[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Hello, everybody. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, January 9th. We have a full agenda, so we are going to get started. First up tonight, we are doing a demolition request hearing for preferably preserved status for 31 South Street. So I'll just kind of recap here for a second of how we got to this tonight. So, I want to say our October meeting, we accepted an application for partial demolition of the property at 31 South Street. In November, we had a significance hearing to determine whether or not the property is historically significant. The property was found to be historically significant. And I will remind you what that means. It means that the property is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events. or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or the Commonwealth, or that it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. I'm just going to pause there for a second because I just realized I was supposed to have our opening statement when I started the meeting, so I apologize. I'll just go back and do that now. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting of the Medford Historical Commission will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by using the Zoom link provided for in the agenda. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Okay, so back to 31 South Street, the property was found historically significant at our November meeting. And tonight we are going to have a hearing to determine whether or not the property is to be preferably preserved. And what that means is that The commission has determined after an open public hearing that demolition of the building under review would be detrimental to the architectural or historical heritage of the city of Medford. And just to remind everyone, the commission does not and will not consider the building's condition or any safety issues when determining whether a building is to be preferably preserved. The only the building commissioner can properly address those concerns and issue any safety hazards in that respect. So commissioners. If somebody would like to make a motion one way or the other for 31 South Street, then what I will do is I will go around, we'll open the discussion for our commissioners to debate, then I will take any public comments of anyone who's here tonight that would like to comment on this case, and then we'll wrap it up back to commissioner comments, and then we will have a vote to determine whether or not this property will be preferably preserved. Would someone like to make a motion on 31 South Street?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't care. I'll make a motion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Ryan. Go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to find 31 South Street preferably preserved to start discussion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second?
[Kit Collins]: I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Kit. Okay. Ryan, do you want to jump off discussions?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure. When I look at a building, one of the first things I do is evaluate significance. And we've already done that here for this building. So the second step of looking at the building is to evaluate whether it has integrity. We look back at the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service The guidelines on what that means and it breaks down into seven aspects location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association, they all have specific definitions and I've included them all. They're all included in the commissioner's handbook and people can find them online if you guys want to see what we use as or what I use in terms of looking at the property. In this particular instance, I feel like 31 South Street, even though I made the motion to start the discussion, I feel like 31 South Street's integrity is more, you know, more eroded than other buildings that we've seen on the streetscape. And so for that reason, I'm not really feeling the need to declare this building preferably preserved, but I'm on the fence because it is an older building, but There are other more important examples of this style and architecture worthy of preservation and retaining this particular one may not help.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you, Ryan. That's it. Thank you, Ryan. Kit, I'll come to you next since you seconded the motion.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I actually since since our October meeting, I made a point of walking by it. And while I agree with Ryan that from an architectural standpoint, it's not the best example. I do think that the given the character of the neighborhood and especially how much change there has already been on that neighborhood. in that neighborhood on South Street, I would hate to see it changed to the extent that, well, I'd hate to see it demolished and put up with something that is completely out of the character of the neighborhood. So I actually would, I'd like to see it preserved.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, could you clarify what the plan is for this building? I know that, I don't think it's actually demolition, right? It's actually adding a full third floor, I thought.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think they're altering the rear and they're changing the roof line around. It's going to be altered beyond recognition. So as it appears today, which is a side-by-side duplex typical to the 19th century, you would not be able to determine that after the renovations.
[Doug Carr]: And the kind of remnants of the Italianate style that I think the form B kind of alludes to would pretty much, they'd all be gone essentially, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's what I view this as, yes. That's why we- I can share. I'm sorry, Ryan. No, I was just going to say that's why it triggered demo review.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think the plan is to make it more, I think it's a few houses down. The one with the flat roof that they just did, it's going to look similar to that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, as far as I could tell it. It does maintain some type of gable, yet the fenestration patterns are completely different, you know, horizontal. There's several new dormers that are, they're like, you know, a hair off of being flat roofs. They're very low slope dormers. So, I'll just keep going here, unless you want to say more, Kit. I kind of feel like in some ways I'm going to echo what Kit said because I feel that if this building becomes sort of a modern building, basically that whole side of that end of the street is going to be kind of lose its, uh, neighborhood character, if you will. And, um, you know, it's just one more domino to fall right now. I feel like the balance of the street has the kind of original character, but if this one goes, I feel like it's almost, you know, the straw that breaks the camel's back or whatever, whatever that term is. But, uh, and. I guess I too am not finding the house itself in its present form particularly compelling. I think it has a pretty strong association with the shipbuilding heritage, but architecturally, physically, I don't see that it seems to have lost a lot of integrity. So I too am on the fence, because I know we're supposed to kind of judge the building for what it is, not what it's gonna become, but I have heard rumors that the Historic District Commission is now working on a South Street HDC again.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't have confirmation of that. I've heard the same that it's been kind of out there. I don't know how quickly or how long that would take.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't think it'll be, I think it'll take a while, but yeah, I was talking to Sharon Guzik and she's actually put her doing her single family house district on hold until she sees if this South Street district is actually gonna happen. So, you know, it's definitely not imminent, probably by any means, but yeah. So, you know, there's some super cool houses across the street though. And I feel like if this is another modern design, I feel like it weakens the idea of being able to create a historic district, even though that might be too far in the future. I just feel, I don't know, I'm on the fence too, Ryan, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, can I just hold you for a second? I just wanted to come back to Kit because I didn't officially finish with her. Kit, not that you can't jump in, but I didn't want you to think that you were getting cut off.
[Kit Collins]: Peter said what I was trying to say far more eloquently.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Ryan, go ahead to what you're going to say.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I just I wonder if. You know, say in theory, we declare this building preferably preserved and it triggers a demolition delay. I wonder if the property owner is going to engage because they have not historically engaged with us in the past. And although then in that case, it would be a self-imposed limitation on their ability to move forward. I worry that their past track record is gonna signal no change for this building in the future. just my concern there, too. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and just to clarify, I have not heard from the property owner since our last meeting that we did, you know, since we got tabled last month on this case, have not really heard anything since November except for the confirmation that they put their yard sign up for this meeting.
[Unidentified]: Well, I would...
