provide meeting notes and summary for the following audio transcription and  identify any SGV deliverables if there are any:  jumps on that sounds good yeah i think yeah a couple people are still popping on i know that some folks won't be able to make it today but we'll uh we'll just kind of yeah it looks like a few people are still joining so we can do that have there been any uh excuse me any updates to the, like, any more information released that you've been made aware of, Karen? Not to us. There was like a rumor that turned out not to be true that the ABO had scheduled some additional calls, but it turned out that wasn't the case. And I just checked, I think yesterday, and there weren't any new posts, no, no new calls scheduled, like nothing like that. And I think maybe folks at SGV have maybe been having some side conversations with, with like, at least Thomas at the ABO. But what I could tell there was nothing definitive. It was just kind of like, I think the quote was, well, it's Thomas. So we just have to figure out what we're going to do there. Yeah. We're just going to have to do our best. Yeah. So yeah, I don't know. Everything is kind of so ambiguous at this point. It's hard to come up with a definitive plan to present to the tribes themselves and our leadership here at TCC. And it looks like a couple more people have hopped on now. So one of the things that we talked about at my previous meeting with SGV is kind of kind of coming up with a, with a cohesive plan, getting some, at least tentative lines on a map and putting together kind of a little project pamphlet that we can show to people. And on that, you know, we'd have landowners identified possible like pops, stuff like that, but it'll, it'll definitely be a very, very early stage draft document, but just it's a lot better to try to sell people or not sell, but, you know, try to, try to present something to people. If you have something to point out and to say that, yeah, this is what I'm talking about, then just this big, ambiguous thing. So I think at least as far as we're concerned, that's going to be our next biggest step. But I know what the things like the letter of credit and all this other stuff, like how am I going to ask for a letter of credit for 10% of something we don't really know yet? And like my conversations in that have been like, well, yeah, we can, but I need some more information about it first. So that's one of the things that I've come across. Yeah. Okay. It's like a circular reference isn't it exactly yeah okay that's good to know um okay um anything any other sort of big stuff out of that meeting that we should be aware of um i guess that was the major thing. So expect, you know, SGV is committed to getting us a project overview within the next 10 days or sooner. So be on the lookout for that. And then, you know, just kind of still trying to figure out, you know, are we going to need to budget for new buildings? Are we going to have places to put, you know, equipment that are already existing? I mean, some more technical details like that too, and who we need to approach as far as other providers in the area and existing coverage. I guess Holy Cross is already covered under a network built up by BushTel. But in part of our conversations, it doesn't necessarily say you can't apply for a community that already has coverage in the NOFO. So as long as you write it, you know, in a way that makes sense, we're thinking that it won't really make that big of a difference. But what else? We are going to be looking at Anvik, Grayling, and Shagalook for those three communities during the feasibility studies. If we can't come up with the way that we can make it work to service all of them, we're going to go with the one with the highest population. I think that's the fairest way and makes the most sense to everybody and just kind of go from there. Also, like cost per mile of fiber and things of that nature will factor into it. We're still anticipating a $200,000 per mile limit, but we're not really sure. I guess we're still trying to figure out if that's actually feasible within the environment that we're in. Everything's said and done. Those are kind of the highlights. If there's any questions, I'm happy to go more into depth. That's all really helpful. Thank you. It does sound like you're sort of getting things a little more nailed down and in terms of the, like the technical pieces of the project and everything. So that's great. Well, with that, I think I was thinking about this cause I'm like, I know we've got a lot of people on these calls and who's on the calls kind of shifts over time. And so, it can be a little bit challenging to sort of have continuity of the conversation. And so what I was thinking might be helpful and tell me what you think of this. We have the narrative template that we've been plopping in content into and information and sort of highlighting where we know stuff's going to come from someone else and places where we might have questions for ACS or TCC or both. So I was thinking what I could do is maybe screen share that today, and we could sort of scroll through it and you can see where things are at. Because I think, you know, there might still be a little bit of anxiety on some people's parts about like, are we going to get this done on time? Or maybe that's just me. But, but I thought it might be helpful. So you guys can also see what we've been doing on our end. And, and, and, and keeping the timeline in mind, right? So