities only going to want to read like 10 pages right I mean they might say three pages in a project description and then some supporting documentation so some of it is, you know, our request for proposals trying to mirror what we then asked an agency to we will we then take from them and submit to the state as part of our application so, you know, to me it would be unfair if we say you can have a six page project description and the state only asked for three or four pages, and then you know after the fact I'd have to get back to the agency and say okay, can you cut it, or I cut it or I added it myself, you know, so, you know I think. The page limits are helpful. Some of it would be you know are the questions we're asking are they clear enough for instance you know is it, do we think an agency would understand what we're asking for in the budget description. You know, or, you know, how could we ask for more detail and you know the programmatic description, I think. Yeah what happened with the page limits we've always had some type of page limit but then what would happen is someone would put in like 10 appendices. You know to supplement their product description and really it then it becomes a 30 page product description, and that's just it's too much to, you know, if you can describe a project in a few pages, you know, it's a single space to it's not like we're asking for, you know, I don't know whatever we say but you know me hoping people can. So why don't we just do the same page number that the state the same page limit that the state. Yeah I think last year was worked out fine in that respect. We allowed people to submit additional material but we limited the total, you know application packet. 15. You said that the state only allowed 10. Was that just an example. It was just an example. One very minor suggestion I was reading this again and the first bullet point 15 page limit for required answers and documents by budget organization flow chart. We say and five pages for supporting attachments. Maybe that might seem like we're really looking for five pages. But if we say, and an optional five pages for any supporting attachments that would tell people that we don't really need the attachments but if they want supporting documents limited to five pages. Yeah, or up to five pages. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that's a great suggestion. Now. Okay yeah. Let's go. Gail, a Lev had her hand raised if you want it. I don't have that open. Sure. I've unmuted you. I love. It's still muted. Sorry, can you hear me now. I apologize. Thanks so much to the committee for your thoughtful deliberation on all of this. I have some appreciation of how hard it is to write a really good RFD so I appreciate the effort you're putting in. I just wanted to, as you're discussing page limits this is just a kind of a silly comment but from the perspective of someone who has responded to it is that the there's a bunch of initial questions that are asked and then there's the project description and there are separate page limits for both of those. I think that might be where some of the duplication is caused in the information that you're receiving is trying to fit one set of answers into one page limit and then therefore trying to have information that doesn't fit there, like, go into those other answers so I don't want to bring you all to have an overall page limit for the total application or to modify that I think in the, in the project description there were a lot of sub questions that did make it somewhat challenging to answer all of those in the three page limit of the project or so whatever page limit it was in the product description. So I just wanted to offer that as you're grappling with this I totally. Not at all opposed to it being shorter. I think that my organization might be the culprit of the many appendices and I'm happy to provide you with fewer of those. I just wanted to mention that from the perspective of someone completing the application that there were a lot of sub questions which made it somewhat challenging to fit all of those into that page limit, amidst the overall page limit, if that makes any sense. I'll just respond quickly lab thanks the difficulty is those are what questions that DCD looks at when they review the proposals and so they, they want all those types of questions, some questions answered in those page limits so like I said I would feel, I would feel bad if we extended the page limit and then, and then you know when after proposals recommended by the committee in the town then I'd have to go back and then really try to tweak that basically just by editing it you know by cutting out and so got it. Yeah I mean if the state was more generous. I'd say, you know we could be too but they're, they've actually I think just because their staff has been reduced in recent years they're getting stricter about page limits. Got it. That's really fun and again I'm not offering any specific suggestion to the committee it just sounded like there was some back and forth trying to grapple with what was the appropriate numbers and reducing duplication so I just wanted to offer the perspective from someone who's completed it whatever page limits you set forth, that's fine and we'll you know are happy to adhere to them. In what you're saying yeah there's some questions that don't have page limits and then some some part of the responses do and so then it's like you know where do you put your, where do you put your writing right like where do you can just move stuff around to fit, you know the total page limit. Are we done with that I wanted to offer one thought. Not not on that issue. If anyone wants to offer a final thought on that issue. One thought I wanted to offer was you know what we did. Last time we introduced this possibility of right we get the proposals, we read the proposal then we submit to Nate, any questions that we have, which he then forwards to the proposal