[Adam Hurtubise]: Any other commissioners, but just to, I would also like to see if there's any members of the public or anybody else who has feelings or thoughts about this who's here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Once the commissioners are done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug, did you have anything else to add on this?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm a little conflicted as well because I, I see that if the project goes forward. This house, there is nothing there, they might as well be a new house essentially you know there's not even much of an echo of it but it's not again it's not a giant. Shining example is good examples on that street obviously that are but I'm, I wonder if the tipping point is already occurred it seems like there's a South Street project before it's like every year it seems there's another one, you know, going for some different degrees of transformation but none of them small. And I just, if that district was put together 10 years ago, we might be at a different place right now, but it's like, you can only lose so many teeth before there's nothing there anymore, in terms of continuity. And I worry about that, but I'm not crazy about, I wish the proponents were here, because I just wanna hear their thoughts about it. I'm not crazy about stopping somebody for 18 months just to stop them, just to slow them down. To me, that's not, They're not going to reconsider or look at trying to salvage something, and they probably won't because they've invested a lot in design already. Although we have seen that in the past. We have seen some people go back, the great architects we've dealt with before, where they've reconsidered design and try to improve it. That'd be my only reason to vote for to perfectly preserve this, is try to have some influence to see if we could I don't know, get something that we thought was maybe a little better from a design perspective. And I haven't given it much thoughts at all. I don't have any set ideas of what I think would be better. I just don't, I haven't gotten there. So it's, I'm like everyone else in this room, I'm a little bit on the fence here because it's a tough situation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I feel like if the, even though we're not supposed to take into consideration the future design. I feel like if it was more sympathetic, I don't mind the house being renovated and put to good use and even added on to or whatever.
[Doug Carr]: As an architect, Peter, do you see a path where somebody could possibly do that based on what you've seen so far?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I think it could be made better, I suppose, if I don't particularly know how willing this one would be, this owner would be, but just the fenestration patterns, you know, a lot of the windows are horizontal kind of awning windows or something that make it, give it this modern look. But I mean, I just don't know if they'd be willing. So from what Ryan's saying, he says, I doubt it. So, you know. Yeah. I think that there are ways that you could walk, you know, I think that, you know, they're designing within the existing footprint. So I, I think it would not be difficult to, uh, you know, change some of the window designs around and doorways and, to walk the design back to something a little bit more engaging to the existing neighborhood. I still think that they can keep all of their additions maybe in the back and maybe change some things around so that the front roof line isn't so changed, so the streetscape at least is preserved. But the question is, if they're not willing to engage, then that's not. then that's just going to play out for 18 months and then they're going to be on their way and do whatever they originally planned. Maybe in the meantime, all that we would get out of it is documentation if we push for that, but how good is documentation if that's there? In the meantime, I would continue the dialogue on is this building you know, is putting a demo delay on this building beneficial to Medford?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. Ed or Jess? Ed, I'll start with you.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I have to say that if I'm on the fence, I'm on the fence for no. I think that side of South Street is pretty much, if you look at what's going on there, except for maybe one or two houses near close to Main Street, pretty much gone in that three or four block area. If it were a situation like the houses built as quasi developments or eventually as complete subdivisions, where as a my street you will see people having done 10 or 15 different approaches to what you would do with this to a side by side house built in the 20s. You know, then I think they're all, you know, then I think, even from a social history point of view they're worth preserving. But this side of South Street, I think, you know, the opposite side of South Street, God bless them when they get a district. But this is, to me, not, again, whether you want to say not where you put the line in the sand, or simply there's just been too much done over time before, to say that, you know, you may be preserving the frame of the house, but not much more.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You're certainly not preserving anything close to what it looked like originally.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Jess, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: My immediate thought on this was, yes, but I wasn't here for the conversation last month, of course. And, you know, I hadn't gone to the property like Kit has, and I really appreciate the perspectives of The other commissioners who provided some more context about working with this particular developer. So I'm also a little bit on the fence. Yeah, I don't have much more to say than that. Thanks for the information from other folks. I think in situations like this, it would be really useful to have some more broad data on historic preservation in Medford. percentages of this type of architecture or something. I don't really know what it would look like, but I'm thinking about that a lot during this conversation. For some of these much more difficult decisions, how could some data help me with that decision? Brian, I know we're going to meet soon probably on getting some plans together for grant administration over the next year. Maybe we can talk a little bit about that and I can pick up some tasks that kind of like show some summary data that kind of help us say like well what are the other buildings like in this area without having to go by if you don't get a chance to or just being able to see the data kind of summarized I think that would be like useful for future decisions but yeah Ryan has so much information in his head he like knows like everything about all these properties and can remember like you know what's going on and for me I need to see like a spreadsheet or something I think.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think, you know, folks can look up information about context on MACRS. And then the commission has in its files some of the survey and planning reports. So although I have absorbed that over the years, it's available for folks. And maybe we should just put it online with the next round of survey just so folks can grab it. Yeah, I think you could have some very easily generate some data. Like, for example, it's easy for me to say, There's 900 pre 1900 buildings in East Medford where I am highest concentration but that does not necessarily mean that other areas like in and around Medford Square don't have equal amounts of concentration. It is, you know, an interesting building and I do want to point out. know, the term restoration is being thrown around here a lot. In the bylaw, it is, I just want to point out that the term restoration or rehabilitation is in there. Those are both preservation terms. The rehabilitation term is basically rehabbing the building and you don't necessarily have to preserve every element of it, but it'd be nice to have the look and feel of the type of building that's here, which is, as it's currently proposed, not in the spirit of that, which is why it got triggered for demolition delay review here. But some level of renovation, like perhaps maybe something moving to what we accomplished with 33 Vine, where the building was originally proposed to have extensive renovations, so they walked it back a little bit, reconsidered and got a much nicer project out of it. and the building looks much the same. So something to consider when we're considering that. Putting a demo delay does not necessarily mean preservation. It's great if people want to engage with that, but it also means rehab where, okay, maybe a one family becomes a two family or affordable housing or new living.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The other thing I'd like to point out too is that just a couple of things, just because the owner hasn't engaged previously doesn't mean they won't. And second, it's on them to engage with us to move their demo delay along if it goes that route. And they can choose not to do that, but they could also choose to try. And if we as a group say, okay, we're working with the owner and we've tried some ideas and maybe it's not really going to work, we've exhausted some options, You know we could agree as a group at that point like okay well you know we all tried the owner was willing to try, we came up with some ideas that didn't work we've exhausted all options were okay to let it go as is. So, I'm just kind of throwing that out there in the sense of I don't want to assume what's happened previously could happen now or in the future. From a real estate perspective, it's an ever-evolving market and things have shifted and developers could have different attitudes or I'm just trying to think of a word, different motives moving forward to move things along or not, you know, from a business perspective. That's all I'll say on that. The other thing I would just like to point out to the commissioners, we didn't really talk too much about was the, you know, on the form B is the, you know that it's eligible for a district under 2 criteria. And so whether or not we feel it's a good example or something on the street that the consultant, you know felt the need to kind of bring that up on the form be so just wanted to kind of bring the conversation back a little bit to that to some degree that the commit that the consultant felt that it would be a good addition. Now, whether or not it ends up in a boundary with a district or not, if that ever goes forward, it remains to be seen.
