##VIDEO ID:eyFNTFuXuCg## I think he usually just could you knock on the knock on that door see if we're ready to go we good you're all set okay thanks yeah all right good evening uh this is the ngog hill Orchard working group October 17th calling to order at 7:35 we have a quorum uh good evening everyone thank you for being here should we begin with uh Sarah you you asked so in review of the minutes I had some things that I wanted to change and also add so I would like to see if we could wait uh until I can submit those to everyone and approve them at the next meeting sounds good thank you um second item is is a review of the RFP sharing the RFP responses publicly and talking to Town Council about it so I talked to Town Council uh they were supposed to be redacted and posted on the website today great I don't know if they were or not I have not checked the website so and then can we just recap one thing in terms of the last meeting which I thought was really helpful before we get into this is the thought that what this process is so that we in theory can um put forth a name or numerous names or no names but then the select board would go um with our recommendation but also it may be that there may be no laces and then you would go to your mapc that you have the funding for so just if you could just do that overview because I think I got some questions yeah after that if we can just take a minute to review that so I so my understanding of this group's mission is to right now is to review the rfps on the criteria that were in the rfps and recommend to the select board which one we feel is the best based on those criteria we also have the option of not recommending any of them if we don't feel that any of them are going to be the best and highest use of of the property um I think we also can outside of those criteria just because we are theoretically subject matter experts on this sub on this property by now include with this with our recommendation to the select board other information like this is a really good candidate with some caveats that are outside of the criteria of the RFB like you know I don't know what like like least to own in terms of purchases is one that has come up several times or and I think that that because it's not we have to just remember it wasn't part of our scope in the RFP and it stated that we're just looking at the APR land right yep but everybody indicated they were interested in purchase and everybody indicated they were interesting purchase the house so we should absolutely include that as part of our recommendation to the select board but not as part of not as part of evaluating this criteria yep so I think that's helpful thank you from Town Council we're not allowed to consider at least own exactly right that's I wanted wanted that reiterated a second time fair enough thank you um any other questions on the criteria before we dive in I would I would like to even though these have been released publicly just refer to them as number one number two and number four in this discussion so do you want to clarify three versus four I I yes I can do that and the reason I want to do that is if I say something negative I don't want it to be in public that I'm saying something negative about one of the applicants right so we should actually have a list of who they are okay and it's number four because number three was non-responsive right I think we should also acknowledge that so because so so for clarity at our last meeting it was one two and three y um after further review of the RFP respondents it was determined that three was non-conformant but four was okay non-conformant to the process yes to the RP process just for people that may have never gone through this before just so [Music] they is that cool is that okay with with you to go that way okay it's y okay are you one two and four are you good on that so I guess let's begin then in that case with number one so you have very nice P thank you very much I I worked very hard so I I just had a question on how you wanted to go through did you want to go through by criteria and how we rated them or by applicant I think that I would I I I think it might be more effective to go by applicant and then at the end if we want we can compare and contrast like this one the the criteria but I don't feel strongly about it I can go either way preferences and from anyone well I think to be honest to have a dialogue where you can't talk about someone's experience and their um you know their Capital plans like I have notes on each one so I think to do justice to the app the three applicants that have put so much time in effort in this I think it's I know it's going to be cumbersome for me to talk in code no okay that's fine that was not my question okay my question was do you want to compare the criteria one is um experience operating or managing a farm do you want to compare that across the board on the three applicants or do you want to go um all four criteria on applicant one got all four are we going horizontal or vertical wow I I don't know is as long as somebody tells me which we want to do so let's go let's go one applicant at a time and if you really want would prefer to just State the name that I'm okay with that we give it we'll give it a world okay so let's start with number one Okay who wants to begin we can go by criteria we can just so I think it's also so for the people that are listening they may not know what the criteria is and so our weighted process of percentage points that this particular was 15% and it's criteria number one and it's called experience operating Andor managing a farm correct and the total would be 15 I call them points but they're percentages but I I just call them points points is good y yep