writer to the to the agencies. So they can answer those and then we write come together and hash it all out on the bottom of page three. I think that first bullet at the bottom, the committee will provide applicants. So I think there may be a syntax problem there but it's a little bit. I think we probably need to clarify the process of error because I don't think you read that and understand necessarily what what happens there. I'm really confused by that here this bullet right here. Yeah, I don't know we're not going to provide applicant questions before the proposals are reviewed. So I was thinking how do I know my questions if I haven't reviewed the proposal. Exactly. Yeah, so we write so to be clear we read them, you know, individually submit the questions and but before we get together and talk it through. So just we just need to I think a little different language to clarify that there. Good point. Good point, Andrew. I'm just going to highlight this just so we don't have to, you know, I'll work on I can share this with Gail this week but I think that's a good point to I and I thought that that was a strong part of the review last year was having the ability to ask questions and then get those answers back. In the review it, you know, it, it precluded a lot of questions during the review when the committee's you know really trying to then, you know, make recommendations and not, you know, and asking well what does this mean we can get all that out of the way. So, yeah, it was really helpful. It was. And is that are those answers to the questions then. There, they're just additional information, not incorporated back into the proposal. Right, so I mean we I think last year. You know, depending on how many questions were asked of each proposal we said you know like, you know, two to three pages.  And so the way it works this year, you know would be that proposals are due in mid December, you know the committee has to whatever it is two weeks to review those and then by some date, you provide me all your questions by four of those to the applicants and then they have a week to answer. And then I get them back to you a few days before the meeting when we reviewed them. And so it's just additional information clarifying information. So do you want to meet you and I'll work on that wording or do we do that now. I think, I think just we can work on I can work on that tomorrow Gail you know I can just, you know, see, I think it's, I agree that that's not a It's confusing. That's confusing. Yeah, so. Okay. That was a great point Andrew. And well, well much appreciated. All right. Are we with our agenda. So we are still looking at the RFP and any other thoughts as to, I don't know page format for questions. Any other additional information. We, we got way more specific if you look above. I don't think Nate has it up yet, but the proposal items in in years past we've really tweaked the language about budgets. organizational budget versus project budget and made that very clear so that's something that's been improved on in the past just to bring that up. Yeah, I mean you. Yeah. Going through. I have a question on the national objective description. Are the national objectives the same as the type of activity, or that's a different thing. It's a different thing. So, you know what we're saying here, the way to ensure that it serves low and moderate income individuals you know you could have a client tell that as majority lower modern income. And then there's other ways to do it if it's an area basis or, or others so what we're asking an agency to do is to say okay, if they think they serve a majority lower modern income individuals how do they document it so how you know how are they, telling us that they, they need that objective. So, you know, you know we can work with an agency I mean they might not know all the technical ways or terms but you know if they say oh well we, you know we do an intake form and, you know we collect, you know information and we could, you know, if they're recommended we I would work with them to develop an intake form that has you know required stuff that's needed for participants to sign or to complete. I also wondered about that because I, it says describing detail how it meets a national objective and how it will be documented so to me they were two different things and I was curious. How do we know what the national objectives are. On the page before and is it the people who are applying will understand what that means. Is that the assumption. Right or they ask, right. The national objectives are the type of activity. No, below number six on page five says national objective. Right so this is a national objective is your first threshold to be funded by block grant and that's serving a majority lower modern income individual so obviously, you know, or up above in the proposal we just have, you know, we have as an attachment what eligible activities are, and then what, you know what the block grant does and there's income guidelines so. I mean maybe we have to explain that some more but I think most agencies understand what the national objective is. That's good because it's still eluding me. As long as I understand. It's good to have some fresh eyes so let me actually just. So the way I understood that is that's kind of what you do Nate because on page nine where it says proposal review it's a town staff will first screen each proposal to ensure that meets the quality requirements that you find below. So as long as Nate you know what the national area are and are able to, you know, do that proper screening. I think that's. Yeah, and I think some of the I guess some of this is, um, you know we, some of this language comes from DCB but I think in that I could say I mean I think. The next thing is, you know what is the national objective, and then how will an agency meet it and I think we, I could have a better description in here, you know could just be another