we know that right now, the estimated deadline is like a month out, which would be a month out from the original deadline, which would be May 14th ish, it might shift a little bit. If it does shift, I don't think it's going to shift much. But they are still saying that if we get them a preliminary draft that they will give us feedback. We don't have a hard deadline for that anymore, but we think it's going to be around April 26th. That's my educated guess based on when it was going to be. So with you guys saying like SGV will have like project information by the 19th, that gives us enough time to sort of, you know, plunk everything in, make sure it's all working, get a draft out to people to review before we send it over for the preliminary review. So I think that totally works, you know, with that April 26th timeline. So yeah, if it's okay with you, I'm going to go ahead and share the narrative. All I have to do is find it in here. I have it open. No, it's not that. No, it's not that. Here it is. Okay. Everybody see that okay? Yeah, we can see. Yes. Cool. Okay. So I know everybody always asks that and it's like, we know this works, right? But I don't know. I have it. I'm like, can you see it? Of course you can see it. Okay. So I know everybody always asks that and it's like, we know this works, right? But I don't know. I have it. I'm like, can you see it? Of course you can see it. Okay. So what we've done, so the beginning part of this template is just the kind of the portal stuff. So you can sort of, you know, ignore that when we send it to you guys, when it's kind of ready for review. So we've laid it out by criterion. And what we've done is for each criterion, we have like the narrative pieces, the various other kinds of questions. And at the bottom of each criterion section, we'll have what are the attachments that go with that section. And section one is really easy. It's just like your organizational basics. And that's pretty much done. And things like your SAM.gov and your business license and your EIN. And I think we had all that stuff in our files. So that's pretty much done. And criterion two is organizational and managerial capability. And I think we were doing pretty good on that because we have a lot of background information for TCC already. And I think the big thing was, and I think now we might have this information from some previously existing documentation, which was around verifying that ACS will manage the build, do the O&M on infrastructure, but TCC will own the infrastructure. Is that accurate? Yeah, that's accurate. Oh, good. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. So that's the big thing in there. And then you can see we've sort of put a bunch of stuff in about, yay, TCC. They do all this stuff. They're so great. They've done a million projects. We just go on and on about how awesome you guys are. And then we get to sort of the, like, you know, the logistical stuff that org chart, the resumes, we've talked about the resumes, like every call we've ever had. So you guys already know that that's stuff that's out there. We have, let's see, and then stuff about your policies that seem relevant. I thought the most relevant things around policies were probably around financial management, things around, you know, compliance, workforce, procurement, that kind of thing. Partners, obviously, you know, we're talking about ACS. We copied some stuff from a previous application. We'll want to probably beef that up a bit, but we're not going to spend time in the weeds of narrative today. Like we can do this stuff more by email and sending you stuff and linking you to things in the shared drive to look at for additional information. What I'm probably going to focus on more today is places where I think we need some group discussion with everybody on. And again, this is like, yeah, this is the attachments part. So that was the narrative above. Here's the yeah, this is the attachments part. So that was the narrative above. Here's the, you know, the attachments piece. And yeah, we don't need to talk about that kind of stuff right now. Because we already have the information. Okay, financial capability. I think one question has to do with, so we don't know right now what the budget really is. We don't know how much we're asking for. We will before we submit this because we have to. But I guess a couple of questions. I mean, we've come up with around like an $80 million estimate for what we're kind of considering. And that's based off of some discussions we've had with ACS. And that's also what I've told our CFO in trying to approach the letter of credit topic but and then again like the other part of it is the only um the only documentation i have at this point still has the three options on it you know and that phone call we verbally heard thomas tell everybody that now it's just the 10 bond option so like that's another another problem i've been having here oh okay well i eat, I can set your mind at ease on that one because the second day, you know, they had the two days and two calls and over two days, second day, he got so much blowback on that, that he basically backpedaled a bunch and was like, oh, okay. We're going to try to keep all three options that we had originally. So I think you're still good to know what you were going for. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I'd sent an email out and got some conflicting information. So thanks for clarifying that. You bet. So let's say we have an estimate of $80 million for the project, and let's say we get not that much in the grant award. So there's sort of two pieces to this. One is we kind of need to address availability of funds for any project costs that exceed the amount of the award, right? And presumably the letter of credit is a part of that. But are there other sort of elements of that that we should be aware of either, you know, on TCC's part or on ACS's part? You know, are there other funds to bring to bear? You know, should we not have enough from the grant itself. Courtney, do you have any way in there? I knew you were going to ask me. I think I already know the answer. No, I don't have anything. Okay. You're basically looking for match funds, like just in case. Yeah. yeah yeah because here's the other piece of it so the other piece of it is that if you're in a high cost area there's no match required however even if you're in a high cost area you can get bonus points if you bring some match and it's something like, I think it's like for every 1% match or something, you can get like an extra point or something like that. Um, unless we can get some from the communities, but yeah, that'd be, I mean, this kind of ties into why, what we were, I guess, talking about when we were looking at servicing Minto and Manly, because I think some of the BSLs in that location fall into that category. Okay. Well, and I guess a related question to that is, do you foresee any competition for these funds for any part of your route? Because if you don't, then trying to get those extra points maybe doesn't really even matter. But if you foresee somebody coming in and saying, well, you know, we want to serve, you know, Anvik or something like that, then it might matter. And do you guys have a sense of that at all? I mean, I think ACS is probably in a much better position to answer that as far as the general environment, but from what I can tell, not specifically, but if somebody else knows anything different please speak up and I'm trying to I'm looking through my list here to see who oh okay yeah anybody from ACS have any sense of that Or is there somebody who's not on the call that might have like their tendrils out at all that might have some awareness of who else out there might be playing somewhere along this route? Yeah, that wouldn't be me, but you're right. Maybe someone at ACS. Okay. Steve probably would be the best person to talk to, Steve Goebert. Okay. Steve probably would be the best person to talk to Steve Gobert. Okay. Okay. We can follow up with him. Okay. So that was the big question I had in the financial capability. So then if we, and then again, these attachments that are more offline things. Criterion four is proposed to go away. So we're not going to worry about that today. Criterion five is all that technical capability. And that's, we understand that SGV has been developing a template or has developed a template and then is updating it for the proposed revisions. And that that's kind of an SGV, ACS, TCC group effort. And that you guys will just pass that section along to us when it's done and we'll just paste it in. Does that sound right? That sounds about right. Please say yes. Okay, good. That's great. I mean, you're going to have to edit the whole thing, Karen, right? You know, I can edit for non-technical stuff. And I could draw a full network diagram, but you wouldn't like it. It would be very weird. Fair enough. I got to appreciate that. And then all the stuff. SGV is very aware of all of these things that need to have a PE stamp and all that kind of good stuff. Okay. There's all kinds of crappy crap in here. The next one, project sustainability. This is really interesting because, you know, they're saying they want to eliminate this section. However, they still want pro formas. And to me, pro formas are all about sustainability. Why else would you do a pro forma? So the pro formas are not in this section. And actually, by the way, that is a question I do have, which is, who's kind of in charge of that? Is that ACS that would be doing the pro forma piece of that? Because they're going to be the ISP and doing the O&M? I'm trying to remember what we did on our last grant application with them. And I think we did exactly what you just, the scenario you just described. Okay. I'm going to put that in as my assumption. Okay. This one, this is pretty straightforward, the whole compliance thing. That's a lot of stuff that, you know, we should have in our files. And we, you can see we've already pasted in some content there. Again, civil rights. Now we're getting into the stuff that's sort of like, you know, we have things like PNPs from TCC and like the standard forms and all of that kind of stuff. So I'm not too worried about that. This one, let's talk about this one. Cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plan. So they want some sort of a plan. And I'm making another big leap of an assumption here. And that is that ACS as an ISP, as an existing ISP, would already have something like this that meets all the requirements that we could just either plop in or adapt somehow. Does anyone on the call happen to know that? Or is that something we should follow up with ACS, someone else at ACS about? Yes. So we do have something for this that I can provide. Oh, great. Yeah. And we're familiar with that too. We've had to sign similar documents for our other grants too. Oh, so you have a plan as well? Well, I think in this case, we'll go with the