[Roberta Cameron]: All right, I'm gonna call to order the meeting of Medford's Community Preservation Committee. It is Tuesday, January 10th and 6.35 p.m. And in accordance with the state law and the city of Medford, we are holding this meeting remotely. And anybody who would like to see the proceedings from the meeting who's not able to be here can access by a recording that can be posted as soon as possible or made available after the fact. Anything else that I ought to say to begin the meeting? I think that covers it. Oh yeah, that's right. The reason why I'm doing all of this from memory is because I'm not looking at the agenda, but I know there's not much on the agenda tonight. So we're going to accept the approved the meeting minutes from the last meeting. Is that correct, Danielle? I believe that November 15th.
[Danielle Evans]: We might've been out of order.
[Unidentified]: But, or those might be the most recent ones that we have.
[Roberta Cameron]: So is there, here's the meeting packet. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes?
[Matt Leming]: Motion to approve the meeting minutes. I second that.
[Roberta Cameron]: I'm seconding. Then I will call the roll. Oh shoot, I've got to change the way that I'm viewing so that I can see all of you. There we go, okay. Losa? Yes. Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Steve?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And I believe that Danielle and Heidi and Christy are absent this evening. So let me find, open the agenda. So the next thing on the agenda is to continue the application deliberations, but actually I wanted to take a moment before we get started on that just to cover other business. The one notable piece of other business that I wanted to mention, as a few of you may have noticed, the city has posted a full-time CPA manager position. So unfortunately, Danielle is not going to continue serving in this role any further, any longer. The reason is because Danielle has been the CPA manager coordinator up until now as a part-time position. And for the last couple of years has also been serving as Medford's housing planner. which really ought to be two full-time positions. And on top of that now, Danielle has been made senior planner in the planning department. So she's up to what, three positions now. And- But she only wanted a part-time gig.
[Joan Cyr]: Go ahead.
[Roberta Cameron]: And unofficially maybe even filling in a fourth. So we need someone else to step into her shoes. So please, if you know of anyone who you think would be wonderful at this job, pass on the job announcement. It's on the city website and invite them to apply. And hopefully we'll have a new, be able to fill this role for a new CPA coordinator as soon as possible. And anything else?
[Danielle Evans]: Just just to let people know that I'm still here. You know, I'm not running away from the city. So anyone who comes into the role, I can help bring up to speed, you know, mentor in any way they need it. So it's not like so there's definitely be a, you know, baton handoff. But I have enjoyed working with you guys for the last five years and I'm sure it'll be several more months before I get cut loose. And I want to thank Amanda, you know, a million times over for how much she has helped pick up my slack as I've tried to do two jobs this whole time. She's really helped a lot. Yeah, so.
[Joan Cyr]: So maybe we'll see you presenting in front of us at some point in the future.
[Danielle Evans]: Perhaps, perhaps. And you better approve it and not give me any issues.
[Roberta Cameron]: You'll know all our secrets.
[Matt Leming]: Did you get the gift basket, by the way?
[Danielle Evans]: I did. Thank you so much. That was lovely. Yes.
[Matt Leming]: That was Roberta.
[Danielle Evans]: I very much enjoyed it. I loved it. It was just awesome. I used to live around the corner from there. When it got delivered, my husband was like, you have a really nice gift basket. That's all kind of crap in there. I dropped it off at Danielle's house on what the
[Roberta Cameron]: the Friday before Christmas in the early afternoon. And Rick answered the door and said that, well, he expects Danielle to get home anytime now. She's the only person working in City Hall right now. Much deserved. Yes. And I hope that I think, you know, we, we'd love, I mean one of my goals for this for this coming year in, you know, it's something that we can talk more about what our goals are, when we have finished with this application process. But one of the things that I would really love to do is throw a big party for our five years and we can celebrate. Danielle and all of the work that we've accomplished. I did the metrics and see that over the past five years, not counting the funding round that we're currently on, we've spent about $10 million in revenue on 80 projects over five years. That's just an incredible amount of work. So congratulations to all of us because this has made such a difference in the community. And we need to celebrate that. And hopefully we'll have a new person in place who can plan that celebration.
[Joan Cyr]: I was gonna say, otherwise it's me and Doug again.
[Roberta Cameron]: That'll be the number one thing in the interview is how well can you throw a party?
[Joan Cyr]: Well, you know we can throw a party, right Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Especially if we have a budget.
[Roberta Cameron]: That's right. That's right. So, with that, any other business that we want to cover before we get into the real business for this evening. All right, so we are continuing the application deliberations for this funding round. And we left off, we, I think, got to a very great starting point at our last meeting. I'm going to share my screen, if I may. So on the screen, you should be able to see the draft funding scenario that we developed at our previous meeting. And what we determined was that we looked first at the prioritization for all of the projects and ranked the priorities one, two, and three, one being the highest, two a medium priority, and three lower priority projects for this round. And then we evaluated given the amount of funding that's available that all of the projects that are coded in dark orange on this list We can fund the full amount and we can find the amount that's listed in the funding scenario that's the full amount for all of the projects, except for the McGlynn playground, which we said that we would anticipate. It looks as though I need to make the screen bigger. I'm looking at that. I recognize that face you're making. I broke my glasses this weekend and I'm wearing old glasses, which don't have transitions. So I'm doing that all the time, everywhere I go. But I'm not used to using a Mac. So now I need to stop and figure out how you, Aha. Okay. Oh no, it's not the Mac. It's because this is Sheets and not real Excel. That's too big.
[Matt Leming]: You can press command plus minus to kind of zoom in. There we go.
[Roberta Cameron]: This should be better. Can we see it now? Okay. Um, all right. So the dark orange we can fund in full and the yellow as well we can fund in full, but we wanted to continue the conversation about the car pickleball courts before we commit to that. And the light orange ones, we're not ready to make a decision about. So we are going to postpone the decision, the vote on these. light orange projects for February. So for this evening, we're gonna focus on all of the projects that are in dark orange. And I was just saying and interrupted myself, the McGlynn Playground, we agreed that we could fund $500 out of this funding round and invite them to come in for an off-cycle application in the summer as soon as the fiscal year turns so that we can fund the remaining 400 out of the next fiscal year. So that we can fund the entire McLean playground project this year.
[Matt Leming]: Sure, they'll appreciate the $500. Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: Well, we calculated we had a meeting a couple weeks ago to talk about how the funding for this project could work. And we calculated that they can They can get the project started with the $500,000 and with funding from other sources. And then they're going to need the balance in order to finish the installation.
[Matt Leming]: I was just making a joke because you said 500 instead of 500,000. Oh, I see. I if I could figure out how to control the volume.
[Roberta Cameron]: I would be delighted to actually be able to hear you all better. I'm not sure how to control the volume.
[Unidentified]: So I'm just- F11 and F12.
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: F11 and F, no, I'm not using- Is there a speaker in your lower right-hand corner? It's like a little tiny symbol that looks like a speaker. Click on that. Oh, it's a desktop. You'll see a sliding bar back and forth. I just want to slide it up.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, no, I don't see either. Amanda, do you know what laptop she's working on? I'm wondering if it's like mine.
[Roberta Cameron]: Oh, I found, yep, OK. I found the control. OK. Now I can hear you better. All right. Now I will hear all of your jokes. So I laid out the decision that we're trying to make for this evening. And so the process that we're going to go through is go project by project. Danielle, you were able to prepare the, The, what do you call the, yeah, the decision.
[Danielle Evans]: Some of them, some of them, not all of them. I had a crisis I had to handle. Okay. That involves poop. Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: Totally understandable, short notice. So what we can do is go through the ones that are available and then we can just develop the, agree on what the conditions will be and you can write the others later.