sentence. And then maybe somewhere in the proposal so I think I'm highlighting it just as something that could be tweaked. You know, for instance, I've had a few people in the last two weeks, email asking about the block grant process and if, if what they think could be an eligible activity and so you know I've been going back and forth with some individuals about whether or not it could actually meet a national objective so usually if an agency or someone isn't sure they reach out to staff which is what we encourage but you know if someone applied for instance and they hadn't and they said okay well I think I'm just going to have people. You know as a player or something. You know as a committee at first what I would do is I want to make sure that they're serving you know HUD presumed certain populations to be low mod, and then you know certain activities may may meet that so you know I would write before the committee even gets to reviewing it I would just, you know I would reach out to them and I would you know probably reach out to my program rep and just make sure it is eligible, you know, on a basic level. I would just work with it once it actually gets funded but yeah I think I can. I'll see if I can just make this a little clearer for someone who is just you know fresh eyes looking at it says okay well what are you talking about here. And I just have a quick question so I'm looking at a proposal from last year. Big brothers big sisters where they have answered project project description and project need and I feel like there's a lot of overlap because obviously when you write the project description you're going to describe the need in it. Do those in fact need to be according to DHCD to separate questions. Could couldn't you say project description and need or in community need. Yeah I think for social services now it's somewhat combined for capital projects it needs to be different. So, I think for for a social service activity. We could combine the two. There has to be some repetition when you're describing when you when you describe the project, you include the need and then the next question is project need. Right. Okay. I mean, I guess that's a question for the committee if we think that, you know, Andrew and that you've read others if we feel like that there is a lot of redundancy between those two answers. Andrew. I think that that what I remember is that there often is. But certainly not always right it's just about how careful people are in trying to speak to one or the other. But I seem to think that is one of the places where you can quickly get repetition. And I think the big description right now is outside the four pages and so someone could spend you know a few pages talking about their project and you know separate the real the big description of the need, but Well what if you said project description and need and then just put the second bullet from project need as the last bullet for the whole section, because it seems like the two bullets. Right, project need are basically the same. I think for the as per product description. Right, like change that to project description, you could even do project description slash need or you could say, right, right. And then just take that second bullet that's under project need and add it to the list. So there's four bullets under that. Right heading. All right, you know you and I can work on that how does that sound we can. Good. Okay. Okay, so I think for non social service, we really need to have a separate need da city likes to see for whatever reason they want to have it described, separated from the product description but for this, for the other one I can we can change that. I don't object to making that change I just will point out though that when we do our evaluation. We can choose, you know, D E F G and H so we will rank each one on description need community involvement, feasibility and impact, at least where we have had it set up in the past. I think we could have it. Read product description and project need. And then, you know, we still could have them be two separate review criteria, right. And then we would just. Yeah, I don't object. I like having a two separate review criteria, because they might be very different. I mean a great description but the need is not really there. But I don't object to, you know, combining that, you know, the D and E here. Okay. I think we need to change this to so all right. Thank you for pointing to that. Yeah, what did you say, I said to not thank you for pointing out that on the matrix it's separate it separated out but on the RFP we're going to combine it. Is there anything else we think that is could be updated or changed. Everybody good. One last one is just the. Yeah, it's the review criteria which you know and that just mentioned and I think you make that bigger, Nate. Yeah, maybe too big. You know what you know we try to keep the same order as the request for proposals so you know consistency with community priorities, agency board information project budget project description project need community involvement and support product feasibility and then product impact and so you know it follows the same sequence of answers or questions in the proposal. And so what we've done in the past is you know a one to four score. You know we'd ask committee members to, you know, put a score and essentially for each, under each proposal for each, each of these categories and then you know you can. You can aggregate those total those at the bottom but you send those to me individually and then I create an aggregate score for the whole committee so it's really not. It's not the committees, you know it's the committee's recommendations it's not individual committees, members score that really becomes the talking point it's okay. As a committee, you know it looks like as Andrew said you know maybe these are the stronger proposals. These are the weaker ones and here's you know the middle