okay and then the second one is capital investment plan for equipment the respondent intends to use in the farming operation up to 40 points mhm third is experience in licensing for pesticide application up to Five Points the last one is comprehensiveness and quality of the proposed management plan up to 40 points right okay so let's begin with applicant number one and I'm whoever wants to start doesn't matter we just go around the hor yeah why do why do you start on this one so I'm at 10 okay for experience managing the farm 10 10 on experience managing Farm do you want to expand on that or just go by numbers I think we'll just go by numbers [Music] will also a 10 um I put an eight I put them as a 10 as well okay so I'm the outlier there no there's no out we're going we're going to all be outliers at some point so then let's go to criteria number two capital investment plan for equipment the respondent intends to use was that a 20 30 I was at a 20 I was also at a thir okay could I speak up sure y um experience in licensing for pesticide application five five five five um comprehensiveness and quality of proposed management plan so I a little bit with this because what is proposed I mean you can you can have really specific plans and I I struggle a little bit with this in terms of how it's going to be implemented okay with that said I would put a 30 [Music] okay it wasn't so much for me the implementation um but the completeness of the property on that one just the use complete use of the property so um the lack the lack of it yeah um that was I mean 30 okay um I actually had this at 35 I thought this was a very comprehensive and well thought out plan I put them at 35 as well but I also agree with Will in that they aren't using the entire property but they are using enough of the property yeah to make so yeah okay um all right shall we go on to applicant number two wait a minute let's start by going the other way around so I can get my notes Mr rer y um so criteria number one experience operating or managing a farm this one was kind of hard to actually I gave them a 10 as well um based on one of their resumes so I gave them a 15 because I looked that resume matched exactly the acreage was the same I thought it was spoton are you making the assumption that that resume is going to be pertained to this part this it was proposed as a farm manager who was in charge of operating the farm and growing things so I I would assume that that that person would be instrumental in yeah that's why I was I was curious to see if that that was assumption based on the based on the application okay I'm also at a 10 okay I'm at a 10 okay number two capital investment plan um I gave them a 20 okay um I gave them a 10 I'm also out of 10 okay yeah may as well okay 10 um you guys are harsh graders experience in licensing pesticide applications I gave them a five because it didn't seem like they needed peptides in their plan so I went back and forth on this I gave them a three with the assumption that they didn't they didn't mention it but they also mention integrated Pest Management but I don't know maybe a five would be more fair given that they seem to have a good handle on it so I'm going to retroactively change mine to a five um um without evidence of a pesticide applicator license I I did a a zero on that um they did explain in their plan that they were planning to be organic they did mention the integrated Pest Management approach um but having been on in the group for quite a while with trying to get ahead of invasives and kind of get things generally under control um it's come up a number of times that probably starting with some kind of uh you know chemical control might be needed and then shifting over to you know an IPM program or livestock or some some other way of managing the invasives but um without a license sight so so I think that's totally valid and I think we'll just keep that in mind like I don't think that that's going to be the deciding number of points but fair enough I I went with the five because if they're not needing it or you can hire someone okay if they need it okay um number four comprehensiveness and quality of proposed management plan I gave them a 20 okay I gave them a 15 I'm also at 15 yeah I'm I'm at a 20 and I guess for me I I struggle with and I I mentioned this the last meeting like meeting mdar requirements M so I just I really want to make sure so if you're leasing 48 Acres that at least half of those are really going to have Revenue in the first year or two yeah so that that's where I struggled with my number but 20 ultimately is where you landed y okay uh number four I will begin this one um criteria number one experience I give 15 points great I did as well you did as well okay 15 also Hold the Line yep 15 okay um capital investment plan for equipment the respondent intends to use in the out farming operation I don't think I didn't see it in their application so I gave them a five because there was some reference to working it but I didn't see any specifics so I gave them a 35 because it sounded as if they already had all the capital that they needed I'm in the same Bo all the equipment y it I might have read it wrong but that's the way I interpreted that they had all of the equipment they needed that that's my interpretation as well is it what were you at will um I'm at more of a 25 um it looked like they had a they had a comprehensive list of equipment that they intended to procure but that they did not have the the equipment um no that maybe that was number two you're on number four oh excuse me excuse me so I would be yeah I'm at a 35 [Applause] sorry I'm sorry yes I'd also be at a 35 okay so I'm clearly the outlier there so we'll I'll come we'll come back to