[Danielle Evans]: And I can also be doing these on the fly because the way we've set it up is pretty boilerplate. So if you, if we just come up with the conditions And then any justification language that you want, I can drop it into our template.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. So then let's take them in the order that they appear on the spreadsheet. The first one is Shiloh Baptist Church for $150,000. So I think what we'll do is we'll first take a vote on whether to recommend the funding in the amount that we agreed on last month. And then we will decide on the conditions that we'll put on the grant on the recommendation letter that Danielle is preparing.
[Joan Cyr]: Can you put your spreadsheet back up?
[Unidentified]: Yes, yes I can. Sorry, I'm struggling with the laptop. Oh, I almost had it for a second. There we go. Share screen. So you can see the spreadsheet?
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. So for Shiloh Baptist Church, the first vote that we're looking for is whether to recommend the funding for $150,000 for Shiloh Baptist Church. Is there a motion? Or if you would like more discussion, please So let us know if you want to answer any more questions about this or have further discussion about any of these projects.
[Matt Leming]: Just a quick point. Will, allocating all of the money in dark orange there, I'm not doing math in my head, but that still means that we would have enough left for the car pickleball and walk lane court.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, so I'm sorry, I didn't explain the other part of this scenario. So in light orange right now, the only one that has anything entered is Walkland Court. So we are continuing to try to get some more information to determine whether we can reduce this number for Walkland Court and still be able to support the project. And the, what we had decided the previous time, if I can stretch this out a little bit more. Yeah. Walklane Court was a high priority project. We really want to support it, but we're hoping that we can bring this number down from $740,000. So if we can't bring that number down, hopefully by February's meeting, we'll have an answer. If we can't bring that number down, we can just fund Walkley Court, and that uses up pretty much the balance of our available funds. actually, let me do a quick math here. Equals this.
[Matt Leming]: Wait, so funding everything in dark orange here would not leave enough money left over for both the pickleball courts and walkway court.
[Roberta Cameron]: Pickleball courts are in the orange. The pickleball courts are yellow because we had flagged that we wanted to continue the discussion about this, but it's still, Among the projects that we can approve tonight. So the ones that are empty right now are the ones that we would approve no funding for this round. If walk in court gets the full 740. Okay. And if walk in court gets less than 740 we might be able to put one of the other. projects. I'm just shading this cell so we remember this is the difference. This is the balance that's left over between the available funds and the amount that we've said we're going to fund, which is not enough to fund any of these three projects. And it's pretty close to the wire as it is. So if we can bring down the $740,000, then we can put one or more of these projects back in the stream for this funding round. And if not, we'll invite them to come back next year. These are all projects that I think the committee supported. We just don't have enough funds without being able to reduce Walkland Court.
[Matt Leming]: And also there was a discussion last month about, so this available funds number is the, or the totals on an available funds here is like the final number, because I know that there was some discussion last month on getting some money back from previous projects that weren't necessarily completed, or I could be paraphrasing that terribly, but is this just where we left off last month?
[Roberta Cameron]: This is, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Danielle, I don't know if you have any updates on available funds. If there are only very minor changes, I wouldn't change this number because it's kind of helpful to have a little bit of flexibility and assurance that the money is actually there. But if there are major changes, Danielle, you can let us know.
[Danielle Evans]: I did find some additional funds when I was going through some of the journal entries that didn't post, there was supposed to be, I want to say it was around 9,000, so not a huge number, but 9,000 additional unappropriated funds that would be available.
[Unidentified]: I can check and see where, which is like, let's see here. There's 8,000, 8,000 even.
[Danielle Evans]: There was a math error with one of the accounts that was created that was too high and then it was supposed to go back and it didn't. That covers like the backboard, the dugger, if that's a project.
[Roberta Cameron]: I believe it is already in our orange, our dark orange, like the projects that we've already counted on being able to fund. So the ones that are in question are the Tufts Basketball Park, Salem Street Burial Ground, and Brooks Estate Manor East Elevation.
[Doug Carr]: Roberta, quick question. It says total is $3 million roughly, and below it is 2.27. I'm not seeing where those numbers are coming from because the basketball burial ground at Brooks looked like they had up to about 400,000. And I can't see, what am I missing here for where the delta is?
[Unidentified]: This plus this plus this 417,000. Yep, that's right. Equals. But there's. So let me just check the formula here through 16 equals C2. Oops. C2 through C16.
[Matt Leming]: I think it has something to do with the difference between the McGlynn playground request and funding scenario. Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. That's it.
[Doug Carr]: That's it right there. Thank you. I thought that was something I missed there. That's the delta right there.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Matt. All right. It looks good.
[Joan Cyr]: So is it still on the table for the Shiloh Baptist Church application?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yep, we can just take these in order. So we'll take a motion to recommend the funding and then we can vote on the funding and then we can discuss what the conditions should be. unless you want to discuss the conditions first and vote on, and then that might make a difference in some cases.
[Joan Cyr]: I didn't write a note from last month, but the question that I had about their request was that they were seeking funds for both exterior and interior work. And was it all allowable?
[Roberta Cameron]: So there is a revised application. I don't, I don't, I know that it was prepared. I don't know if it was, um, ever released to the, like if the revised application ever replaced the original application, because they didn't get, um, The, they were applying for a grant from another source to do the windows so that ours was just supplementing the windows and then doing designs throughout the whole building. That. They didn't get the other grant. So this grant is just going to handle as much of the windows as they can and to do a condition assessment on the exterior of the building. So in the future, we might tackle the question that you're asking. It'll come back. But for now, this grant is only doing exterior.
[Joan Cyr]: Okay. So, um, I can make a motion to recommend funding the shallow back churches.
[Roberta Cameron]: And who seconded that Matthew second. So, um, I'm going to stop sharing some that I can call the role. Uh, Losa.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Matthew. Hi, Joan. Yes. Steve. Yes. And Doug. Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. And Roberta. And myself, yes. So motion passes unanimously. Conditions for Shiloh Baptist Church My suggestion is two conditions that we require a preservation restriction on the building and that we do not fund any window panes that have religious images in them. So most of the window panes are geometric shapes, but there are a small handful that have religious images. And so I think we should put right in our conditions that they'll have to find another funding source for the panels that have religious images.
[Unidentified]: Is that typical for churches?
[Roberta Cameron]: They're all over the map in terms of how much religious imagery is in the windows. There was a court decision on a CPA funded project a few years ago, I'm thinking it was about five years ago now, where the CP, it was determined that public funds could not be used for religious imagery in church windows. So I think that's directly on point here.
[Doug Carr]: And I think we've done that in the past also, Roberta, with the way we've awarded certain grants in religious buildings, I think, for that exact reason.
[Matt Leming]: All right, well, that was my first time hearing about it. But I guess just reference that court case in a letter stipulating the conditions so that, yeah, that sounds good.
[Danielle Evans]: So I have the draft decision in the folder, but I don't know if you guys, I don't know if it probably doesn't edit in real time, I'm assuming, even though it's a shared file.
[Roberta Cameron]: It might edit in real time, but I don't see it. I see it.
[Joan Cyr]: Except the number three says a preservation restriction shall. That's where it stops.
[Danielle Evans]: I haven't made it further than that. Okay. So what did we want to... So a preservation restriction... What did you say, Roberta? Or a preservation restriction... I'm trying to think of the language.
[Unidentified]: should be put on the property. There we go. Now I can see it. Okay.
[Roberta Cameron]: We have in the past actually voted to approve the letter itself. I don't know if we want to continue with that convention or if we just want to acknowledge these conditions and say that, or maybe we do need to vote on the conditions because that will just back us up if in the future we have to. Sorry.
[Matt Leming]: For number two, could you just cite the Massachusetts Supreme Court case? I was just googling it and just putting it in chat right here.