ground and you know and then it helps the committee just start the conversation of recommending proposals but people have been through this if we like this system you know if we find that it you know I think some people. You know one to four is not a big range at one point we had a wider score range and we found that right people may score their little. They're more forgiving and so they all score higher and then some people score lower so in the end, the, the range is so great that you know an average is really meaningless because of how that the, you know, how they score. Well we had changed that right, Nate. So one to four and then, you know I think, I think that becomes the discussion point right I mean I think last year, what we did was. Once we have the scores and we discussed them we did look at you know was there a range, you know like for instance did people score certain proposals, much higher, you know in general. I said, but we had decided to handle that problem that we would actually send you a rank ordering. Right, that's right. Sorry, if we had eight proposals we sent them to you rank order one through eight. That's not the rank ordering because at the end of the day that's actually what matters, and it avoids or gets around the problem of you know some people clustering. Spreading out so that way yeah it's that way I don't even see the scores, you just send me the rank order. That's right so just rank order and then just the other thing I wanted to note on the, you know these individual criteria, you know project description project need and so on that. To me anyway it's, these are helpful as a way of sort of disciplining myself to look at all to consider each of these things.  Here, you know, this again disciplines me to look at each of these things at least to consider them before I come up with a final rank ordering, but another issue that's come up with that's come up is right not most of us don't weigh these equally. Right so we can put in numbers for each of these criteria on a given proposal, but typically we don't then write our subjective evaluation isn't arrived at by adding them and dividing by the number of categories right. So, I guess what in the end at the end of the day what I'm suggesting is that we use again use them to discipline ourselves to consider each of these things but then at the end. Right you assign a score that isn't necessarily tightly related to each of the the different criteria rankings, and the most important thing right is to come up with some relative assessment right. You think this one is strongest you think this one is next strongest all things considered and so on down the line. Yeah, I had a quick question that I think might relate a little bit to this which is, is there some place where we can get an objective analysis of what the need would be the need for certain things like I mean I know that the community came back with like the, you know, like what is the literacy rate, you know I mean I guess you could look that up right if there's a for a literacy project but you know, you know for the project need is there's some way that we can actually look at what the real need is like if you know I mean I don't know, you know I mean we can look I look at you know the food stability stuff that was, you know told to us and you know you can probably look up some of the statistics I mean, I think a lot, a lot of Let me see. Yeah, I'm on. So a lot of the need is to find in the proposals, because a lot of the people that are applying have applied over years so that the, for instance, the some of the homeless shelters will will give us statistically how many people have come in in the past, that sort of thing and the survival center will tell us how many people come into lunch, how many people have been how many families how many different families. So I mean I think that's big brother big sister would talk about how many people kids they have and how long their waiting list has been. So I think that's where we get it I mean I think we'll that's more local and I think it's usually pretty accurate. Yeah, I would. I agree with Paul and I think that it's up to the committees to explain the need and Lucas to your point there isn't really like a townwide report that has all the these types of things and what the need are so you know like, you know, if, you know someone come in on the applicant to make a compelling project, they don't really know what their needs need right so if, if someone comes and says oh yeah we really need some money to do this and then nowhere in the proposal are their metrics right they don't really quantify things or it's just, you know, that could be your question when you're reading the proposal you might ask well I don't see any. You might say I don't see the project need to describe very well, and that's one of your questions you send to me, and then we can ask the applicant can you actually provide us a little bit more quantitative measures of need. I think that is right there isn't. I agree like it'd be interesting like do is like a baseline documentation of need for some of this and there really isn't. So, you know I'm, I'm, we're hoping that the applicant would provide some of that but yeah sorry I had my first time through the process I now I realize that it's probably just fleshed out as the process goes forward. No I think it's a good question, someone else had asked that too and I was like, well we don't. And then more recently people have been asking like what the census has in the census actually has become more limited and so it is interesting. I'm just asking certain questions about just different demographics in town and we don't have that information available you know I've talked to pdpc and others and it's just interesting. You know like you think you might have say racial breakdown of certain things and we don't, or you might have like educational attainment for certain categories and we don't and so