that I must have it's fine no I I can see the confusion because I I thought about this it's like do you actually have to list everything when it's somewhat apparent that you own some of those so I'm looking at the application now and I'm trying to I mean I understand that this person has an existing business business but I I just didn't see okay I have all the stuff I need to do it so I think it was in the answers it might have been in the answer to their questions too that is probably where I missed it okay fair enough all right I'm GNA come I'm gonna have to come back to that one okay uh number three um pesticide applications I gave three points I gave them a but I could convinced on a three as well there was no license but they they were clearly very familiar with the pros and cons of it I was also at a five I made the assumption that it was they had a license I'm at a five okay and then the last one is the comprehensive and quality of the proposed management plan I started I gave them a 10 because I just there wasn't there wasn't detail there there was um a lot of discussion about the General plan but there was no timeline per se there was no I I didn't get that I'm at a 35 and I didn't get that um Vibe okay I'm at a 35 as well because if you look at page one um hold on a second yeah if you look at page one like the fourth paragraph down specific to lot use like outlines what we go on yeah lots I see that yeah know I'm I'm in a strong 35 what about you will 35 is well okay so yeah I'm wi okay um so I guess we could add up all these numbers and see where we're at we're we're mostly consistent except for me grading too hard on the actually we're remarkably consistent um so so when I went through and graded them applicant number four scored the best right applicant number one was slightly below but then reading through the proposals if I flip my hat a little bit on this applicant number one is the one I would think we're most likely to be able to negotiate a lease with versus applicant number four because app four said explicitly in their proposal that they um are only interested if we sell them the house in the barn right which we do not have the right to do well that was the same as two as well two wanted at lease to own yes one would like to purchase the house but isn't making an offer contingent on the house and so so if we're just going for a good faith lease negotiation one has a potential of being a lease negotiation four isn't something that's viable without town meeting votes effectively so the way they're written right and I and I appreciate that but the way that I look at that is you have to look at the criteria that was put forth for the RFP you may have additional information but that's people can change their minds as well I look at it differently that you come up with your strongest candidate and say this is who we put forth but we and that's what we were talking about the caveat could be that it may not may not work right I agree with that but if we're saying it's the strongest candidate and we know it's not going to work then why are we putting it Forward because people change their minds so we don't know what you could also have someone who's great and then decide they don't want to lease so and like we had right so that's where I'm I'm Y no and I I appreciate that yep so I think I'm I'm with you on that ordering of them I think that number four seems to have the most relevant experience for what they're proposing to do like it matches up it aligns well and it is a a well thought out plan to to use the site and all of the site and all of the site right with little or no cost to the town right however the lease negotiations could be outrageously difficult or a nonstarter so and I appreciate that again but the fact is that's not the mission of us that's I you all age what we're supposed to do is to put forth who we think is the best candidate and then negotiation comes later I I agree with you I have a hard time sitting here with the two hats in distinguishing them right if I if I'm but today you're wearing you're not wearing your select board hat you're an appointee of them but yes this is your but I could tell you that when I'm sitting on the select board I'm likely to say that I'm going to potentially go against the recommendation because I don't think it would be fruitful cuz I don't you all said in numerous meetings that you that select board was going to go with what we thought was viable so I yeah but you just said viable and I'm telling you I don't think four is viable but you don't you don't know until you actually open it and actually as in two things that they've said they said only if they can buy the property and we cannot sell them the property so they were not the only one that said that Mark I I applicants that said that thought that they I thought they preferred a I thought for preferred the longest term lease but I didn't and they were interested in purchasing it but I don't think that they were for said they were only interested in the lease if they could buy the house and the barn I only willing to engage in leasing the APR land if the town will sell me the house and barn I cannot operate the farm without those structures at the core of the operation for sales and distribution and housing for Farm laborers in the house and then there was specifics about what to do with the house cying it as a mul so while I agree with you I'm questioning whether that basically disqualifies them as a valid candidate because we cannot consider selling the house or why can't you in this bid process have one two so if one says no you have a backfall of two why can't we put forth our we can we can say that we yeah that's what we talked about that we would say put forth