[Unidentified]: But it's there for consideration.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So I'd like to ask if there's any members of the public that would like to comment on this case. If you do, please either raise your hand or make yourself known somehow so I can call on you. You can put a message in the chat, you can raise your hand, you can take yourself off of mute or turn your camera on and raise your hand. I'll just give it a second here to see if anybody would like to comment. This is on 31 South. Going once. Okay, I'm not seeing anybody that wants to comment on this case, so I will close the public comments. I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Do any of my commissioners have any final comments before we take a vote?
[Kit Collins]: I guess I would say, recognizing that this isn't an owner who has engaged with the commission in the past, You know, if, if the point of what we're trying to do is to preserve sort of the architecture and and some of the streetscapes. I'm not sure that not that just saying, you know, okay well we won't vote for it to be preferably preserved. makes any sort of a statement about what we're actually trying to do. I mean, we can try to engage with the owner, but if we make the determination based on or partly based on the fact that they haven't engaged in the past, there's no point in engaging going forward either. And in fact, I mean, the fact that the owner isn't here to even comment says that it won't even be registered that there's been a conversation about this.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Kit.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody else have any comment? No? Okay. Okay, then I will close our Commissioner comment period. And then let's go.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: This is me. I'm here in the meeting. So maybe I don't know if it's important for me to talk or not. If you want to ask him, he can talk about it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Is this Nelson?
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi, Nelson. I... I'm using my daughter. Okay. All right. Hold on. I just... So, Nelson, can you just state your name and address for the record, please, so we have it for the minutes?
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Nelson Rivera, 264 Salem Street in Medford.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much. Yeah, Nelson, if you've been listening, if you have any comments on anything the commissioners have said, the floor is yours. Go right ahead. Thank you.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: I think what you made your concern a look is vertical windows, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: I think one of the major concern was some vertical windows on a face on a South Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, so that was brought up, what was brought up horizontal versus vertical windows.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: And I think... Yeah, you want a vertical, you want... I think you want vertical, not horizontal, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I guess the question would be, Nelson, is that would you be willing to entertain some potential design changes from the commission if we were to delay you? I know in the past, for example, I'll just use seven laureate because it's just something I remember.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: You know, there was remember anything or not, I cannot save anything.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, right. And so I know that there was a question there of like, you'd prefer to just ride that out. And then you wanted to build a new new structure there.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Because I cannot save the foundation cannot save the structure cannot save anything because of it. But this will be here. We're not we're doing the mind the work because I'm willing to work with you. Because we do minor work here just pretty much some dorms on the roof. You know, we're not doing a major work here. It is major, but we're trying to preserve. We can use some shingle colors or different colors, you know. Okay, so I guess... What kind of color the house want, what kind of house would like to see over there with... Because next door is a very modern home, so this
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, that's not something that we'll debate tonight. I think it's more, you know, the commissioners are trying to decide with regards to demo delay and, you know, if there's willingness on your part to potentially consider some changes, you know, to what was being built versus what's, you know, what the plans were. I guess the question is if you're open to that conversation, that might help the commissioners make some decisions moving forward with regards to the next steps here.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I am open to conversation. It's no problem. I'm open to the conversation.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Because I know if we do an 18-month delay, our goal is not to delay you for 18 months. Our goal is to work together so that we can lift you and you can get on with your projects.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. OK. Let's work together to get out what the best accommodating without a lot of delay. You know so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, all right. So I think, Nelson, unless you have anything else to add, I think that really gives our commissioners some options for their decision tonight on how they might vote and then we can vote and then we can pick up the conversation after the meeting or likely tomorrow and we can get you, okay. All right, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Nelson.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you, Jennifer.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, commissioners, based on that, does anybody have any comments before I call for a vote?
[Unidentified]: Let's vote.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right, for the matter of 31 South Street, there's a motion on the table to find for preferably preserved status that has been seconded. I will call your names as I see them on my screen. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Ryan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: Ed, you're muted. No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. And Jessica? Yes. Okay. So the motion passes. 5 to 1, sorry. Okay, so 31 South Street is preferably preserved. Nelson, we will reach out to you to get conversations started with our subcommittee so we can look at the design and work on that to get you lifted as soon as possible. Thank you, everybody. We will now move on to our... Nelson, go ahead.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: When are we going to get together? Are we going to do another Zoom meeting?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I will email you tomorrow and we'll get something set up, yes.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Okay, would you maybe commission tell us what kind of look, design, what... Yes, we will get you comments. If we change the front and start to see what they're kind of looking for.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I will get you all of that before we have our Zoom meeting.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So I will be in touch tomorrow.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Nelson.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you, Jen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, have a good night. Okay. Next up on the agenda, we are going to determine significance for 7 Hamlin Avenue. So last month, we accepted an application for 7 Hamlin Avenue. Tonight, we are going to determine historical significance. Commissioners, I sent around a form B. So if folks would like to read that and if you've already read it, if somebody would like to make a motion either way for significance. Let me just remind folks since it's been a few minutes since I read the definition. Any property that's older than 75 years in Medford with regards to demolition comes before us, we accept the application, and then in the second month, we determine historical significance. What that means is that the property is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or the Commonwealth, or that it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So last month we accepted the application for 7 Hamlin. Our consultants have prepared a form B which research is the history. Both of the people and the architecture of the property. The commissioners have that and have read it mission as I will take a motion for this property when someone is ready.