it's a, you know if the census doesn't collect it and the state and the Department doesn't collect it locally Amherst doesn't you know we don't have some of we don't you know we do an annual survey of residents but we don't ask all these detailed questions so. We're hoping these agencies have a way to document their need whether it's just even like simple waiting lists or you know. And we've learned how inaccurate polling is these days. These are all really good questions I know it, it helps us expand our thinking, the people that have been on the committee helps expand our thinking as well so thank you, Lucas. For that question. Yeah and Andrew back to your point I do like right so I think Andrew was right I think don't send me your score send me your rank order and that way it eliminates it actually that order. Incorporates your personal biases but it plays out in a way that the numbers aren't weighted in a way that right if people very scores widely and they're you know they're used to scoring things and some people aren't so. The rank order is what you know that I can create a chart and that's what right that's that's the way to do it so thanks Andrew I forgot that that was a right. I think that helps. And having nine people in the committee now that that will help that process because will give us better range more more opinions, basically more numbers. So I would think it'll work better this way. Only seven. So I'm saying nine. Yeah, so I don't know what that is. Oh yeah that's better than I will be able to put our opinions, you know, I'm gonna vote three times. I knew there was a problem in that. It looks like Hollywood squares but not all the squares. Somebody have a joke. And so do we and so in terms of the review criteria I mean they follows the proposal and so the, are there any questions about that or any changes you want to see or we think it's. Like one to four is sort of limiting like I think one to five feels a little, you can get a middle with one to five as opposed to one to four that's going to throw out there. You could do whatever you want right because nobody's seeing your number so you could do one to 10. No I mean if we say one to four I really want to keep individuals as your committee members are reviewing it to do one to four and use whole numbers please don't do like two and a half. But I thought you were just getting. But internally as individually as you rate them I want we want you to use a one to four score. Because you can't you can't Becky for instance you mean for you to be doing one to 10 and then Andrew is doing one to four to me, I think then that could. It doesn't necessarily but I think that range you could then have a different order of proposals I'd rather, you know we think one to five is better individually we could do that but I'd want everyone to kind of keep to that score, which of course is you to say okay if one's the best fives the least where do proposals fit in, or does each criteria fit in. Also in terms of discussion in the past, you know, that might come up in the discussion so some will say well on this proposal, I thought that the description was great but the need, you know I only gave them a two or something. Right and then it provides a common basis for discussion. Do we want to do one. As opposed to an even number right. Yeah, good Rika point of the one to four was that we would have to actually choose, and because other I mean I, I feel like I know myself and I would gravitate to the middle, and I actually like the idea of being forced into a four point scale. Anybody else. I agree that it should be a small number whether it's four or five doesn't matter but it keeps you from getting to do five and six for everything. Matt and Andrew what do we think from prior years one to four works for you. I'm fine either way. I didn't have a problem with one to four. Okay, all right, leave it one to four I'm fine. Let's work for me. I guess some comfortable music when you're doing it so you know if you if you are trying to go to that middle ground. Okay, well done. I can say we used to do one to 10 and we realized quickly that some committee members were always getting one twos and threes and then some are like in the eight nines and you know that range. It's not necessarily telling of the proposal I mean is there you know is it is are they were some really that good and some really that bad or is it just that's how people their preference of how they use a score and so I think that's when the rank order is good so what happens during the review then there could be a discussion because maybe, you know, as committee members ask questions then we get those back and then there's this order. It could be that you know a number of proposals are somewhat tied or you know they're all lumped together and then that really becomes part of the committee's discussion. So how do we choose five, if you know seven are tied. And then like Matt said that's where you might go back to your own review and say well actually I think this, this budget was weaker and then that becomes a talking point during the meeting. You know, you have to somehow make those decision points. Incidentally just just on this very briefly I want to again give Matt some explicit love for that translation work on the survey, not because you know, somewhat analogously to what we're talking about. Really, I mean if you look at the way people ranked, they clearly approach this in a whole range of different ways. That actually would, it would be hard to make what what you did not is much more helpful than actually the raw scores, given the range of ways in which people responded to that survey. Well, I did this based on the insight that you provided to the committee over the last year so. Oh, stop it. It's a thing to keep in mind though because I mean these again if people are responding what just really extending on what we're saying about our own rate ratings right and the different ways