[Danielle Evans]: It's the anti-aid amendment, right? Roberta, that's what the ruling was, that it violated our amendment?
[Roberta Cameron]: No, I think that it's the principle of, of it's the First Amendment. The government can't fund religious messages. So the religious imagery is considered to be a religious message.
[Danielle Evans]: All right, because basically, so we were our former city solicitor, Mark Romley wrote an opinion letter, stating that CPA funds could go to churches and religious institutions and it did not violate the anti-aid amendment. This was separate. This was the religious entry. And this was, was this an Acton? Was this the Acton case? So did you, what is it? Per something, something versus count of Acton?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. And actually, I would change the wording in that sentence to say window panels, because to, unfortunately, the largest windows that are in the most urgent need of repair are very complicated windows in which some panels within those large windows are religious imagery. And the, Church congregation is gonna do private fundraising in order to match the CPA funds so that they can pay for those window panels.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I just feel like putting the reason for that in the text instead of just having this kind of stipulation without any context would, make the readers of this letter feel a bit better that we're not just kind of doing this just because.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. No, that's a good point. And I think that that will also make it clear, be a clear signal to city council and anyone else concerned that we understand that the reason that we've considered that case in determining the eligibility of this project.
[Matt Leming]: I'm just saying number three, a preservation restriction shall, what was the, maybe I just need to refresh, but what was the... It'll be placed on the property. Oh, okay. Okay, yep, yep, yep.
[Roberta Cameron]: Capitalized preservation restriction. Capitalized? Yeah, I've always seen the word preservation restriction capitalized.
[Danielle Evans]: Oh, I was putting capitalized, I was like, funded? I'm like, who's funding this? Who's paying for this? Okay, that's great.
[Unidentified]: Yes. The CPC will be paying for the preservation restriction.
[Roberta Cameron]: or the CPA program out of its administrative funds. And if by any chance we don't have the administrative funds to be able to pay for that, I think we'd have to take it out of the 150,000. It's probably about a $5,000 cost, I'm guessing.
[Joan Cyr]: There are multiple plaintiffs in this act.
[Danielle Evans]: Oh, Kaplan versus Town of Acton, isn't it?
[Joan Cyr]: Kaplan versus Town of Acton.
[Danielle Evans]: And does everybody have editing privileges to this? Roberta, if you wanted to wordsmith or is it just... I see someone's cursor moving about.
[Joan Cyr]: It's probably mine.
[Roberta Cameron]: It might have been mine because I was just hoping that I can't actually see the changes in real time. No, it didn't work when I tried it.
[Amanda Centrella]: It might be limited to city emails, like city accounts.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think you're right.
[Amanda Centrella]: That's just as well.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, are there any other changes that we want to make to this before we vote to accept these conditions?
[Unidentified]: or apply these conditions, that's what we should say.
[Joan Cyr]: I make a motion to apply the conditions of approval as stated in the draft funding. Seconded.
[Unidentified]: All right. Losa? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Joan? Yes. Steve? Yes. Doug? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And myself, yes. All right. So one project finished. Next project is the Oak Grove Cemetery caretaker quarters. Any further discussion about this project? A motion to recommend $50,000. I'll make it. Losa made a motion, would like to second that. I'll second it. Joan seconded it, and I'll call the roll, Losa. Yes. Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Steve?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, motion, and myself, yes. So motion passes unanimously. Do we have conditions that we want to place on this project? Just as a background for this is a city owned property and we do not yet have a way to put a preservation restriction on city owned properties, even though it would be a good idea to do so. So it requires a third party to hold the restriction. And so this when it comes to the privately owned properties, the city can hold the restriction and the private organization owns the property. But if it's a city owned property, the city can't hold the restriction and own the property. And we haven't found another entity yet that can hold the preservation restriction. So I would forego putting that condition on this property.
[Doug Carr]: Roberta, who doesn't Somerville on the city owned properties?
[Roberta Cameron]: We haven't solved that problem yet either. Years ago, Somerville had approached us to see if we might be willing to enter an intermunicipal agreement to hold each other's PRs. And the former city solicitor would not consider that possibility. And right now we're between city solicitors. Ironically, the issue has come up, we asked Last year, we asked the city when we still had Kimberly as our city solicitor. Um, we had some city owned projects that we wanted to consider preservation restriction on and approach Somerville to say would you consider this. They just dropped it. They weren't really that interested in pursuing the question at the time. Well, now this year, Somerville has some projects that they would like to consider a PR on. Yeah, absolutely. The work that's required is for city solicitors to iron out the details of how it could work. And so far we haven't found a pair of city solicitors, yet, who are willing to work on this. So, maybe in the future it'll come back because we'll continue having projects that we'd like to put conditions on, put preservation restrictions on in both communities. And if, so Somerville has also been in between city solicitors. In fact, we just had a new one start this week. So maybe we'll be able to be more proactive going forward as well. By we, I mean my employer, not the city of Medford. For the Oak Grove caretakers, I don't recommend putting a preservation restriction on it this year, but maybe in the future we'll be able to. Any other conditions that we would want to place on Oak Grove Cemetery or the caretakers' quarters? I mean, this is just a study.
[Joan Cyr]: This isn't the work, right?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, that's true, Joan. If it was actually construction, I think we'd be looking at National Register kind of preservation standards, you know, what we usually are broadly, but this is a master planning study, so they don't really need to do that.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. If we have no conditions, then I don't think we need to take a second vote.
[Joan Cyr]: Well, there are a few on this draft, which seems like it. Let me come back to it.
[Danielle Evans]: So this draft is basically the same as what we approved, was it last year, for the WPA garage.
[Roberta Cameron]: OK. Ah, yes, that is very important. We need a qualified professional, a historic conservation professional. Yeah. Very good.
[Unidentified]: I'm glad that we thought of that last year. And that the study shall consider requirements for compliance with ADA and MAAB.
[Joan Cyr]: I like these conditions. So motion to approve the funding recommendation decision draft letter for the cemetery board of trustees.
[Unidentified]: Second. All right, let me call the roll though, sir. Yes. Matthew. Joan. Yes. Steve. Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Yes, I just know that the conditions about ADA and the AB are just, you're basically saying you're in compliance with code. I mean, that's no matter what they do, they have to do that anyway. It's not something special.
[Roberta Cameron]: That is very true. I think we initially were in the practice of always including this condition because we were afraid that the city or the grantee might just conveniently overlook their requirement to do so, but I don't know if it's worth taking it.
[Doug Carr]: It's like saying, it's like any other code issue in a building. It's not a bad thing to bring to their attention, but we can't build anything without it anyway.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, that's true. Thank you for pointing that out.
[Danielle Evans]: So I have a question for Doug. If this wasn't a CPA project and they were just, I'm just trying to think of how deep would a consultant or a firm look into bringing it up to ADA compliance in this sort of study? If it wasn't a public building or is it because it's a public building?
[Doug Carr]: No, I think they do it anyway. I mean, what they'll do is, you know, they'll be looking at entrances and stairs and elevators and toilets and making sure that they have the clearances and paths they need, you know, to make sure that somebody has got full accessibility somewhere in that building. So I think that would come with the territory. Anyone who does a study like this in historic buildings know that they have to kind of address those basic accessibility issues. It's been true for 30 years. Okay.
[Unidentified]: All right, thank you.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Roberta, you didn't register your vote on that, just to remind you.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you, Losa, yes. Thank you. All right, so I think that we have completed We took a vote on the, yes, so we've completed the Oak Grove caretakers quarters. The next project is McGlynn Playground.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I'll make a motion to recommend the playground.
[Roberta Cameron]: For $500,000.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Yes, correct. Sorry.