your best and there's there's going to be a c to everyone so we could say that this is our preferred candidate and this one is also acceptable or we could rank them and say they're all acceptable right we can do that and the select boort can do the negotiations that way but if we're just putting forth a candidate that says I'm only interested in this I think it's a it's a nonstarter right because we know I get by their own words there's one other that is very strongly worded that I want the land yeah so yeah that's true as well and so I think that it could come to the table that you open that bid and they're like I really want the land like I said to you I really want the land and they too could back away yeah I just feel it's our if we wish to put forth a name or no names because it's obvious that everybody wants to buy MH which was also part of the mission was to find a good Steward of the land and hope that we could at some point give them a pathway forward to own so another option is for us to go to say to the select board all three of these are good candidates one of them is a standout but we think it would be better in everyone's interest to sell the property to them and not go forward with this lease RFP and pursue with mapc a sale at the next town meeting going through another RFP for sale and then follow that process as we did as we did certainly that is an option for us to do y and you know I I am I'm inclined to recommend number four to the select board and just say the caveat is you know because as Sarah said like we don't know what's going to happen on the lease negotiations Anything could happen so I I'm and I think it's the best thing for the orchard like if it falls through it falls through but but I I understand where Sarah's coming from as far as being the best thing for the orchard so so so the question is are we I'm fine with saying number four is the Top Choice are we saying it's the only value value valid one or are we going to say if least negotiations don't go forward with number four if it fails we go to number one or number two or are we saying if it fails with number four we're going to sale that's my question it's a great question so we should discuss that yeah let's discuss that so I I have I do have some concerns about number one like I'm concerned about um a lack of experience operating a farm of this scale um I'm concerned about uh capitalization um the you know the the people who were coming into this don't have an existing business they don't have equipment they have day jobs I assume there's no clear obvious answer to the question of when they're going to spend the time I mean will you know farming's a pretty easy part-time job right oh yeah just squeeze it right in yeah it's like you just do it in the off hours that's right so I think I'm here is he he's here that's right I'm taking off his jacket well he's going to go back and finish his exactly um I'm just worried I'm worried that um they that they won't have the capacity to make it work and it's and it's it's I guess to some extent a little bit more of a risk than number two who seems to have both a larger band of personnel that they can draw on and also in my opinion the best options at Grants and free interest free loans for capitalization right I think it comes to Mark's question like do we want to go down the path of coming up with one and then if they one doesn't work out you go to mapc and go through that process or do we go the path of going here's one and two well so so what's your opinion would you recommend number one if like number four had not applied you would would are you on the fence or you like no I'm because I I want I want someone to take over the whole property okay what about you will I was just I was going to say that there was a lot of Despair between one and four because of the comprehensive plan for the entire property like that's precisely what we've been looking for and that's sort of what's needed to move beyond the whole thing so you're if if you go with number one you're gonna be having to go through this process again right for and they wanted the shortest term leas for the the the whole the the whole property except now it's only part of it there's been a lot of discussion about you know oh if there's going to be somebody there you know a farmer is going to have it you have to have the house now I've been around and around that you could you could take the house you could you know do a couple different apartments and then you know sell it with three to five acres or something like that but having a plan in front of us that keeps everything together with my understanding that that's not what's being that was not what was asked and that's not what was being negotiated or not available in the RFP um I think it's really difficult to put um compare those two I I just so so the Counterpoint I so I agree I think like the thing that come I come back to is it's almost like they're getting punished for being realistic like they understand the scope of what they can accomplish they're going at it in a very measured and detailed way as their management plan says with like rollouts of these different things over the course of several years and they know that they don't have the capacity to take the whole property so they're I mean that's a good thing in terms of their management plan but maybe you're saying yeah but but it's not it's not as good for the orchard if you go yes it's not as good for the Orchard and if you go chick cherry-picking out the good the good property and then you're trying to you know sub either sublet or additionally then you're into like town did not do well you're going to be pay doing all over again a maintenance fee or yeah yeah okay what about you do