that we might be inclined. If you look down to those things very differently, it can really make a hash of, you know what we take away and the kind of translation that did or, you know, offering rank orderings, which is essentially what you did that is actually very very useful, even necessary to really make good use of these things so that's a thing to keep in mind certainly if you want to go back to the survey in the future which I think is helpful in the comments and all of that. And I think I use Microsoft forms just because it was convenient to use on our website but you know we do have the town has survey monkey and there's a few other platforms we could use that might do some more statistical analysis on the data on the responses and so which you know the software use didn't and so I agree it is interesting if we're doing this and we start getting, you know, we expect, you know, a few hundred responses I think we have to have. Maybe I would come up with a different way. If the questions are the same a different way to analyze the results. You know, and maybe that's a different software, just because you know there was a range, and then there was a lot of comments too and so thanks that for doing that I didn't know. I was, I'll say I was pleasantly surprised at how many responses we had. Yeah, amazing. Okay, so we've discussed the proposal review criteria. And we were going to keep the non social service the same. We don't have as we have. And anything else we need to discuss other items not anticipated within 48 hours. Anything else I was going to try to pull up the agenda quickly. So we look at their priorities and their requests for proposals. I think we've covered everything. And it's only 839. So just, just to hopefully everyone's on board Lucas and Rika with the schedule but does it make sense to just review the timeline again. And Becky too, right. So, we have November 20 that the RFP is going out so that's on Nate. The committee's webpage I think I have it. Okay. I can read it to yes so we have. At the end of the week, the proposals can be, you know, email to different agencies and you put on the website and all Scott mirrors back and try to get all that out there. They're due on December 18, which, you know, I don't even know what day that is. Friday. It's Friday up. And then I'm asking, we get them that day or do you, it takes some time to pull things together. No, I try to do. I'll ask, especially this year, because I'm not in the office, I could be. You have to come in that day usually I try to get them all out that day. So, you know, I'll just work that afternoon and get them out, at least electronically, you know, by five or something and then if people. Right, so committee members on paper copies, we can also do that. So, you know, I think I've already had two requests for paper copies. You can see them. You can either deliver them to your home or you can pick them up, but usually try to get them all out and online and try to get it all on the website that day. So anyone can see them. Is there any possibility you could just request electronic copies from people or is that just my everything up. The difficulty is the way we ask for different pieces of information. You know, usually I would take a paper copy and then collate it to what how we needed to be read right so their budget may not be in the same format, you know, might be in a different software than their, their narrative and then they're, you know, so usually, you know, I'm, I could we could ask I can ask people to email me everything.  I think that's. I mean this year in particular that I might be reasonable for right. And if we want a paper copy, can we get that career. Yeah, so okay. Yeah, just ask me, and we can do that, or Ben and I can get that ready. If we what what what exactly are we getting electronically is it through box is it is a PDFs what what does it look like. Usually I try to scan it all as a PDF. So you know be the, you know, everything would be bundled as one PDF and be you know the narrative description the budget, the board. You know if they have like a chart, you know any letters of support any attachments would all be scanned in as one PDF. So then I'd ask that you know by January 3. Ish, you'd send me any questions you'd have. And then. And then I get those to the applicants and they have a week to respond. You know, and then the committee meets on January 14 to do the review of the proposal so.  And then, you know, we'd have a public hearing in late January, or it could be early February depending on the schedule but at the public hearing. The recommendations would have been reviewed by the town manager, and those, you know, essentially we'd be unveiling what, you know, what recommendations are going to be included in the town's application and asking for public comment on that, which is a requirement by by the state that the public gets to comment on what the town's applying for. And does the public comment at the January 14 meeting, like do the people who submitted the proposals or is that really more like what we have tonight. It's more like what we have tonight so the public's, you know, encouraged to attend a public meeting but we're not necessarily asking for public testimony and so the committee review of the proposal is based on what's submitted and the questions and answers you know that are the follow up. And, you know, if an agency is attending the public meeting and there's another question we could ask of them but we're not asking, you know, people to come and present their proposals to the committee at the meeting, which we've done in the past we had used to ask agencies to make a presentation.  Is it beneficial, could someone make a good presentation but not at all really speak to the proposal they submitted. You know, so we haven't, you know, we don't include that.  