documents that ACS has, but there's just been similar requirements for some of our other awards. Okay, gotcha. All right. You know, we might want to include both since TCC is the official applicant and we could also still include ACSs and just say, you know, this is what we've got. You know, our experience partner as an ISP also has this and it just sort of beefs it up more, you know. For sure. Okay. It basically is just saying we're not going to buy equipment from huawei there's more to it than that but in a nutshell that's what it is yeah well i mean anymore like who wants to buy anything from anywhere because it's going to be right 20 million times as expensive um yeah i think i heard something today that iphones are expected to go up to like two grand so buy them now folks okay so the next section the weather climate that is also proposed to go away um which is weird in a way because it's like well you know this is rural alaska so we actually do have to consider that in our planning. But I guess they don't care anymore at the Fed level, so it makes it easier for all of us in terms of the grant application. But I'm sure you're still going to have to take all that stuff into account. So probably not necessarily that much less work for you guys. And the NEPA. So this is really about, you know, this isn't the full on NEPA report, but it's basically saying, how are we going to meet the NEPA requirements? How are we going to provide one of these three things, right? Are we going to, I'm assuming it won't be a categorical exclusion because of the nature of the work. It's a state assumption, yeah. Yeah. So how are we going to determine, you know, do we need the EA or do we need a full-on EIS? I'm sort of also assuming it's going to be the full-on EIS, but what do I know? I'm not a NEAP expert. Yeah. I mean, in a nutshell, we'll have an environmental consultant that we'll hire to do this analysis for us. Okay. Well, between ACS and TCC, we'll, you know, consult, we'll go through RFP process and do that whole, that whole thing. But it's something that we're definitely familiar with. Okay. Great. That's perfect. And I did find some language from a previous grant that kind of talks about Tananada Holy Cross, like the route itself and kind of the land and the landscape and all. And I was like, wow, this is a, this is a find. So we can, we can take a stab at that narrative then, given that. Yeah, keep in mind that that language that you're referencing was written for a project that was primarily in in-river fiber. So I don't know if there's, I haven't read that in a while, but if there is like language specifically applicable to that, keep in mind that this project may not be as reliant on in-river installation. Okay. That's good to know because, yes, there was quite a bit of language that really was very focused on kind of riverine elements. I don't know if that's pronounced riverine or riverine, but anyway. Okay. That's good to know. All right. Then we'll take a stab and then of course you guys can, you know, pick it apart. We've sort of touched on this a little bit at the beginning of the meeting. It sounds like we're not going to get anything from Galena. And, you know, in that case, you know, what we just need to do is make sure that we document everything. And I think I sent you guys that spreadsheet that sort of lists out who all we thought we would need stuff from and like what we needed from each entity. And so just kind of using that to sort of track things like, you know, the emails and the phone calls. And I think it was Courtney and Allison. Allison, thank you. I think I get caught up on the pronunciation, even though that's a very straightforward pronunciation, because I'm not used to the spelling. So I keep thinking it's like pronounced differently. But yeah, what's happening on that front, Courtney? So Allison's been working on it, and I did ask her about the sheet. She has been tracking them and stuff. She's been out the last few days, so I haven't been able to touch base with her, but she is working on those. Yeah, she actually sent a bunch of follow-ups out this morning. Oh, great. Oh, maybe she's working from home then. Okay. She actually sent a bunch of follow-ups out this morning. Oh, great. Oh, maybe she's working from home then. Yeah. No, she's definitely been, I think this is like the third or fourth round of follow-ups that she sent out to people. We've got, I know Nolato said that they're going to give us a resolution as soon as they have their next council meeting. Doyon wrote back to us asking for some more specific information about the route we were looking at. So that's one of those things. Once SGV puts together some of that material, I think we'll have a little bit more success if I have something to send out and say, hey, we need a resolution for this project instead of just this ambiguous thing that we're talking about. Okay. Perfect. I don't know what happened. It kind of, my document jumped around. Okay. Cool. That all sounds like it's swimming along quite lovely. The low cost option, we've kind of crossed that out. And, you know, again, these are proposed changes. So we didn't want to just delete it just in case something crazy happens and they bring this back. I don't think they will. But this has been changed. So instead of doing this, and I know some of you guys have heard this from ABO directly, which is there's a scoring section now, and it's down here somewhere. I think I inserted the table. It's