[Unidentified]: make a motion to find. 7 Pamela and. Significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay thank you Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Seconds.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you dad. Ryan go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Eight Hamlin that we looked at before seven Hamlin is a little bit different. I think it's a little less altered than its counterpart and the idea of a grouping of buildings owned by a single family. is a little bit stronger in this building. In fact, John Clemson mentions that this particular building was owned by the Hamlins and rented out by the Hamlins. So, although we didn't really find a lot of information about the early occupants that grouping of buildings owned by the Hamlins existed for some time. So when you look at those aspects of integrity, is location and setting and feeling still evident? I think those are evident in this particular building and that it does have a stronger case for significance than its counterpart across the street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: yeah i'm gonna i'm on the other side of this one, I just I think the strongest case for this building is actually the social history in the.
[Adam Hurtubise]: required for an infant halfway but it's often easiest to describe hold on.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead. Sorry, Doug. Go ahead.
[Doug Carr]: No, it's okay. I don't see a lot there for the house. It's gone through a lot of iterations. It's added a second story. I'm sure it was a very different house 100 plus years ago. I don't see a lot here. I don't see this as one where I'm on the fence. I think this one is just a no for me. It's just not there compared to the ones we've fought hard for. I just don't see it here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Peter, any comments?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm on the fence about this one as well. I think it's kind of a cute house. I feel like it has lost a lot of its architectural integrity.
[Unidentified]: I mean, the overhangs are there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I didn't find the historic part other than, you know, he was one of the originators of the The development or the original buyers, I think that's pretty compelling. But other than that, you know, the name association. It didn't seem it seemed like. An average type guy, I don't know, not super compelling to me, but.
[Unidentified]: And I felt like it was kind of. lost a lot of its character or whatever, so. Not 100% sure I'm going to vote on this one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Kit?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I have to say I'm not terribly compelled by this one either. Although, thank you, Ryan, for your sort of comments about the Hamlin, sort of the grouping of the houses, because that is interesting. But sort of looking around the neighborhood insofar as we can see from the street view, it seems like there are other there are other homes in the area that are probably better examples.
[Unidentified]: I put myself squarely on the fence tending to know. Okay. Hold on. Sorry, I lost my screen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Kit. Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I don't think I have much to add beyond that, that the, again, the idea that a lot of changes in the house, social history is there, but it's not a coherent block to begin with. And it's not necessarily a great deal of integrity. So again, that's where I come out from what I've heard.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Jessica.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I like the 20th century history of the, I think it's important to also preserve some buildings that have traditionally been occupied by renters. And I don't know how many tenant buildings we have, but I'm not sure if this one is going to cut it for me.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we have a motion on the table that has been seconded to find for significance for 7 Hamlin Avenue. I will go around and take a roll call vote as I see people on my screen. Peter.
[Unidentified]: No. Doug. No. Kit. No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica? No. Okay, so the motion fails 0 to 6 for significance. So that means that the project can move forward as is. So we will get you your letter out tomorrow or maybe by the end of the week. My day's a little jam tomorrow. We'll get your letter and we will release a hold on your building permit this week. So good luck with your project and thank you so much.
[Unidentified]: Jen, quick question. Yes.
[Doug Carr]: Do we have different protocols for perfectly preserved or significant the terms of asking for public I can't remember yes it's the only significance we asked but not and those are perfectly preserved or the reserve gets a public hearing is internal thank you thank you yes okay thank you
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, next up, we are accepting a demolition application for 28 Grove Street. Commissioners, the application is in the folder. There are actually, the application with the photos and everything, there was a mistake in the file, there was some characters missing. So there is a second application in there that's fully legible. So I will take a motion to approve or deny the application when someone is ready.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I move to accept the application as to form as submitted in its entirety.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Second. Thank you, Ryan. Okay, motion on the table to accept the application for 28 Grove Street. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Ryan? Yes. Ed? Aye, yes. Yes, thank you so that applications accepted 6, 0, We will have a significance hearing next month for this property. Right we need to order a form B. Yes, so moved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you motion to approve $500 for a form B for 28 Grove Street, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, Doug. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan, yes, Ed, yes, Jessica. Yes. Okay. Okay, so that motion passes six zero. So we will continue on next month with 28 Grove Street. And our last, no, sorry, our not last piece of business tonight. We are also accepting an application. We have an application on the table for the Carriage House at 91 Winchester Street. That is also in the folder that I emailed around earlier today. So we'll take a motion for that one when someone is ready.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to accept as to form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Motion on the table to accept the demo application for 91 Winchester Street has been seconded. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes, for the carriage house.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, thank you. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes, I think we need more photos and better photos. I felt like it was still hard to read that, maybe for the next meeting, get a little better information if possible.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sure, I can request that from the property owners.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes, Ed. Yes, Jessica.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Okay, motion to accept the application for the carriage house at 91 Winchester Street. Ryan, do we need a form B for this house?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second? Second. $500, thank you, Peter. Okay, motion to spend $500 on a Form B for 91 Winchester Street. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Ryan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica? Yes. Thank you. Doug, just to clarify, what more photos would you like? just so I can be specific.
[Doug Carr]: I guess the photos I saw didn't actually put it in much of a context of the main house and the surrounding abutters. It was a lot of tight details, but it was really tough to get a sense of the logic. The street view showed me more than the photo did.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. I will ask that of the owners to send over some more photos.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, a couple more global shots of the carriage house from a couple of different angles, front and back.
[Unidentified]: I think this should be pretty good. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, sir, I see a hand raised. Can I get your name and address for the record, please?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, of course. My name is Haosheng Zhang. I'm the owner of 28 Grove Street. Okay. And I got a quick question in terms of the historical review. So to what extent could the project trigger this historical review?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm sorry? I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So for a project, for a renovation project, what kind of renovation project would trigger the historical review?