[Unidentified]: All right. Second. Joan seconds that. All right, Losa? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Joan? Yes. Steve? Yes. Doug? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Great. And you? Myself, yes, thank you. All right, so conditions for the McGlynn Playground. One thing that I wanted to note in the recommendation letter from McGlynn Playground, I think we should state right in the recommendation letter that we anticipate a second round of funding in FY24. so that city council is not surprised when we come back and ask for more funding. So like right where we say, I'm trying, let me just pull up one of the other letters.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, for some reason, I didn't think we were voting on this one tonight, so I don't. You don't have one, okay. But I'm looking for something that's comparable that I can,
[Matt Leming]: wait so could this is kind of unfocused um but could similar language for like multi-round funding be potentially used for like we're talking about going playground but like walking court as well because that's like multiple years in a row um so we cannot actually approve the funds
[Roberta Cameron]: And so for, for Wackling Court, they're asking for all, we might as well give them the money that they need now, unless they come back to us next month saying that the same kind of, like breaking it over two fiscal years could work for them. But I don't anticipate that that's gonna be the case. But in this case, what I just want to do is, so what this funding recommendation decision letter lacks that this other format would have that I've used in other communities is like a two sentence or one paragraph description of what the project would be. And so I don't know if we could just add a sentence saying, like maybe under project name, have a project description and say this project will implement the plan to rehabilitate McGlynn Playground. We anticipate a second request for funds to complete the funding that's needed for this project. I don't know if Danielle you could take that in or you can go back and listen to the recording later to get the gist of that.
[Joan Cyr]: So what are you trying to say, like, that we are approving 500,000 of their 900,000 asks now, and we anticipate that a second phase of the ask will be forthcoming? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: A second application will be forthcoming to request the remaining funds next fiscal year. Right.
[Joan Cyr]: But that doesn't mean that we'll approve it or they will approve recommendation or that the city council will approve it. It just says anticipate it's coming.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. So I want to let both the applicant and city council know that we are responding to the whole 900,000 that they're asking for. Right. and that we have a plan to pay for it, even though we can't promise to.
[Unidentified]: Right. Will they have to apply again next year?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, they'll have to submit an off-cycle application. So I think if they submit the off-cycle application in June, we could approve it at our June meeting. So they could, if they submit it in time for us to recommend it in June, then we can send it to city council in time for their July meeting.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Would you put in the letter that the CPA recommend that they come back with the application off cycle?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, so we could be that specific in the letter to say that we anticipate that they'll be applying in June 2023 for an additional amount that will come out of the
[Unidentified]: fiscal year 24 budget.
[Roberta Cameron]: But then I think if we're going to be that specific, we have to make some kind of statement that says that we do not. We cannot approve the FY 24
[Joan Cyr]: I don't think you need to be that specific. Just say that they requested. We can say that although the request was for $900,000, we are recommending $500,000 and anticipate an off-cycle application for the balance. And just don't say what we're going to do with it.
[Roberta Cameron]: OK. Yeah. I think that's good. OK. So that's going to be in the description funding recommendation letter. And the, any other conditions to put on this project?
[Unidentified]: I'm putting it into the, what I've just written.
[Danielle Evans]: We want something about access or is it just like just to make sure they would never be I don't think it would but you're doing non-school hours that it's open?
[Joan Cyr]: I think that we should state it given what the um given what Shanine mentioned when she was presenting on this application that they did get a lot of feedback from school people saying that they thought it was only going to be for school use. And she's like, she said, no, it is not. During school hours, yes, but off hours, it is not. So it would be good to specify that.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: What about the maintenance moving forward from to keeping up with the with those equipments after they put it up.
[Roberta Cameron]: So there was an early project in Somerville where the CPC made a condition that the city will submit a, what do they call it? A maintenance plan?
[Danielle Evans]: Preventative maintenance plan.
[Roberta Cameron]: Preventative maintenance plan every five years. And I called them in on that, because it was five years this past year. And they actually came and gave a preventative maintenance report.
[Unidentified]: So that's something that we could ask them for. That sounds like a good idea. So the school department shall provide a preventative maintenance plan. for the playground upon completion of the project and every five years going after that. That sounds good.
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: Who from the school committee would be responsible for updating the then CPC It would be the school department probably these people these people are crying for dollars in every single every single funding round I watch the meetings. And it's just like.
[Joan Cyr]: The city or the school.
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, the so City Council approves. the school committee operating budget for the year. And I watched the meetings, because I have children in the school system, and every year it is absolutely beg and borrow to get funding for the school committee so that they can keep teachers on staff, hire janitors. This year, the big thing was not to go too far down this rabbit hole, but finding funding to fund security officers. for the high school and the middle schools. I just don't wanna put any, if they come to us and ask for funding, I just don't wanna put a caveat on it on these people, not in schools. They're already having the worst time getting funding if you watch the meetings as it is. And if you do put a caveat on it, they're just gonna say, oh yeah, sure. And they're not gonna maintain it anyway, because we know in Medford, I'm sorry to say, we don't do a great job at maintaining things. We're getting better at it. but I just don't wanna put a caveat on them. I'm not really.
[Roberta Cameron]: I mean, the idea, this wouldn't be a report that costs money, but this is asking the facilities maintenance person to say, this is our plan for keeping this playground in working order going forward. And hopefully they'll adopt best practices so that we don't keep not maintaining anything.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I think like saying that they, we shouldn't put a stipulation because we know they'll never do it. Isn't the best policy.
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: I just don't want to, I don't want to burden these people any further than they already are. And they are burdened more than any other group in this city. I think every year it's begging for funding. This is just the last place I expected us to draw a line in the sand and say, you know, We'll give you this funding, but it's contingent upon you, you know, keep keeping it, keeping it. No, I just, I wouldn't be happy with that. And I don't think they would be very happy with that either, particularly this year. I would approve the funding. I just wouldn't put any stipulations on it at all.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I disagree because then they're going to come back again. And in a few years, they're going to need a new playground because they're not keeping up with maintenance. Maintenance could just be, you know, making sure a screw is properly secured, it's not falling. Could be anything, could be a minor little thing that's part of maintenance.
[Roberta Cameron]: A powerful impact that CPA has had besides just actually fixing the playground equipment that's broken across the city is that we've already had an impact in changing how they plan for these capital improvements. There is more forward-looking planning about school playground equipment than there was before CPA became available. And so CPA has had an impact in modeling better practices than what we had been doing before. And this is, by applying this request for our maintenance plan is a way that we can encourage them to keep that, continue to like applied better practices going forward than what they have in the past. And that's also something that I think that people have, it's feedback that I've received from the public when we've been out talking to the public. I hear a lot of times people saying, you know, the city shouldn't bother to improve its playgrounds because we're not gonna maintain them anyway, we just throw money away. And I think it's a promise of CPA is that we're gonna hit a reset and we're going to get the city to do better going forward. And if we're going to ask the city to do better going forward I think we can ask the schools as well to do better going forward. You know, they came to us in the first place to replace the surfaces of the playgrounds. The first year, it was actually a parent who applied to replace the playground surface because the school department didn't have enough forward-looking thinking to realize that there was a funding source available to fix the problem. And then when they saw that it was successful, when the parent applied for CPA funds to fix the playground, the second year, the school department got in line to fix the remaining playgrounds. And so they've incrementally been learning how to use the resources that we're offering. So that's why I would support putting the stipulation in, Because I think that we can, that they can, and they want to be able to maintain the playgrounds in better condition. And I think that they can.