you would you go with number one if number four had not would you recommend number one I would you would okay I would um I agree that um I agree that they have a lot of dreams right but I don't want to be the dream killer either right but you also have to be fiscally responsible for this town yes I mean you have to have Capital you have to have access and experience yes I agree with all of that too but it also um I I don't know the outlay for the town was that great in number one it there is some right the town is definitely spending money in all of the proposals except number four right um but it seemed it seemed like more what the proposal for one seemed more along the lines of what I think the town is expecting right or asking for or used to or whatever you want to use the term right it seemed to be more fitting with the characteristics that were already there um in the past um I thought you know I thought they were biting off a huge chunk and good luck to them if they can actually succeed I hope they could but you know I assume that they went into this with their eyes open right yeah but there is significant removal of trees as well yes there's also irrigation installation that you all have to pay for yes I I understand they number one had a cost to it I would say yeah the only one that didn't have a cost to it was number four so new pump for the well Cold Storage is required we'd have to make sure that was working removal of all the Tre and two of the Lots um they one thing I didn't understand is they mentioned one of the Lots which was not part of the lease as a Hayfield so that that was one of the ones where they wanted the trees removed but theying that why are they talking about having it be a hay field they wanted the trees removed so that they didn't contaminate the trees in the other field that's the only one that I saw they wanted the trees remov by the town as opposed to doing it themselves okay okay um and then what about number two I guess that's my my other question like in in in the absence of any other applicants would you recommend moving forward yeah I think there's less less risk there my my question is I come back to can you come into compliance with mdar by not starting your farm straight away I mean it's a it's a long process for what they have I had a hard time with number two because there was not enough details to actually tell what they were doing I felt I felt the same way and I felt like I couldn't even tell if it was a vegetable field of you know what they were what their end product was what their who their customers were anything along those lines it was just not I didn't see it there okay I I guess I read between the lines a little bit more especially in the cover letter but I thought it was I thought it was a strong proposal so I think one of so some of the great things about it was they mentioned they had a business manager identified um but they there was no again there was no description of whether any of these managers were going to be full or part-time whether they were going to be paid or unpaid if they're paid how are they getting paid there was no mention of an income from any of the any of the um activities on the orchard um they also talked about construction on the APR lands which I think might be problematic no not for sheds for out buildings for greenh houses uh you can definitely put like uh animal sheds yeah I didn't I thought could be something I thought they were really I thought the M was really really strict you could put a run I think they're looking for like a runin for animals that though but something something a shed type of thing or the tie tunnels or things like that there's I think process special permitting processes and like there was no mention of whether this was a how they were going to make it the profit that they need see that's the question where's the where's the income to meet the even though it's a low threshold for mdar how do we meet that threshold or how do they meet the so that could all be required in the lease negotiations and there even tell what they were going to sell right I mean were they selling vegetables or they selling meat I had no idea yeah that's I can tell you what page it's on you like the vision of low and no till farming for sure there were a lot of great things about it um the sustainability the infrastructure of as far as Partnerships that they had all that's great somewhere yeah I couldn't find I I'm I'm I'm kind of with Mark as far as I I couldn't really tell there was also but there were several um references to food insecurity or food security but I I didn't know whether that was the point of the of the crops that were being grown I I got that thought just in terms of that's the the primary in that so there's crops there'll be um farm animals for food as well oh yes they talked about yes um the poultry um beef then I think they mentioned leather y yeah no I think they they could meet that for sure I do like Community engagement so ultimately if we go to the select board and say our preference would be number four and after number four what nobody number [Music] two I guess I'm looking for opinions from this group I wouldn't be opposed of going for to and and see I mean we still just have to remember everybody wants to own yeah and so um I would have faith in the select board that they'll try and do what's best or perhaps do nothing and and wait and go work with mapc Okay will um I mean I guess I would be comfortable with recommending number four um would you leave it at that and then kind of see what the town wants to do I'll tell you I'm not comfortable recommending number two there just wasn't enough information in there for me to feel comfortable on what plan was Y no I appreciate