like this is kind of the new way they're looking at it, which is you take your costs, and if you're doing fiber, and if there aren't any other fiber projects, and you're below this EHCPLT, the very long acronym that doesn't actually get pronounced as anything. Then you don't have to worry about the scoring at all. You automatically are selected. But I know you guys have talked a little bit about the challenges of those, that cost piece. Does anyone have a sense of whether you're going to fall into like this below or above the line? I don't really know. I know that I think the idea is to stay below the line there, but like I said, I need to get some more clarification there. Okay. And then this is also another reason, you know, that I'll reach out to Steve G is to get a sense if we think there might be any other applicants out there. And if so, you know, for, you know, above this, then we're looking at having to really think about, you know, how we kind of get our best foot forward. Okay. So then popping back up to that section. Sorry if this is making everybody dizzy. Okay. So the next one is middle-class affordability, which has been proposed to be entirely eliminated. And we just won't talk about that. And then the last part is just the certification stuff. That's nothing. Then we go into the scoring and of course the table we just talked about. And then this other piece, which is like the outlay per location, which is this actually. Sorry. which is this actually, sorry. And then the number of locations, of course, when we get the project plan, we'll have that. This is where we would put in any matching funds if we decide. So this is, again, a 1% bonus attributed to each 1% match, but we'll see if we even need that or not, if we think we're going to need it or not. And then this is sort of the replacing the low cost option is a ranked system. So if you're doing a low cost option, sorry, this shouldn't even be here. If you're doing this versus this, I guess I don't know that. I kind of am, I'm not, this is where I stumble because I'm not a broadband expert. So I'll just ask, like, where is this project going to fall between these two things? Or do we know? Sorry, I'm just reading over that real quick. Yeah. It's like, whichever one you're in, it's going to be whoever has the lowest price. And again, this really, you know, if nobody else is competing for these service sites, then this, again, probably doesn't matter because you're going to get all the points. It's only if you're competing against somebody else, then they're going to kind of do it on a curve, right? Almost like grading a test. It's like whoever's the lowest cost is going to get like the full points. And then they progressively get lower and lower points until the highest cost gets like zero. Now, I'm just reading over this because I know it came up in our last meeting, but I don't think anything was definitively said about it. Okay. So we'll just hold off on this. And again, you know, we'll see if anybody else is likely to be applying for this. Okay. And then I think the last bit is all of the fair labor stuff. We do have some information that we can use to fill this in. It's one of those things that I don't think we necessarily need to dig into the weeds today. But what I will say is they do talk about a workplace safety committee. And so we have some language and we're basically saying you're going to establish something like that. And we'll just at some point be asking for more specifics. I think given, and that's kind of the last of it. So I think given where we're at on this, I think we can probably get to a point where we could send this to the team for a very, very preliminary review to fill in some of the gaps that we just don't have on our team. And, and I'm not even talking about sort of the more technical pieces. I'm just talking about some of the things where we have to get in the weeds about, you know, what are we going to be doing? Oh, Heather, I did not see you join. Nice to see you. You know, where we need some information about, you know, how your organization is going to do some stuff, you know, sort of on the non-technical side, like the Workplace Safety Committee. That's like a great example. Or if you want to beef up some sections that we've drafted and you're like, oh, they didn't talk about this or, oh, we need to update this. Or, you know, if there are places where it would be really helpful to have not only information about sort of TCC's world, but ACS's, you know, capabilities and capacity and expertise and all those kinds of things. I think we could probably do that pretty, in pretty short order, and just leave the parts out that we know we're not going to get until kind of really, you know, for another like week and a half. I don't think we're there like today, but I think we could probably be there like before the next time we meet. And so I guess my last question for everybody is if we were to get something out, say, like Monday or Tuesday of next week, do people feel like they can carve out some time to just give it a read through and just, you know, highlight anything where either you have questions or suggestions or additional content or anything like that? We can put it into track changes so that you could make edits yourself if you feel like you have the information to do that. Is that a reasonable ask at this point? Yeah, I think that sounds great. Yeah, and if like as part of the preparation, just kind of, you know, if you have