[Joan Cyr]: So there's two ways to approach it. We can either recommend approval that they create a plan to maintain the newly installed universal playground, or we can require that they in fact maintain that universal playground. So, I mean, I don't know that we've put that stipulation in with the other surfaces and things like that that we've done on the conditions of approval, or, I mean, I do like the idea of saying that we're recommending this funding, and by the same token, we appreciate your willingness to partner with maintaining this asset going forward. You want to encourage it. Do we have any language from the other city or school parks or services that we've maintained, like maybe Tufts Park or the surface at all those other, or basketball courts or any of that stuff. I mean, we've done so many of them.
[Danielle Evans]: We have the small grants where I believe we had language about preventative maintenance.
[Unidentified]: Let's see.
[Danielle Evans]: We have the school department will submit a report on their preventive maintenance plan in five years.
[Unidentified]: Oh. So we've already done that. Was that an overarching plans? I know they were working on that. We're trying to work on that. That may, I mean, if Losa, yeah.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Thank you. And I do recall in one of doing the interview, that to when Peter was here in front of the committee and that was one of the question we asked was about maintenance moving forward if he did get and he did agree upon if they do get the grant they will find you know ways to implement some kind of maintenance moving forward.
[Unidentified]: So I
[Roberta Cameron]: I feel as though what we're asking for is for the school department to tell us what they're going to do. As Joan pointed out, we're not requiring that they make a specific investment in maintenance. What we're asking is that they keep us informed.
[Joan Cyr]: So I'm reading their application and it talks about ongoing maintenance. And it says the work on this and other projects has clearly demonstrated that this is something we must do, meaning create a maintenance plan to properly maintain these playgrounds to extend their lifespan. We will be training the custodial staff to complete high frequency inspections on site. scheduling safety inspections of this and other playgrounds moving forward. These will inform the budget and repair process so we can properly maintain the playground for safe play. So they're already saying they're going to do it.
[Roberta Cameron]: They're saying that, I feel as though it's, I'd feel more secure if we also put it in the letter.
[Joan Cyr]: I'm saying we should sort of emulate what they're saying here in the conditions of approval since they've already asked us to do it.
[Roberta Cameron]: Exactly, I think that's great. I don't know if anyone else caught a news article that assistant superintendent Peter Cushing is a finalist for a superintendent job in another community. So I don't want to assume that everything that is stated in the application is going to be carried over to the next person if he is, pulled away from us.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: That would be a huge loss to the Medford school community.
[Roberta Cameron]: It absolutely will be, yeah. All right, so what do we have for conditions for this project then? Alternatively, if it would be helpful, Danielle, maybe we could just hold off on the letter until the February meeting. So we've approved the funding for this project, but if you want to work on the letter and then we approve the letter in February, that would work as well.
[Joan Cyr]: So she has two conditions of approval already about the playground being available to the general public during non-school hours. And then a sentence about similar to what we had in the other one about the school department submitting a preventative maintenance plan in five years.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay, sorry, I'm behind already, so.
[Joan Cyr]: That's okay. Maybe you, in that statement around saying that it's in line with their expectations of scheduling inspections to inform budget and repair process going forward?
[Matt Leming]: Is it in or every?
[Joan Cyr]: It's every, isn't it? Or is it in five years?
[Matt Leming]: I'm saying in, but it should be every.
[Joan Cyr]: Right. Was it before, Danielle? Was it in the five years or every five years?
[Danielle Evans]: It was in five years.
[Roberta Cameron]: And maybe that that might be sufficient because a plan is a plan and will fund more projects in the next five years and hopefully they'll continue to get better at it, but they might not need to keep re like they might not need to keep coming back for each specific project that many times.
[Danielle Evans]: So I guess I'm unclear if this preventative maintenance plan is for this park only, or... I recall, I thought that the preventative maintenance plan that you guys were requesting last time was for all the schoolyards. You know, the last- Hoover requested this, so we're still waiting on it, right? I mean, it was from the summer, so.
[Roberta Cameron]: Well, we said that it would only happen five years from now and what we said over the summer. And the project over the summer was for like small improvements to multiple school playgrounds. And this is an overhaul of one playground. So this is kind of on a different level. So I don't know whether it's sufficient for them to submit one school yard maintenance plan for everyone? Or if like, how specific do we want to be? And how like, what is helpful to them and to us to meet their intention?
[Danielle Evans]: And like, I know, they're already putting things in place. So they hired a playground inspector who has gone around and inspected all of them and wrote reports on all of the playgrounds. And they were holding a seminar or training for the high-frequency inspections. Yeah, so what they did was they hired a certified inspector for the low-frequency inspections. I don't know how many years they do those. I'm sorry, the loud kid in the background.
[Unidentified]: It's okay.
[Danielle Evans]: Then they, I don't know if they held a training or not, but they were going to for DPW workers on how to do these high frequency inspections so that they would have the knowledge and the skills and know what to look for, for these annual inspections.
[Roberta Cameron]: Let me propose some language. I'll put it in the chat because I can't put it on the, I can't edit the letter. I also can't move my mouse very well. Okay. The school department shall provide a preventative maintenance plan upon completion of the project and update the CPC every five years. And the preventative maintenance plan that they give might be very vague, like general, just what they're doing everywhere, or it might be specific to this playground. I don't think that we want to either prevent them from being specific or require them to go into greater depth than what they were prepared to do anyway, because they're working on it.
[Unidentified]: So do we have enough now? I'm satisfied with the conditions. Would. Let me put this in here then.
[Danielle Evans]: So, Peter Christian and Shaneen are at city council right now to for the ARPA funds. So, technically they don't need to be councils approval. I guess it's, they would, the mayor would like their blessing on large allocations so they are there for that.
[Unidentified]: And she needed Peter say thank you.
[Roberta Cameron]: That's great that they can be following what we're doing and what City Council is doing simultaneously. It'll be a good night for them. So is there a motion to accept the letter as it is?
[Joan Cyr]: I'll make a motion to accept the letter. Second.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, let me call the roll. Losa? Yes. Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Steve? Yes. And Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, thank you. And myself, yes. So the motion passes unanimously. And I will move on to the next project, which is Isaac Hall House for $85,000.
[Unidentified]: I will make a motion to accept. I second that.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, then let me call the roll, Losa? Yes. Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Steve? And Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Myself, yes. All right, so a letter for Isaac Holmhaus.
[Joan Cyr]: similar conditions to what we put on like How's Good House or Grace Church?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, I would say the same as for Shiloh, except that they don't have any religious imagery to worry about. But yeah, there is no religious imagery on the whole building. I was going to say, just because it is a religious organization, I don't know if it's worthwhile keeping some condition that CPA funds shall not be used to restore any religious imagery or is it not?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I don't think you need it because there's none in the building and the religion doesn't have it anyway. So I think it's a good point. It's just windows, it's just architecture.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay.
[Doug Carr]: Secular windows.
[Roberta Cameron]: So we can strike number, we can use the same conditions as for Shiloh, but strike number two.
[Danielle Evans]: Someone remind me of their full name, the Islamic Cultural Center and Museum. Is that what it is?
[Matt Leming]: I think it's Islamic Cultural Center of Medford.
[Danielle Evans]: Of Medford. That's what the M stands for. Okay.
[Matt Leming]: According to Google. I didn't just know that.
[Danielle Evans]: Salem Street, right? That's on High Street.
[Unidentified]: High Street over there. Okay. Can find it.
[Joan Cyr]: So do we have to put the language in about historic preservation, you know, to their, to this? It's 43 High Street.
[Doug Carr]: Yep.
[Unidentified]: The buildings are the National Register of Historic Places. And you have to change Shiloh Baptist Church in the middle. What was the funding amount?
[Danielle Evans]: It was 85,000.
[Joan Cyr]: Is that right? Yes.
[Danielle Evans]: OK, I usually have like three screens that I'm looking at and I'm just using this tiny little laptop and it's really hard to do that. So we said yes on the preservation restriction, because just being on the register doesn't. Right.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Danielle Evans]: And did we want to say something about the conditions assessment? Because they were going to pay for the conditions assessment themselves as they are.