that um and I understand the qualms on number one I'm fine if the group decides not to recommend number one I'm on the fence on number one I mean I think they have a vision whether they can achieve their vision is debatable but so I I'm number four yes and I would say number two yes because um the lease negotiation process will need to be there there will need to be a robust exploration of assets personnel and other items like that in the management plan as far as the lease um or or or it won't go forward I also say four and two both required ownership one did not right but again not our I think that I I feel like it's not our problem to solve I think it's more important to look at our problem yeah yes the whole property I really want one one Steward to really have the One Vision yeah okay and I would have preferred to have that as a sale so that way we can help help work them with them so then the last question is do we recommend none of them to the select board with the explanation that we think a sale is actually preferable to even attempt an lease negotiation I guess I'm I just don't want it to be a long drawn out convoluted where all of a sudden you know couple months go by or longer than that and then we're back to square one and then we've already missed an opportunity to do mapc and come to the spring meeting you mean if the lease the lease negotiation gets dragged out yeah I think I think so I think pthew and I have already committed that the lease negotiations we we originally said somewhere in January we either have a lease or we're done yeah right right and I'm fine with saying you know December 31 honestly in January you have to be ordering everything anyways yeah so if if you're going to even attempt to have a short season if we begin with negotiations with number four we are going to figure out whether or not the sale is a deal breaker for them right is it just the sale of the house in the barn that you're that's the that's in the request in the yeah the request or it mhm yeah yeah cuz they would lease the lower so the house we could sell I mean is well the barn you can move into mdar and you can sell that with the APR well we should figure out what we should do with the barn that's a separate discussion that we should have the barn should be protected how it's protected we should decide mhm but it would be protected if you move it into mdar and you can still put a CR on it or you can still put something else on it as well but but I don't know if you put it under MD's control if it still would meet the needs of any farmer that we're putting in there versus putting a historical restriction on it versus putting what if we put a historical restriction on the barn as opposed to an agricultural restriction on the barn I think we can do the the the purchaser let see whoever the farmer can do many more things with the barn than they could with a historical restriction because you can say that they cannot alter the outside character in the historical whereas mdar is going to say you can't put in a farm stand here because it doesn't meet something it's a lot more Hoops for mdar than it would be for historical I believe but they are willing to do it yes but we could also do a historical okay and a historical can be in perpetuity we can pick the terms on a historical I think it's only 99 years but yeah so do we have do we have a consensus that we will recommend number four to the select board um with a Proviso that we understand that there's a desire to own and that we begin the lease negotiations and if those don't work out we can um attempt the same with number two and that's what we'll bring to the select board on Monday but they they can say yay or nay to one yay or nay to two or yay or nay to the whole process we don't like any of them and we're going to go to work with mapc so I feel like in good faith the select board will say we accept your recommendation um or not like or or or nothing or or we don't think that this is the right fit for the orchard I don't think that they're going to say well we don't want to take number four we want to take number two instead okay so I think that like I will insist that they either follow our promise I won't vote against the recommendation here well I guess what I'm saying and now that I think about the timeline and I it's just hard for me to waste another year but I think if you go into negotiations with one and that fails in the middle of December hope they wouldn't and then you're starting negotiations for another one then you're looking at you've already lost yeah that whole growing year because that's another month you're into like February March whatever so that would be my only hesitation of putting two names forward it's just the good face it's like get it yeah yeah I understand but I I think I would because it could be a quick one and done you open the bid and one says Nope I can't buy so then you're right on to two okay sorry I just talked in the circle are you are are you are you do you agree with that approach of recommending two of recommending four I'm I'm fine with the recommending four I'm not sold onto what about you will I'm I'm comfortable Yeah final recommending four but not to I appreciate what you're saying about the the you know getting a much better understanding during the negotiations of a management plans and that we're leaving it up to select board in good faith to make sure that the management is on par with what we're looking for and that it's not um you know that you're going to do some Discovery there and that it's going to be an adequate um you know Arrangement but based on the response to the RFP not it's difficult for me to to say yes yeah okay and I'm I'm like a cautious yes on it so I guess we're split