[Jennifer Keenan]: That information is in our packet. It's pretty specific in terms of removing porches, changing of roof lines, full gut renovations, more than 25% demolition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see. So even if the main building, the shape only change the sidings, the window opening remains the same.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Windows and doors trigger review, yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, well, just replacing the windows doors with the same opening.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Your property is going under review, sir.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, yeah, I just want to confirm.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: All right, thank you. Okay, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, that's all we have for tonight for decisions and applications unless there's something else that I don't know about.
[Jenny Graham]: to clarify, Jen, for that decision, right, like that's made between the historical commission and the building department in collaboration, right, for- For review. For properties to come under review, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'm gonna hold on, hold on, Jess.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ryan, go ahead. Yeah, I would like to hear your answer and then I might jump in on clarifying that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, yeah, it's the, you know, we get us, every permit gets assigned to us. And the project is, you know, I review them. And then if I have a question, it goes to Peter, Doug, and Ryan as the demo subcommittee. So if they feel the project warrants review, that if it's, you know, if it's obvious or full demolition is automatic. If there's something that it's, you know, well, maybe, maybe not. But this one to me was automatic considering where it is on Grove Street, the age of the property, and the extent of the renovation that's happening. In addition, there was demo done already without a permit that was called out by the building department. Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I was just going to say, yeah, we administer our, our delay, not with the assistance of the building department, not within collaboration with them.
[Unidentified]: We are the administrators, they collaborate with us.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead, sir. We're not here to debate this tonight.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I know, I'm sorry, I just, since you mentioned the demolition already been done without a permit, I already talked to the building department, because that's for the garage, that's already been collapsed during the severe storm last week, a few weeks ago. The building is not really in good shape, it's actually being a hazard for the neighborhood. So it's kind of like, I have to do that to preserve, especially the historical building right next to the fence, the property. So that's why, yeah, I need to pay the fine to determine the building without permit, but the building inspector is okay with that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Again, we don't consider safety in our review. That's the building department and the commissioner that decides what gets raised and what doesn't from a safety perspective.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, just want to add that point since you raised the point.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yep. Okay. Thank you. Okay, then moving on to our last bit of new business, just looking to see if there was an update on the annual report. And I apologize that who volunteered to start that draft last month.
[Unidentified]: That would be me and there's no update yet.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, no problem. Thank you, I will I'll just keep it on for next month as well just otherwise I'll forget and it will be June and we don't have an annual report.
[Unidentified]: No, we don't want that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, commissioners does anybody else have any new business tonight? Okay, moving on to old business. There's nothing, there's no updates on anything that's under demo delay, which is only one property. Well, I guess technically two as of five, 10 minutes ago. I think that's all I have to say. Permits and subcommittees are moving along. It's gotten quiet from winter and from a housing perspective, builders have slowed a little bit. But we're keeping up on that. And thank you to Peter and Doug for CPA, we had a nice walk with our vendor for the Fieldstone wall last Thursday. We walked the length of the wall. We are hoping to start that project mid to late March. Ryan, has anything transpired since Thursday?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, a couple of things have transpired since Thursday so I asked the question, and this is just so that everybody's familiar with public bidding so the contractors about to submit an invoice for mobilization, but the question arose is whether or not they can. the city directly for the bid bond. And the answer to that question is no, it has to be an indirect bill. So it can be included as part of their bid price, but it cannot be a direct bill to the city. So I'm hoping that does not cause conflict with this contractor right off the start, but we will find a way to make sure that the contractor gets paid for their mobilization and work and get started on the project.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. So we are going to be working to ramp that up and get that going. They want to start once the threat of snow is finished. They might start some of the tree work and clearing before that time, but it remains to be seen. We have to get some of these initial bills done and paperwork started. Otherwise, we will be in good shape to get that started in the spring. And then hopefully, Palm's Wall will be right behind it in terms of the restoration that is happening there.
[Doug Carr]: Is it going to be renamed potentially Palm's Wall?
[Jennifer Keenan]: So I asked Kit if she could reach out to the Historical Society to talk to them about the marker that's there. Ryan and I talked about potentially removing the marker for right now while the work's being done. And I don't know how that works in terms of, you know, does it need to be put somewhere so it doesn't get damaged, how that works. And then talking to them about, you know, our, I mean, it's their plaque, so they would have to spend the money and get a new one done and rename it. And I'm not quite sure how that works. I asked Kit if she could reach out to them and we should start a dialogue with the Historical Society and see what is the best course of action for that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Madam Chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I also think it would be important and maybe others might agree that we engage with the Afro-American community in the city and try to get them to comment on what they would like to see as this memorial, because this is much bigger than just the commission's decision. It would be nice to rename the wall, but maybe there are others that might disagree that may be calling it the slave wall as a monument to that might be done more sensitively, let's put it that way. But I think everybody might agree that, you know, we've been saying that people might agree that calling it Pomp's Wall to humanize the construction there would be great. So I think engaging the other stakeholders here more than just us would be very helpful.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, I think that's a great point. The language of slavery has evolved a lot in the last 10 years. It's enslaved persons, it's all kinds of nomenclature that didn't exist even 15 or 20 years ago. I can reach out to the NAACP because obviously I'm part of that group and make that connection, but there might be other avenues we want to explore as well in the cities. I can do that pretty quickly. They just elected a new president. just a few weeks ago. So we can, I'll get that ball rolling on that front.
[Kit Collins]: And I'll reach out to the Historical Society. Ryan, is there, is there a person in particular that you can think of that I should start dialogue with?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I would start with their president, John Anderson, and then see what their, I would, I would ask the question of the board of directors there. They own the monument. So, you know, what would they like to see happen to the monument? And if it became that we wanted to rename the monument, whether they would want to save such a piece or whether they would want to alter their own piece. I don't know what you would do with that previous monument, whether they would simply melt it down and make a new one or what, because it's metal. I don't know. One can preserve that, certainly.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. There were talks at one point, At one point, we talked about moving the monument and turning it inside so that you don't have to stand in Grove Street to read it. You'd stand inside the park to read it. And then the conversation was, well, it's probably too cumbersome to move it and turn it. So we just put a second description on the inside. And I don't know if it's the same description or that's where the evolved one goes, whatever the decision is made. I think there's just so many conversations that could happen around it. Does it make sense to move it in a different place in the park once the fieldstone wall is done and there'll be kind of some access behind it? I don't know.