[Roberta Cameron]: Oh, I think we need to.
[Danielle Evans]: So if we're going to return for additional funds, they would need to have a conditions assessment done.
[Roberta Cameron]: I think we need them to. I think that they're also revising their application so that their scope will include a conditions assessment first and then do as much of the projects afterward as they have funding for.
[Unidentified]: So, I'm sorry, were you going to say something, Steve? No, I was not. Okay.
[Roberta Cameron]: So I had worked with them on developing language for a revised application, but I never saw whether they actually submitted a revised application.
[Danielle Evans]: I didn't get pinged. I didn't see anything in the Smartsheet.
[Roberta Cameron]: I usually get a... Did they send... Let me see if...
[Unidentified]: I feel like Chris Donovan might have written it or. Alright, so I have.
[Roberta Cameron]: I have an application that I recommended changes to, but I don't know that they ever. Made the changes so we might want to make a recommend like add to the conditions that a conditions assessment will be prepared before funds are.
[Unidentified]: for construction.
[Danielle Evans]: So a conditions assessment shall be prepared, like prior to release of any CPA funds or?
[Roberta Cameron]: For construction. So they can, I think we should allow them to use CPA funds to prepare the conditions assessment because that's what Shiloh is doing. And if they have matching funds that they can put into the project, they could put the matching funds into the front end to fund the conditions assessment or into the back end to fund a little bit more windows. But I think we need to require that a conditions assessment be prepared by a qualified consultant. before funds will be dispersed for construction.
[Unidentified]: But what about the case?
[Danielle Evans]: So are we calling the window restoration construction? Yeah. So are we allowing, so we won't pay for window restoration until this conditions assessment is done?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, it's like phase one, phase two.
[Danielle Evans]: Right.
[Doug Carr]: You can use the rule of thumb for about $1,500 to $2,000 a window for a historic building of this age. Just, you know, restoration, perhaps storms, reglazing, weights, you know, all the labor that goes with that. So I don't know how many windows they have, but you can, as a rule of thumb, someone could think about that when they get that far.
[Unidentified]: And when should the preservation restriction be placed on the property?
[Roberta Cameron]: That doesn't have to be before funds are dispersed because a preservation restriction, it can take anywhere from a few months to a few years to get that completed. And it's a little bit outside of our control how long it takes to get the preservation restriction filed because it requires state input and the state can sometimes be slow. So we can hire a consultant to prepare these two preservation restrictions. Maybe it will take them a few months to do that and they can be doing that while the projects are ongoing. maybe before the final 10% closeout, but even still, I'm afraid of these little organizations not being able to, like $15,000 for Shiloh is like, that's a half of their annual operating budget. So I'm afraid of burdening them with having to wait for something that's beyond their control. What I want, I mean. What about a clawback provision?
[Danielle Evans]: Like if, say for some reason. Yeah, that would be a great idea. If decade goes by and they don't do it or refusing to deciding that we don't want to have a preservation restriction.
[Roberta Cameron]: So yeah, we could put, I think that that is fair to put it in the grant agreement. It doesn't have to be in the conditions. So in the grant agreement, we could say that if they have not executed the preservation restriction within five years, then we can claw back the money.
[Unidentified]: That's a much better way to handle it than Somerville has done in the past. Anything else that we need to add or change to this one?
[Roberta Cameron]: Is there a motion to accept this letter, this recommendation letter? I'll make a motion. I'll second it, Lotha. All right. Yes. Losa, Matthew.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan. Yes. Steve. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And yes from myself. All right. Moving on, housing families, $10,000.
[Joan Cyr]: Make a motion to approve. Second that recommendation.
[Roberta Cameron]: And so Losa. Yes. Matthew.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: John. Yes. Steve.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Myself, yes. All right. Is there a model letter for this?
[Unidentified]: I'm looking for the last one. Yeah, that's what I'm looking for. Okay, I'm just gonna put this in there now. You guys see the old one? Yep, that looks good.
[Joan Cyr]: You just need to change the date.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I'm just updating it right now. Was the request, was it 10,000? It was 10, yep.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[Roberta Cameron]: I don't see any need for any changes to this other than updating the information about tonight's meeting.
[Unidentified]: It probably hasn't refreshed yet. I don't know how long it takes. Me neither. It has not refreshed. Do you have to save it or something? No, it's refreshed. No, there we go. Is there a motion to accept this letter? I'll make the motion. Second. All right, I'll call the roll. Losa? Yes. Matthew? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Steve? Yes. And Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And myself, yes. All right, so this project is completed. Let's move on to Hickey Park Bench Shelters. And this is for $90,000. I'll make the motion to approve for $90,000 for Hickory Bench.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Second.
[Roberta Cameron]: And I'll call the roll, Losa?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Steve? Yes. And Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And that's for myself. All right, so we've approved the funding, or recommended the funding for Hickey Park and shelters. And do we have a model letter?
[Danielle Evans]: I don't, I'm trying to think of, One that would work. So this was initiated by, it was Medford Youth Softball.
[Joan Cyr]: The youth girls softball.
[Danielle Evans]: And so we're awarding it to, Well the property owners the city of Medford, and we're trying to, I guess it would be Department of Public Works is that what we have. Who was the parks department.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, I think it would be Department of Public Works parks division.
[Danielle Evans]: trying to find a decision that I haven't word for some reason, I have a bunch that have been PDF, I don't know why. Of course, nothing's easy.
[Joan Cyr]: Roberta, how many applications are left for consideration tonight?
[Roberta Cameron]: We still have Gillis Park, Duggar, COVID Memorial Grove, Car Pickleball Courts and Brooks Estate Access Drive Design. So we're halfway through.
[Joan Cyr]: Okay, because poor Danielle needs to go to bed.
[Roberta Cameron]: We could just recommend the funds and come back next month for the letters if that is... I don't want to hold anything up.
[Danielle Evans]: I can try to power through.
[Unidentified]: That's true, because if we wait a month, then they're not going to go to city council until a month from now.
[Danielle Evans]: And I know some of these would be time sensitive. So like the dugout, if we want to get it ordered and installed before the next season, we'd have to hop to it.
[Unidentified]: Do we have conditions?
[Roberta Cameron]: I don't have any conditions in mind for that unless we just want to use a blanket ADA condition. Especially for outdoor recreation facilities, I'm not sure that we always employ designers on these projects who know to apply ADA.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, I'm looking at some of these. Let's see, I'm looking at the Placestad one. What about the Duggar Park one?
[Unidentified]: When did we approve the Hicking Park basketball? tennis. That was last one, right? Yep, it was last time. Here we go. Yeah, we didn't have any conditions on them.
[Danielle Evans]: The Hickey Park in tennis, the playstead, the Duggar tennis. We didn't have any conditions, but maybe we should or not, because I mean. So unfortunately, have to comply with 88, but do we highlight it to them? It will be in the grant agreement.
[Roberta Cameron]: that we can... So, so far they managed to actually construct Duggar without it being handicap accessible. Right. Even though it was a condition, they built the bocce courts without it being handicap accessible. So I think it bears repeating, especially with these outdoor recreation facilities, because they don't hire designers who know to design it appropriately.
[Doug Carr]: But that should be the condition then. If that's the source of the problem, I agree, put it in there, but also say you need to hire somebody who understands design and codes and maybe an ADA.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. I mean, in this case, they're purchasing a piece of equipment and just installing it. But if they install it a few inches to the left or right, they might block the pathway to the benches. That's what I'm afraid of. So whoever installs it should just have the common sense to leave an unobstructed pathway. But we don't have a great record of the city paying attention to the conditions that we put on parks grants anyway. But because we put the condition on it, we can ask them to go back and fix it when they do it wrong.