two two so I'm not sure what we can say that we can also bring that to the select board I think we can you can we could we agree to disagree that we all agree that for is a strong candidate and there's cats that may not work and that we think you all should if that falls through look at number two yeah okay and I mean I guess you could come no was going to say you could come back to us but no no okay and then that or have a pathway that if four doesn't work out they also have the lane to say I think it's time to do mapc yeah so we're we're not kind of like putting the board in one corner like there's there are Pathways agreed okay uncomfortable that so we' have to make a motion for them so yeah so I need a motion to recommend number four to the select board with the caveats that we just discussed so moved I well we need a second second okay all those in favor cane signify by saying I okay the motion carries 4 Z thank you all very much so we talked about whether this would be the last meeting of the working group if we need we still have to do minutes yeah for the last 10 minutes for today yes so there's that and the other the other question I have is and I don't think it's necessarily on the agenda for m so I don't know how much we can discuss it is we should decide what if if we're going to go the course of selling the house and barn or anything else what restrictions we recommend be placed on it and start that process right I don't think you and I agree on that at the moment so I think that there's certainly an opportunity I know everybody's busy with town meeting but to have another meeting to have that discussion because I think it should be right a first refusal for whoever the lesie is or if someone's able to buy the APR land they should always have right of first refusal at APR prices for say the barn or whatever with the house the town should or no meaning the whoever the tenant the le e should so so we cannot do I understand the only way we would be able to do that I'm talking about in the future right but we could what if we declared it Surplus leased it and then that then we would be able to to to sell so if we go to sell the house just take the house that's not part of the lease yeah if we to declare it Surplus and go to sell it we have to go through an RFP process oh right and the only and the best you could do is tailor the RFP so that the criteria somehow favors the person who's leasing yes and we've we' committees talked about that okay previously but then yes so yeah we should figure out the proper terms for that I don't think anyone would be objection if if the I mean the barn for example was put into 61a the town would maintain the right of first refusal on that if that was to be sold and and then that's true yeah so that's that is a reason to put in the APR right no that's you don't have to have 61a right yeah but that the that the applicant has to do the town can't put it under 61 correct so you're but if we wanted to put any restrictions on it at some point we need to arm russle those out um okay so should we schedule another meeting in that case I don't think we need one in any time in the near future right CU we don't know what the status of the lease negotiations fair enough when do you all meet uh Monday we're going to discuss this on Monday so it's on the on it's on the agenda for Monday so we'll we'll know more on Tuesday okay okay so I think our meeting can wait till like December okay honestly so you yeah before Christmas public input yeah please PRS I the road I don't see where the redacted proposals are available I tried I'm not saying they're not they're somewhere they're not somewhere I could readily discern so with that said I was a little bit you did a great job I tried to navigate through one two and four Etc having said that I'm a little bit concerned by what I thought I heard as potentially a a disqualifying element pertaining to fors wanting to purchase the the orchard by way of it would require a town vote I think I heard that number one had aspects of requiring what I'm going to you didn't just say it this way but what I heard was tree removal and irrigation and if I heard that correctly and recalling it correctly I don't think the select board has money available to them independent of a town vote to conduct that tree removal irrigation and hence I see that is similar to the concerns expressed with regard to you don't have the authority to sell it I mean to me they're equally they're outside of your control it's subject to town vote and hence hence they're both rendered moved from the standpoint of how you consider them as opposing applicants so I just so I I I understand that concern I think the difference for me is that um an article to allocate money for working on the orchard will be received very differently from an article which is to sell the Orchard and and there is potential of you know doing Reserve fund transfers or you know select board slush funds for these things that we could work out can we use CPC funds for this that I do not know so well I would just argue that if there's you know I attended the meetings it sounds like you're starting off with a 2 something million deficit with regard to to the next year budget so all due respect but I think there are many many competing priorities and flap I would flip that with regard to if you had the ability to do these things then I believe the working group and I can't speak on their behalf but I've been trying to familiarize myself with their thinking Etc I think they were all four get on with doing what you need to do in order to get some of the farmland in operation and I would argue that one of the impediments with regard to proceeding with any type of work of the Farmland during the