[Doug Carr]: I'm surprised the safety concerns haven't basically almost demanded to get removed from the grocery side, because it's just not safe to actually go look at it. You're in the street with no sidewalk. And I understand why it was done, because behind it was vines and weeds and forests for 100 years, and it was the best they could do. But now there's a master plan. The whole point is to Rethink everything right that plaque should be saved given it's a it's a marker in time that I think was important because it's it shows. the evolution of thought, because the new market that goes there is going to be in direct contrast to that. It's going to show, again, kind of rethinking slavery, rethinking the role in Medford's history, and again, humanizing the man who built it. And even Thomas Brooks Park, frankly, should be reconsidered as a name. is something we should think about, you know, longer term. So I think this is a great opportunity to kind of hit the reset button on all these issues, because they're really important. The role of slavery just kind of gets, it looms bigger and bigger every year, it seems, going back further and further into history.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jess, did you have a question or comment? I do think- Hold on, hold on, Ryan. Go ahead, Jess.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I just had a comment, which is, yeah, I agree with everything that Doug just said, and just adding care singleton from the royal house is probably a good person to talk to as well. Were you when you said that we should get feedback? Were you thinking like, in a survey type thing, or like, actually having kind of a community conversation about this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, I think we should have a community meeting. I think it should be stated what we thought the next step of that particular dialogue is, and then we should get the constructive feedback on what other people think. Do they think it's a good idea? Do they think it's a bad idea? And then what language, perhaps the community should decide what language actually goes on the next plaque or community plaques that we have in there. You know, because there, there are many different things that you could say about the wall but also you should talk about palm, and his story and, you know, I, the park, somehow, acquired the name of Thomas Brooks Park but I actually think. Thomas Brooks Park is actually probably named after Thomas Brooks, the first owner of the Brooks Estate, because it was originally called Gorham Brooks Park for when it was donated by the great grandsons. I think that the association with slavery came when the deed restriction required the city to perpetually preserve what is, quote, the old slave wall, but we should not be held to using that same terminology, our whole understanding of slavery has changed over the years. So we should certainly, our language should evolve with that.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I think let's preserve the structure. We don't have to preserve the exact name.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yep.
[Unidentified]: I agree.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So thank you, Kit, for helping out with that and keep us posted. So that is the update on the park, what's called the park from now on. The park that we are working on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Maybe we should have a community meeting just to start that dialogue and put a post out there and then maybe talk about the potential tree work and everything else that's about to start there, if so the neighbors are in the know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, let's talk about that. I mean, you know, maybe we can see like, does it make sense to just have it on our agenda next month? Or do we have a separate meeting?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I would have a separate meeting, I would, I would not burden ourselves at a normal meeting.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I agree. This could be more than big.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Remember, but Chili's?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm happy to help. Jess, thank you. Yes. All right, let's pow wow on that. Since it's historical societies marker, let's see what their thoughts are and maybe we host the meeting together because I mean, yes, we're doing the work in the wall, like on the park, and we're doing the restoration, but at the end of the day, they're a part of this too. So we should probably, if we're gonna host something, we should host it together, is my thought.
[Unidentified]: I'll reach out this week.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, awesome. Thank you. Okay. Ryan, any update on the survey projects?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so more on that. So, okay, so I've been told that brickyards we're going to receive a next the next phase of survey work soon so there'll be another back to the inventory forms. There's an issue, and I guess the board should be aware of it. So, the city's finance director. has said that money directed during the financial year should be used during that financial cycle. So if it's not used during that financial cycle, it disappears at the end and that whatever work that happens in the next fiscal year should just be a part of that next fiscal budget. So that means that right now, both Brickyards and Fulton Heights project that's potentially in the works, that's supposed to have been going under contract are both relying on the same match for the city. So I have alerted our department head, Alicia Hunt, that the city has to come up with the $18,000 match that is required for the project. So she is gonna work with the mayor's office to come up with that funding because we are required to have it in place before we start with the project. that's going to also ask answer the question or force the answering of the question of how do we make sure that the funding gets appropriated each fiscal year for these property projects because they don't simply roll over apparently that's not really allowed in municipal finance if you're doing the work in a particular fiscal year it should stay in that fiscal year so unfortunately that seems like our budget is going to be Eric Howard, PB – he or hers. uh budget hearings so there's a possibility that that funding may dry up and projects may dry up so um you know that's just a possibility but right now um Fulton Heights isn't under contract because the city has to come up with the funding for it Okay, thank you for that update. Okay. I guess one other thing begs the question, and I've been told to go forward with it, but it's up in the air. So we got invited back to another round of survey and planning projects, and so we've been told we can go forward with it. And if the city comes up with their budget money, perhaps this year, there's a potential that the next year's normal match that's in our normal city budget will be up for grabs and can be applied to this project. Does it make sense to just take a year off though? You know, this is a board decision. Does it make sense just to take a year off? And I ask that because we're probably guaranteed to get the money. certified local government and mass historical says nothing but good things about us and the work that we've been doing over the last decade. So, so long as the city is committed to the city meeting the administration is committed to continuing on, I'm happy to keep going. But it, you know, I feel like it's a possibility that we may not have the same consultants because the city's going to demand and I think the state's going to demand that we hire a consultant that can meet the new schedule. And in this case that I don't think that's the current consultant. I think that they're too backlogged right now that they may need some time to catch up. So should we move forward, and if we do, just know it might not be with the same consultants. And the proposed area that we're looking at is a second round in West Medford. When we looked at the West Medford community, we only looked at the Afro-American community on the west side of the railroad tracks. This time, we'll be looking at the rest of West Medford on the east side of the tracks. So that's Hastings Heights for all you people who live in that neighborhood.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, maybe it's a good thing if we have a different consultants and see what the quality of the work is we get. I don't know, I'm just kind of throwing it out there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, there are more than just the current consultants that can do work, they are well versed in Medford. So there may be some additional time spent getting that up to speed on Medford and the community at large, but that's not insurmountable to a consultant who does this work for a living.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think we could work on our outreach list a little bit to. Maybe try to find some other folks to make sure that we get it out to, or maybe some listservs or something like that beyond what we've sent out in the past for future project. I don't know if it's a financial issue, but it does seem like the financial issue makes it seem like if we apply and get more funding. When okay so I have 2 questions right if we get if we get more funding which fiscal year with that funding actually start in and also how many other projects in
[Adam Hurtubise]: So if we apply for this project, it's the next fiscal year.