[Unidentified]: So I have a draft going in. Yeah. So how about. I mean, you can just put it or like prior to.
[Danielle Evans]: Prior to installation of the dugout. Shelters. Your final final placement will be reviewed and approved for ADA maybe compliance.
[Roberta Cameron]: Prior to installation, the. Plan for installation will be.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's good.
[Roberta Cameron]: I like that it's more specific than just saying that it has to comply. It's telling them how to comply, which I think is more useful.
[Danielle Evans]: Do it first. Plan it like show us exactly where it's going to go. I can get Francis out there who is our or someone from the building department to OK the location and then they do it. Not install it and then come back later and see if it's correct. Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: So it says. I don't know if it hasn't updated yet. It says prior to installation, the location shall be reviewed and approved. Should you finish that sentence or have you already? Code.
[Danielle Evans]: For compliance with 88 slash and maybe I did finish the sentence, but I don't think it's.
[Unidentified]: OK, yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, I see it now. All right, is there a motion to accept this?
[Matt Leming]: Motion to accept.
[Roberta Cameron]: I second it.
[Unidentified]: All right, let me call the roll. Losa? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Joan? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Steve?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And yes for myself. All right, motion passes. Moving on to the next project, Gillis Park Fitness Picnic Area, $96,864. I'll make the motion for the 96,000. $864, thank you. Thank you, is there a second? All right, and let me call the roll. Losa?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Joan? Yes. Steve? Yes. Doug? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And myself, yes. All right, so Gillis Park Fitness Area. I think we could use a similar letter. and have the same requirement prior to construction, the plan will be reviewed for compliance with.
[Unidentified]: Amanda, is this our office? Yes. So is that the only condition?
[Roberta Cameron]: Are there any other conditions that we would want to apply for this project? That's the only one that I can think of. Steve?
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: No, I'm sorry. I'm clearing my throat. I'm starting to come down with something, I think.
[Unidentified]: Do you see the Decision?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes, it looks complete now. Instead of the locations, it should just say the site plan.
[Amanda Centrella]: Who's editing it? Is that you, Amanda? Sorry, I thought I was helping, but I might have been hindering.
[Unidentified]: Back backwards or sure.
[Danielle Evans]: So we were going to reword this one, right?
[Roberta Cameron]: I think the only thing that needs to be reworded is that instead of. Yeah, the design will be reviewed. That's fine.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, OK, so she did it OK. Oh and I I undid it so it. Oh no, I'm sorry the delay. Of outlook is.
[Matt Leming]: Everyone's trying to be helpful.
[Amanda Centrella]: I won't do it again, I'm sorry.
[Unidentified]: Undo it again? No, it says locations. My hands are off. It's right, isn't it?
[Danielle Evans]: Well, that was the last one. And then Amanda changed it to what everybody wanted. And then I got confused and told her to undo it. And then she did it. And it's all my fault. Prior to installation, what did we say? Can you just repeat it back? Prior to installation, the design?
[Amanda Centrella]: Prior to construction, the design or final design shall be reviewed and approved.
[Unidentified]: All right. Should be all good. Great. All right, is there a motion to accept this? I make the motion to accept the letter. Second. All right, let me call the roll. Losa? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Joan. Yes. Steve. Yes. Doug. Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And yes from myself. Motion is approved unanimously. And the next project is the Duggar Tennis Court Lacrosse Bounce Back for $7,000. Motion to approve the 7,000.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: I'm sorry, I didn't hear who seconded it. I think Steve did. I did. All right, then I will call the roll. Losa? Yes. Matthew?
[Unidentified]: I say yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Steve?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Doug? Yes. Great.
[Roberta Cameron]: So this project. So this letter, we can use the same, this project, we can use the same letter again, but instead of handicap accessibility, I actually want to require that they install a, um,
[Unidentified]: a historic plaque. Right. Do we increase it then?
[Roberta Cameron]: I don't remember whether 7000 was the original ask and we increased it already in the model or if we need to increase it.
[Amanda Centrella]: 7,000 was the original ask without consideration of the sign cost.
[Roberta Cameron]: Then maybe, I'm sorry, we need to amend the recommendation that we just made and make it 7,500. Is 500, Doug, do you think 500 is enough to both design and produce a sign with some historic information?
[Doug Carr]: $500. That's it for how big we talk.
[Roberta Cameron]: Oh, that's a great question. I don't have any concept myself of what it costs to design and produce and produce a sign.
[Doug Carr]: Well, we did the one at the store commission did the one next to the the Salem Street burial ground with the history when they did the park over the plaza down there.
[Roberta Cameron]: It might not need to be as elaborate as that. You don't have to tell a whole history. We just really need to describe one person's contribution.
[Doug Carr]: Oh, I see. Is there a place to put it, like a plaque mounted somewhere?
[Roberta Cameron]: No, there isn't. I don't think so. I mean, I haven't studied the site. I mean, I don't know if it should be bronze or if it can be, if there's another material that would be appropriate.
[Doug Carr]: I don't know, I'd carry like $2,000 to cover ourselves. Yeah. Until we know more.
[Unidentified]: Then let's amend what we just approved. Instead of 7,000, we'll make it 9,000.
[Matt Leming]: I would like to make a motion to amend what we just approved to 7,500. Oh, sorry, 9,000. Thank you.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: My bad. I'll second that. All right, so Losa. Yes.
[Matt Leming]: Matthew. Yes. Joan. Yes. Steve. Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And myself, yes. All right. So then we should use the same letter as we used for Gillis Park, but replace the condition instead of compliance with ADA and AAB, they should install a historic plaque commemorating, what is his name?
[Unidentified]: It was in the minutes.
[Amanda Centrella]: Clarence Roan?
[Unidentified]: Yes, that's the one, Clarence Roan.
[Roberta Cameron]: I knew his last name was Roan. I couldn't remember his first name. But when we're through, it'll be a household name.
[Matt Leming]: Everybody in America will know the name of Clarence Roan.
[Unidentified]: Everyone.
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: Oh, this crew's getting a little punchy. Yeah, well, it's two hours plus the hours from working the day.
[Danielle Evans]: So we do want to delete the reference to accessibility.
[Roberta Cameron]: So the only way that accessibility is relevant is to get into the tennis court, right? So we're just, this is just creating the background. Right, right, right. And they all, so they built the tennis court without a ramp to get into it, right? And then the city had to go back and fix that after the fact? I think so, yes. and that's already been corrected. If that's already been corrected, which I hope it has, then we don't need handicap accessibility as part of this project.
[Danielle Evans]: Amanda, was there a location that they wanted to put it? So do we want this closer to the entrance into there then or?
[Amanda Centrella]: That could make more sense because I think there was some thinking about in the future adding some signage to have that first court be prioritized for folks with disabilities because of its proximity to the entrance. And so maybe having something like this closer as well might be a good idea.
[Roberta Cameron]: I'm willing to let them decide where is the best place to put it. I don't feel like we need to get down to that level of patient of the bounce back.
[Unidentified]: Amanda, who is the applicant for this?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes. I think it's a kind of a mix of mayor's office and PDS. And you'll change.
[Danielle Evans]: I trust that you guys will, or our offices, will take into consideration the best place for it.
[Amanda Centrella]: Definitely, but also not opposed to a condition, if that's what the committee would prefer.
[Roberta Cameron]: Just update the amount to $9,000.
[Unidentified]: You know, historic signage doesn't make sense. What did we say it was? A plaque.
[Amanda Centrella]: What did someone else say? Sorry, I said commemorative, but we already say commemorating.