I feel like this year we're not, you know, it don't add an extra meeting. We're not really equipped right now, but I also think that the meeting we had a week and a half ago whatever it was on the 10th. That's when everybody got their chance to kind of well they were advocating for priorities but they're also advocating for themselves as well. And does this work I mean are we, you know, not advocating for another meeting that wasn't clear.  Right, that's a Thursday, and then the 28th is a Thursday so we could just, you know, if you know if if, you know, when time nears if the 14th doesn't work and we need to move it a few days or earlier the next week and then we shift everything a little bit we have that flexibility. I'm hoping DHCD I think the applications will be due. The end of February so we have you know we have a little wiggle room not a lot but a little. Any other questions about the schedule going forward. All right, and anybody else is there anybody else out there, Nate that's waiting. I'm still here and I think Ted. I think he's been here but if I guess we have any public comment if there's any but they've been the only attendees. They want to weigh in with anything. And we put them to sleep. It's so scintillating are you kidding. I love your loves raise your hand. I love. I have to acknowledge that you called no thank you all so much to the committee for your careful deliberation I don't need any further for their comment but I just wanted to. Yeah, appreciate all of your, your service on the separate. Thanks you're not asleep. I am not asleep I am here I am listening. I did just serve myself a bowl of ice cream. I'm listening to meetings at during dinner and my kids now call it dinner theater so it's kind of nice about zoom you can you know meet yourself and don't have to share your video so it's at least once a week we have dinner theater at our house. Great. All right, anything else. Are we all set to adjourn do we need a motion to adjourn or no because this isn't a pub. I mean I guess if people want to say you adjourn it's anybody want to make a motion to adjourn. Got it. All right well thank you so much this was really a very fruitful discussion and I think a lot came out of it and every year we refine these proposals a little bit more and a little bit more. I think we need to make all of our work a little bit easier when we get to read how many pros proposals I don't know come December 18th. It'll be really smooth sailing this year. And if we want to pick up proposals we just like meet you in the back of town hall and have a hand off. Yeah, you know the back door. It sounds so shady there's a narrow dark alley and then we can we can you know either you can come to town hall or we could have a meeting, you know, a meeting spot or something. We can figure it out. I'd like hard copies as well please. Okay, I think I said so before if I'm not on your list I would like to help. I could become a mail carrier and just bring them around town. I'd like hard copies please. Maybe holiday cookies to Ben. Yeah. No food sharing during. Yeah, it's true. So we can plan on that if. Yeah, hopefully if they get in by noon by the end of the day we can have you know hard copies ready to so everyone can get them at that day. All right, thank you committee for all your hard work this is really terrific really really well done and it's 849 we can all.


Strap in because for the next couple of minutes I'm gonna talk some shop about the channel and where things are headed. Uncut, uncensored, all real. That's not a phrase. Anyway, I'm Adam Wollinger. I've been running this show, Adam Does Movies, for what seems like an eternity now, six or seven years off and on. Like a high school relationship, you don't really know where it's gonna go. But I know where it's gonna go. I've grown up, I'm an adult now and there is a few things going on in my life that are steering this ship. So before on the channel, I'm being asked to YouTube or what they want me to do. I just kinda did my own thing. If I wanted to do a movie skit show, I did one, like Movie Boss. If I wanted to do a satirical show, poking fun at the overall feeling of some YouTube creators and how they kinda go for the click baits, I do the cringe as a different character entirely, which can confuse people, I've realized that. But then I also have my more brutally honest takes on things with Adam Rantz and then my classic movie feud series, which is what started all of this. Years ago, I'm gonna take you back on a journey, sorry. Hang with me. Years ago, when the channel started, it was just movie feuds. It was me and Corey Williamson. He did the show with me for, I think two years maybe. It was very off and on though. We went like six months without posting anything. So I don't know if you count that, like a year and a half. Anyway, we struggled to find out what kind of show we wanted to be. Did we want to be like more ridden out, more skit based, more just genuine honesty, whatever. We played a lot with it. The course of things changed obviously, that was a sentence, and Corey decided to leave. We weren't making money, we weren't getting views, we weren't getting subs. And then I decided to take a big break and figure out what I wanted to do with the channel because we had a few hundred subs, nothing big. But we were growing a little bit. So I rebranded a bit. I decided to do the movie feuds solo, which was difficult at first because I didn't really know how to approach it. And then later I realized, it's not really so much about me as it is about the movies. Just talking shop, letting people vote, speak their voice, that's what it comes down to. Obviously they respect my opinion, but really it's the engagement with the audience that I think people liked. I try to reply to comments whenever I can. I'm a busy guy, I have a full-time job, I got kids, I got a wife, I have freelance work, this is just mixed in. But I don't want it to be mixed in. I want this to be a serious job that I'm making a lot of money at and that I can be proud of from the ground up. Of course I love the shows I make, I think they're funny, I think they're creative.  