most soon season was very much the aspect of you had no money to fix up the property the way it was believed to be used so I I find myself somewhat dizzy with regard to different arguments that are made as you're contemplating the decisions before you I congratulate on making the decisions but I'm almost saying these remarks with an eye towards the select board meetings on Monday night so that there's not so that there's Clarity with regard to these issues because I would hate to see um what I feel is not clear influence the decisions and you know the the discussion pertaining these we were tasked with look at the I know for will and I not because you wear different hats we were tasked with looking at these with the sole purpose of a lease and so ultimately I think if you can get someone in there that's a good Steward uh a good tenant that we can still go forward with the proposal of a purchase and craft it so that hopefully the person that's there and doing a great job we could help them buy it so I I embrace that completely I just don't want I just don't want the what clearly appears I hear you say number four is your preferred and then you're working your way to evalu wait whether the two other two applicants might be you know able to be rendered you know into a lease arrangement I just don't want number four to be negated at the select board level as a result of apparently the application of number four saying they really want it with the sale and so I come back to the premise of people can change their mind oh so open the and see what happens and I and I accept and I appreciate that 100% I'm just I'm saying my remarks more towards the upcoming dis discussion of Select board so that that applicant isn't tossed on the basis of town vote because while I hear what you're saying of transfer funds Etc I view that as impediment that there's been no signs of overcoming that impediment absent at Town vote of uh of funds being transferred and invested in the orchard for hundreds of thousand of dollars if not more none of these were unicorns and rainbows right they all had warts right we're just picking what warts we think we could potentially live with negotiating for I offer it up in the spirit of trying to clarify and offer assistance not to be no I mean that it's fair it's a fair CR it's a fair criticism and I think we will have to deal with that when we get to the select board on Monday night thank you very much as a point of order I forgot to add something to discuss can I add it as a discussion item right now yeah so so the work that was supposed to be done to tighten the buildings up has never been done the only to my knowledge the only thing that I've seen as a passer by is that they no trespassing there are still okay windows and such and I'll follow the top building was never shored up with cross pieces so I'll follow up with Ryan hoping we didn't pay them okay we owe them a lot of money so I mean I offer to put the no trespassing signs up okay they're on the we owee them a lot of money so I'm pretty sure we can withhold a check okay any other business not I'll take a motion oh actually yeah hi Kristen kazus Littleton um I guess I just wanted to follow up um because you had said that you would be able to give us information about who the what the proposals were can you give us at least the names or a little bit of description or will that be available like tonight or will that be available before the select board meeting it it it it should be I think they were posted today they were supposed I just looked at your agenda on the website and they're not I don't know where they were going to they're supposed to be posted under the orchard working group site I have not checked online today when we open the the meeting that question I know that I think Rob was looking but um Mark was told that it would be posted today okay and are they notified on there as to which one is one two three and four it should be yeah okay sorry I didn't yeah well and it posted we talked yesterday about posting redacted version so they don't have phone numbers and contact and all that I but and I thought they were supposed to be posted this today but I have not been online today I I do not see them on our page on the on the Orchard working groups page um I will also follow up with Ryan and see where those are okay and they but they should be posted today they should have been posted today they I'm sure they will be posted tomorrow okay and they should be the the numbers that we're using are the numbers that they had when they were submitted to through the RFP process okay so that information should be included um with the actual documents that are going to be posted to the site is it possible to have them be a part of the um your meetings packet as well um so we don't usually we only post minutes we don't have a packet selectboard packet yeah um yeah I probably possibly I don't know if the packet has been prepared I don't uh I can I can ask that as well yeah that might be a lot easier for don't on Thursday I they they're either Thursday night or early Friday so if so I don't know if okay I but yeah I I bet you we can I it probably won't be an issue to put the redacted ones in the packet okay that would be really appreciated that would be really helpful I mean it makes sense anyway since we're discussing them I it's appropriate to have them in the packet okay I'll follow up with Ryan on that as well it's Monday you know where that is on the agenda time Wars um right after public input I think time to do too many things will needs to go to P's um okay got it I'll take a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn at 8:32 p.m. second all those in favor say I I thank you all good night stay warm enjoy