[Unidentified]: A historic plaque or just a plaque shall be installed. Plaque slash signage or marker. Because didn't we want to have like some storytelling in there or? Yeah, I mean, it could be a historic marker. Okay. Okay. So are we finished with this letter? Oh, great. When I refreshed it, it says plaque inage. A plaque, historic marker. Okay, it shall be installed.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. Is there a motion to approve this letter? I make the motion to approve the letter.
[Unidentified]: And I second.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, Losa?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Matthew? Yes. Joan? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Steve?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And myself, yes. Approved. All right, COVID Memorial Grove for $28,000. I make the motion to approve for $28,000.
[Unidentified]: Second. And I'll call the roll. Losa? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Steve? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Myself, yes. All right. And then we can, um,
[Joan Cyr]: Do we need to say something in the conditions about evaluating the best location for this grove based on community input? I know there was some concern about where they had intended to put it possibly. So off topic, Roberta, I think our next group picture should be at the labyrinth. Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: Has everyone seen the labyrinth?
[Roberta Cameron]: I was just there last week. I saw it installed. It looked like there's maybe still a little tiny bit of touching up left to do, but it's great. It looks beautiful.
[Matt Leming]: There is, wait, the place near the school, like with the stones. There's like some blue tarp next to it, but yeah, it's on my running route. It's nice.
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: That shake out with the neighbors, the condo association. I didn't see anybody sitting there, so.
[Roberta Cameron]: There's no benches nearby, right? Because the car.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, because people would sit on those benches if they were there. So. Oh no, not that. You can't have that. You can't have it.
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: You can't sit on the edge of a beautiful field.
[Matt Leming]: You know, I tried to sit on a rock and it just, it wasn't like the benches. It, I just said, this is not a place where a person like myself would want to sit down. So then I ran away. and they're happy.
[Joan Cyr]: Next time, based on community input, Danielle.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. Okay. I put a community input shall be sought for the location of the, what are we calling this?
[Unidentified]: What are we calling this? COVID Memorial. The Memorial Grove yeah. And this is just for design right, yes. Can everybody see it? The location of the grove shall be determined.
[Danielle Evans]: That's all I see too. I edited that. I put the community input will be sought for the location.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I see it.
[Roberta Cameron]: I see it now.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, that looks good.
[Matt Leming]: I see it, yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, is there a motion to approve this?
[Unidentified]: I'll make the motion. Second. All right, Losa? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Joan? Yes. Steve? Yes. And Doug? Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, motion is approved. So the next one is car pick up all courts. So the last time we had some discussion about whether to ask them to look again at the cost of some of the items that were listed in the budget for this project. And on further discussion, the design of the project was the result of a very large community planning process. So the design of the elements that are included in the park came out of the community. So it's not really, and the part that has been assigned for the CPC to fund isn't really a discrete part of the project. It's just that this is an early part of the overall park construction. And, um, It seemed helpful for administrative purposes to assign some specific tasks to the CPA grant, but overall, the design of the park are elements that were put together well not only with the community process but also to meet criteria for multiple different funding sources. So if certain elements start to be taken out of this project or changed, then that would have to be coordinated with the other funding sources, and it would also interfere with what the communities asked for here. So I want to encourage. Um, our group to reconsider questioning the line items in the budget for this.
[Matt Leming]: So taking the, taking the lights out as a no, no.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, because the lights are serving the park as a whole. They were just assigned to CPA funding, but everything is not like, these are not discrete parts of the project. It's the project is really a whole.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah. And the fence length has been carefully considered as well.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Amanda Centrella]: The fence length and all of the dimensions of the court are to USA pickleball standards. Pickleball USA, I'm sorry. Pickleball USA standards.
[Matt Leming]: Well, I haven't gone against pickleball USA standards thus far in my life. And I'm not going to start today. By gummy. If Pickleball USA says something, then I'm going to do it.
[Joan Cyr]: I would like to make a motion to recommend funding for the Pickleball Court application. Second. Second.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. Loza? Yes. Matthew?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Joan? Yes. Steve?
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And Doug?
[MCM00001038_SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And myself, yes. So I think we could use the same as for Gillis Park, the same conditions that we applied in Gillis Park.
[Danielle Evans]: OK, so I have the bones in the packet. So what was?
[Unidentified]: What was the one that was?
[Roberta Cameron]: Gillis Park was just that the design shall be. Prior to construction, the final design shall be reviewed and approved for compliance with ADA and maybe.
[Unidentified]: Right, because of course. Too many windows open. Sorry, this is taking me so long to do this. We're almost there. Refresh, refresh, refresh. Looks good.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. All right. So is there a motion to accept this letter? I'll make the motion to accept the letter.
[Matt Leming]: Second.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right, and I will call the roll.
[Unidentified]: Losa?
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Matthew? Yes. Joan? Yes. Steve?
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes. And Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes for myself. Letter is approved. So we have one more project left, which is the Brooks Estate access drive design. Motion to approve.
[Matt Leming]: Second.
[Roberta Cameron]: And I'll call the roll.
[Unidentified]: Losa? Yes. Matthew?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Joan? Yes. Steve?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Abstain.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. Then, and myself, yes. So this is going to be similar to the caretaker's quarters.
[Doug Carr]: I don't think so. I think it's similar to what the first grant was, the access drive that this is really the last 10%.
[Roberta Cameron]: I just mean in terms of the conditions.
[Doug Carr]: I don't think it's the same because one's architecture, one's planning for civil. It's basically civil and landscape.
[Roberta Cameron]: Do we need to apply any conditions around
[Doug Carr]: Only whatever we did on the first phase. I don't have to go back a couple of years to get that letter.
[Roberta Cameron]: I don't remember what conditions we would have applied, but you've already applied the conditions the first time, so they still apply now.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, you can just reference those from the first one. I think you're done.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so I looked at the old ones. I think it was, um, does it have to be reviewed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission?
[Doug Carr]: No, it doesn't because that's only Amanda.
[Danielle Evans]: And who holds the interior standards?
[Doug Carr]: No, it's the people who reviewed it were the holders of the conservation restriction, which is the trustees of reservation and the DCR who have already reviewed the first piece. They reviewed this piece as well.
[Unidentified]: I'm fine.
[Doug Carr]: It's just, they're the grantees of the conservation restriction, because it's landscape versus our
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, so the conditions from the last time was a driveway design must be compatible with the historic landscape of the property as illustrated in historic photographs and documentation, but this is for the turnaround, which wasn't there. So while meeting stormwater and public safety requirements in the planning and design process will include consultation with all appropriate boards, commissions, departments, and stakeholders. And I feel like those, you know, those all carry forward, right? They do. Should we add them again? Because I think what we'll be doing is just amending the last grant agreement for the dollar amount.
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Doug Carr]: It shouldn't be a new one. It should be an amendment.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: So I don't know if we would- The conditions of approval. The project shall continue to comply with the conditions of approval from the CPA grant in.
[Unidentified]: Anything else? I don't have anything else. Their motion to accept this.
[Roberta Cameron]: I'll make the motion.
[Unidentified]: I'll second the motion.
[Roberta Cameron]: All right. And I'll call the roll Losa.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: And Doug abstain and myself. Yes. And that concludes all of the decisions that we have to make tonight. The remaining projects we'll make decisions about next month. Thank you, everyone. Feel better, Danielle. Feel better, Danielle and Steve and everyone else.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, Steve. We all need to recover from the plague.
[Joan Cyr]: All right, so motion to close the meeting? I'll make the motion.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: I'll second it. I need to wake up. Only for five more seconds. Go ahead.
[Roberta Cameron]: Everybody say yes at once.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Yes. I heard you all say it. Have a good night, everyone.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Bye. Good night.
[Unidentified]: Bye-bye.
[Losa Julie Genevieve]: Bye.
|
total time: 4.29 minutes total words: 429 |
|||