[Jenny Graham]: So fiscal, what's that, fiscal 24, which is- So that would add to what you're saying as far as it would inflate our budget a bit for next year and make it more difficult for us to advocate for that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, let me say this. So if we did nothing and the city found a creative way to put funding in an account, and we didn't have to add more funding to next year's budget to cover the current projects that we have underway, then no, this would be, we would have it in our normal budget to accomplish this project. So let's start with that. So what's rolling forward is the fact that the consultants haven't started or are in process with Brickyard. So any unspent money from this current year has to be applied to that project. And I'm assuming that they might, finish in June-ish or July-ish. Some overrun is okay. They don't actually close the books on the fiscal account until you know, a month or two afterwards. So if there's some additional overrun, which there usually is processing of final invoices and things like that, they can do that. But for Fulton Heights, which hasn't even gotten underway, which probably wouldn't get underway until the next fiscal year, even though we have to have the funding in this fiscal year to meet the certifications, we have to also move that forward and apply for it as part of next year's fiscal budget, according to the fiscal manager. So that means that we have to have an $18,000, add $18,000 to our budget. And we can just say to city council, we didn't spend it this year and we need it next year because it's a project already underway. but how many other city departments do that same thing or assume that their budget's there and then have these things there? The budget would be all over the place. So I hope it doesn't cause mass confusion, but it's also gonna cause some backlash because as we know, there have been some people who are adamant that we don't receive any additional funding, so. You know, this is $18,000 that I don't, you know, I guess what happens at the end of the year is any unspent money goes into free cash and then free cash can be, you know, spent however the city feels it can or should be spent. But I guess the budget, you know, the budget is what the budget is. Good question, Ryan. So is this a bookkeeping issue more than anything else? I think it is in the past. The city had a way or did things that may not. I guess it is a bookkeeping issue for me. If a project started in fiscal 21, say a project started last year and you had those budgets going and those projects kept rolling, I, to me, would maybe keep charging back to fiscal year 21 until that project was completed and resolved. But what I'm being told is, whatever the work takes place between July 1st and June 30th, That's where the work should be built. And so because we've had these overruns caused by COVID and the delays that we had there, it's basically cascaded. And we kept moving forward and nobody told us that, oh, by the way, your project funding can't move forward. It can't just simply roll. You have to apply for it every year. And so For at least the last five years, I've been asking Aleesha Nunley and the finance directors, as we get closer to the end of the projects, to just simply roll them forward. And I was always told, yes, we can do that. And in the books, apparently that was done, but now I'm being told that can't be done anymore. And that when the funding hits the end of the fiscal year, it dries up and that you have to allocate funding to the new fiscal year. So use it or lose it, is that what I'm hearing? Yep, use it or lose it is exactly right. Even if you've encumbered it, so for example, even if you've encumbered it, it disappears. So we had several times where we had one project that the survey and planning grant was tied to our whole budget. So it was encumbered, but then we had other city bill and that was incorrectly done. And all the other city bills, for example, are our legal ads and our payments to John Clemson, those didn't get paid. Well, I just received a bill for 15 items from fiscal year 21, and all of those have to come out of our bill for this year because even though they took place in 21, the bills we received were now. It's cascading and I don't know what the deal is, it's making it extremely difficult and as I've mentioned to several people the amount of time that I've put in to help unravel this is is ridiculous and that it shouldn't take that much time and that I've pushed for additional city help, but the help has been slow. So I've let Alicia Hunt pick up the slack of trying to come up with the $18,000 for this project for Fulton Heights, and that's where I'll leave it at this point for administration because the amount of time, there's been too much time spent on this project, trying to get it off the ground. And, you know, I want other people now to pick up the slack here so that we can finally get this going, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So for right now, we have brickyards, which the product will be delivered before June 30th. That's what we're hoping. This year, and well, they're gonna have to. Or they're gonna have to bill us.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, so that's part of the debate, right? So the city, when they sign their contract with the state, they are obligated to hold that funding throughout the whole project. So it is not our responsibility for the city to meet their obligation. It's our responsibility to make sure that the city meets its obligation. So that's why it's it I have passed along the request that the city the state has told the city they have to come up with the match and the funds to be able to cover the whole project and then they will get reimbursed. They've known this from the start so and when they sign their contract with them they know that they have to have funding. So because of this issue that's on their plate now. So now this wrap that I'm doing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So we have we have um So we have this fiscal year, and we have a project for next fiscal year, assuming we get the 18,000 from the city for Fulton Heights, which will be next fiscal year, starting July 1st.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, so that's part of the problem, right? We will have, they need to come up with the funding now so we can get under contract with that project now. The next fiscal year's project, we're discussing whether or not we should move forward with the West Medford phase two survey.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I think if our next fiscal, since they haven't even started Fulton Heights yet, our next fiscal year project is Fulton Heights.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, that's now, that's right now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right, but we're not gonna meet that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, but that's the problem is that the state is requiring us to start the project regardless of whether or not the consultant can move forward or not.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't think we should apply for anything else until these two things get finished and or squared away. If that means we take a year off and we start again next year, I mean, this is a mess.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, yeah. We didn't just just so everybody's clear. We didn't put ourselves in this mess.