I'm gonna keep this video up for a few days and then I'm gonna take it down because what I'm... Let me back up. I branded it Feud Nation. I was gonna do movie feuds, game feuds, food feuds, every kind of feud under the sun. YouTube didn't like that idea. I was doing rants on random things. It just wasn't giving me the algorithm I needed. I wasn't falling into their related videos. YouTube didn't know how to classify my channel. So then I focused on movies. I rebranded, pulled down a ton of content, put it on a second channel, Adams Take Two. That skyrocketed my subs from, I believe 20,000 at the time to where we're at today, almost 50,000. But I'm going backwards now. I'm going in reverse. I was almost at 50 or 49,000. I don't know. Now I'm barely at 48. Those numbers might be not right. But all I know is every day, every time I upload a video, I lose subs. And I stopped and thought about it. Why is this happening? Why am I losing subs every time?  No, I don't think so. I think what's happening is people are confused about the channel still, even though it's just about movies. It's still a little too nuanced, maybe. It needs to be bold. It needs to be straightforward. When I upload a movie boss, I'm playing a character.   He never really is honest. And that's a lot of fun for me to do. But I can totally understand when a new subscriber comes in because they watched a movie feud. I'm like, I like this guy. He seems genuine. And then the next video comes up is the cringe. I'm like, okay, this guy's completely lost me now. And then the movie boss comes up. And they're like, okay, I'm just out. I have no idea. Unsub. I get it. So after a lot of reflection, I've decided to once again reinvent the wheel that I have broken myself. Because it was going well for a while because I was just focusing on movie feuds. And I was just focusing on my Adam Rantz which are basically reviews, but in a less structured manner, kind of like this video. I lost sight of the ball. So what's gonna happen? And I don't like it any more than some of you are going to. It's far more of an inconvenience for me than it is for you. Let me tell you that much. I have rebranded my second channel, Adam Olinger, which is my real first and last name. I'm already in the process of pulling down any video on this channel that's not PG or PG-13, no swearing or very little swearing is gonna be on this channel. This is for families now. This is for the masses or that's the goal. It's to bring in new subscribers. Adam Olinger is going to be passionate Adam. The artistic Adam that doesn't get his due. He's doing the paintings for weeks and my computer just made a noise, sorry for that picked up. And he's getting paid nothing because right now I don't get monetization on my second channel. It does meet the subscriber threshold but not the view threshold. Hopefully that'll change in the coming months. But for right now it doesn't. Anyway, I'm pulling down movie boss videos from Adam, what is this channel? Adam does movies. I'm pulling down the movie boss videos. They're gone already actually. I'm pulling down the Adam Rantz. I'm pulling down the cringe and they are getting re-uploaded to Adam Olinger. Those shows going forward will be uploaded there. This channel will be movie feuds. My best and worst series which I've rebranded Hot Takes which is just ranking. And then anything else that I deem of quality for this channel. Adam Olinger is going to be the experimental stuff and the funny skit stuff, movie boss, the cringe, Adam Rantz. It's rated R stuff. Not always, I'm not gonna just swear for the sake of it to be edgy or something but that's where you're gonna find that. What else can I say? Yeah, it's been an experience. It's been a journey. And it's not something I take lightly. So my end goal here is to increase my subs 10-fold on this channel. I want to be in the big leagues with the Chris Stuckmans and the Jeremy Johns and whoever else is there. I think I can do it. But I have to play ball with YouTube. I have to play the game. I gotta get in the algorithm. I have to have them know that I'm safe for all ages because I do want people at this channel. I do want to make money off of all the work I put in and I don't want to beg my viewers to go on Patreon or to do the YouTube join stuff. That's not what I want. So I guess that I just wanted to be honest with you and tell you where things are at and you can say I'm selling out or whatever you want. Maybe I am, I don't know. But I am not going to lie. I'm still going to do honest movie reviews and my rankings and movie feuds. Well, it's all still me. It's just, I guess a more grown up version if you want to say that. A more censored version here. Whereas my other channel can be more fun, loose, not have to worry about whatever YouTube wants me to be. And I won't give good reviews ever if it's a Disney movie. That I will still be completely honest. So that's just, that's where things are at and I really appreciate those have been with me since the early days when it was just movie feuds or when they joined me for Feud Nation or now Adam Does Movies, which it still is and is for this foreseeable future. So thank you if you've been on this journey and I hope to continue to entertain and make you laugh. Okay, I think that's all I needed to say. And if you are a Patreon or a YouTube join member, really thank you. But make sure to subscribe to Adam Olinger if you want to see The Cringe, Movie Boss.  If I put a video here, there's gonna be a video over there. That's the goal, even without the monetization because the end goal is to get Movie Boss, The Cringe and that stuff just as popular as this stuff if not more so. And I was very disheartened to see my new series getting like 600 views. That sucks, especially when I have other people joining me on those videos. Anyway, thanks again and we'll see you soon.