a strong opinion on if it would be better for TCC or ACS or whichever party to kind of fill in some of the details and annotate that, I think that would be helpful too. Okay. That sounds good. Okay. So we'll, um, versus TCC. Okay. That sounds good. Okay. So I know that was kind of a whirlwind going through it because it's a really long narrative document and there are lots of attachments. And I know we'll be doing things kind of more offline as well. You know, like we have been doing, you know, sending requests for certain documents and that kind of stuff. But does anyone at this point have any other questions or anything you felt like we should talk about as a group? Oh, I do have one about your guys' appendix that you guys wanted signed, K and F. And usually that goes in our system when we have the grant ready to go to get all the final signatures from president and stuff like that. So those, if I send them up there, they're going to be like, well, what are these for? So it'll go in with the grant application. And then usually I like to get it in our system about two weeks before the grants do. That gives them enough time to review because it has about five people to go through the review process here. Okay. So I'm thinking if we do that, well, the 26th of April is a Saturday. But if we get that draft, that would be a good one that I could actually put into our system and get it moving for signatures for approval. And then once we have the final one, we can submit that in the portal and then I'll just update the one that's in our system. So. Okay. So that means given the timing of what we think the pre-review is going to be, that we would be submitting the pre-review knowing that we might get feedback from ABO that leads us to need to make changes, but they're okay with that. They just want kind of the meat of the project, like the meat of the narrative and presumably the budget and then any signature forms. Yep, it does give them a chance to review it and any changes that they want done to it as well during that approval process. And then usually what I do is I take their information, I make sure it gets done before the grant's actually submitted, and then I can upload the we think that's going to be needed uh brian's signature on at the president at tcc a million yeah um there's quite a few things actually um no i actually let me pull up my little list and see if i can off the top of my head remember um without spending too much time i think okay i think i'm gonna be mostly in the forms and attachments um probably so we've like six to eight ish oh that's not bad that's about average yeah sorry heather go i'm just saying i was just gonna say like i know courtney i sent you an email with a couple of specific ones we're just trying to flag them ones that don't need a lot of coordination to fill out right now. So we can have everything staged up. Yeah, those two will get signed when it goes into the portal because that'll have to get signed by the president. So, okay. Okay. Gotcha. All right. And then, Courtney, have you been in the portal much? Just that one day. Yeah, it's not, it is not user-friendly. It's, it's, I would say it's almost counterintuitive. Like there, for instance, just for the benefit of everybody here. So you understand that like dropping things in the portal isn't like just, you know, easy as pie necessarily. You think you're clicking on the thing that says it takes you to the application, but then you have to click on another thing that says it takes you to the application. And then there's a third thing to click on to take you to the actual application. So it's that kind of like, blah, where is everything? We actually had somebody who was trying to get in there and go on and thought the whole application was missing from the portal because it's so kind of buried. So all that to say, Courtney, that when that time comes, if you want to just hop on and do a quick screen share and I can- Oh, 100% Karen, 100%. Because it's like, I had to learn the hard way by trial and error. And it's like, okay, I think I've got it down now where everything is. Well, I hope when we submit this document that we schedule a meeting. Because I do it with Gavin all the time. If there's a big application that has so many attachments on it, we're like double checking to make sure everything's in there. And we schedule a time. And we meet together and we share the screen and make sure everything gets in there correctly. And all of the forms are labeled right and everything. Okay, cool. That sounds great. You can do that. Awesome. Okay, cool. Well, anything else? Okay. Thanks everybody. And I think we'll be back to our regular Tuesday time next week. Yes. Yeah. Thanks for going through the application, Karen. That was really helpful today, I think. Oh, good. Okay. I didn't want anyone to feel like nothing's happening. Like I know you guys are still talking about the details of the project, but like, meanwhile, we're sort of back here, like the little, you know, the little elves going, oh, here's some content we can fill in. So this will be great. And as soon as we get that document out, so we can start filling in some of that stuff too. I think it'll, it'll be good for everybody to get some momentum going here. Perfect. All right. Thanks everybody. Thanks. Thank you. All right. And then Heather, do you want to stay on for a minute so I can debrief you? Okay. I was just going to ask. Yeah. Yeah. You bet. Thanks guys. Thank you very much.