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is a game of the finances and coven and whatever but I think I think if we need to know whether the city is going to commit to the money for full nights. And if they don't. can we reapply for full overnight?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, no, it's not whether they will, no, it's they have to, so they will come up, they will be coming up.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Can't they just say, forget it, we're not gonna do this and we lose the grant? I mean, I'm not saying that that's what I want to happen, but- They've already committed in the past.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so two things they're working for.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But if City Council doesn't approve the 18K in our budget,
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, no, no, we're talking we need it now, like, right now, like, like, we should have had it back at the beginning of this year, the moment that if we've been working on it, but no, what we're saying is that we need it now. And that when, when the project rolls over, they've got to find a way of getting it into next year's budget. So they're looking into solutions like, you know, where can they pull from funding to come up with that? I don't, you know, I don't know where they're going to do it, but that's, when we had our meeting on November 4th to figure out all of these financial issues, the city, the mayor's office said, you know, if you run out of funding or if you come up with funding problems, you know, we will come up with the funding. So I'm, that we're now asking them to deliver on that promise because they need to. And then we will have to figure out next year's budget when the time comes by figuring out what has been expended to date and what we expect to spend next year because we already have these obligations already. And then do we want to add another obligation on top of that is the question. Because we would normally get it we would normally get it as part of our budget, but we could just simply apply that budget to unravel these problems, but I would rather not do that and keep moving with survey, but also, it may. Yeah. I just don't understand how we don't have an account that we could take it. I think the problem is that the funding is coming from the city budget and that the funding needs to come out of a city budget account and be put into, say, a capital account where that money rolls over from year to year. Other departments must have accounts that they can move the money into so that it doesn't interfere. State aid certainly doesn't disappear. you know from year to year capital projects like the money that you say you apply to a police station that spanned multiple years so I'm just I'm just not sure you know and and I don't understand municipal finances far too complicated for me but um you know I I think the problem is is that it came out of the city it's coming out of the city's budget and that we need to you know, set up an account that once, you know, once we know we're moving forward with it, you move it to that account from our budget, and then it's locked in for the whole thing. Because, you know, I would be concerned as somebody working for the city, for example, that if my funding was tied to something in the city budget, and city council didn't like the commission and wipe our budget, we wouldn't be able to meet our obligations, the project's dead right there in the water. So, but yeah, Well, you wouldn't want to over. I don't, I don't fully understand the problem even, but what you wouldn't want to do is overextend to consultants and then, you know, have outstanding bills to consultants that didn't have any funding.
[Unidentified]: I mean,
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. And that's part of the problem with Fulton Heights is that the consultants know, because we're honest and upfront with them, the consultants know that there's currently no money backing that project. So they're unwilling to commit to a contract knowing that the funding is overextended. That basically two projects are relying on the same match that there's not enough money to cover both of them. So we're doing our best. It is a- It sounds difficult. Well, yeah, it is difficult and it's embarrassing because we've asked for help and it's been a real struggle to get the right answers out of the right people.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, well, let's continue this because I think we need to
[Jenny Graham]: I'm wondering if we need to form like a budget subcommittee just short term to make sure that we figure things out by the end of this fiscal year. I do think probably because the turnaround time is pretty soon to get one of those applications and I feel like we do just need more time to get caught up on things and make sure that moving forward with the new city administration and whatever city administration exists that we have some documentation for how our budget works so that They have it we have it, and we have something to point to you know I'm happy to help out with some of this stuff for sure Ryan you have been doing so much work and I really appreciate it. kind of the worst year for a newbie to jump onto the, I'm trying to coordinate these projects. So I really appreciate Ryan and I'm happy to help. I know that's not what we want to be working on and it's really not what we should be working on really, but if it's required, just get our ducks in a row. I'm happy to help out.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It seems like there's a massive disconnect between the state and the city. Like, It doesn't roll over or not like and who gets to make that if the finance director is the one making that decision is that like citywide is that a state mandate or in if the if the state saying we have to have the money on the books like the right hands on talking to the left, but this doesn't make any sense.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, so the state, I think, first of all, Jess, I think it would be very helpful if we could establish a budget and we could establish a budget subcommittee, because I think I really do, I kind of want to, as somebody who's seeing all this stuff unfold, I want to have a better handle on how the municipal finances work, because the state is telling us, you have to have the funding, but they did not tell us and they made it clear, it's not their responsibility to tell us how we accomplish that, we just have to have the money. Now, what the city is telling us is that you can't simply roll the projects over, they've got to be included in the fiscal year. I don't know, and I could never get an answer, is that a decision of the finance director or is it a decision based on the way municipal finance works? And then, you know, we could not get the answer of what can we do to, you know, what alternatives are there other than just simply adding it to the following year's budget? Are there alternatives, you know, is there just things like that? So having maybe an explanation of how that works, I don't, you know, it's going to be complicated, but, you know, there should be like a one-page breakdown of like how the city's municipal finance basically works and here's your options for, you know, types of things you can do, types of things you can't do, because you know when we were asking them to roll forward the budget items that we needed to roll forward we wouldn't we wouldn't receive an answer from the financial director because at the meeting it came to light that oh you can't do that but he just ignored us so and that's not we needed an open line of communication not just between us I'm sure other departments are having the same issue so uh You know, and I know that there's a lot of backlog, but, you know, maybe having a one getting something from the city that says here's how your basic finances work because, you know, if you're new to this like, you know, new as a board member or new say a board gets wiped out. I'd have no idea what to do, how to submit things, all those things. So, you know, I've asked for a policy of, you know, and one of the things we asked for during that meeting in November 4th was, what's the policy on how the city's going to handle rolling things over? And we've asked that, you know, in December and in January, you know, has that policy come through and received no answer because the answer probably is going to be there is no policy for rolling that forward. But I've asked that they set one because it impacts the way projects are handled.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: It just seems logically, but even if it's nothing you borrow money for, this isn't buying school books. It's consulting work and you can't borrow money on it. You can't borrow money for it, but it's close capital that it is to buying reams of paper.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, in effect, we're buying the product. We're not necessarily, I mean, the service, there's a person behind it creating that product, but we're basically buying the product, the inventory forms and the reports, and that we're paying a service contractor, but I guess you would say there's a physical product you could tie to it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, well, thank you, Ryan and Jess. Anybody else wants to jump in on that budget committee to help sort this out? Because I think ultimately we need to just make the decision, are we going to start the next one and get that queued up or do we take a year off? And I don't know that we can answer that right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think we need- The next one meaning East West Medford or- Yes. The next one- East West Medford.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. The deadline for that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: mid February.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So yeah, that's could be March, but I don't think so. I think it's usually February.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So we're talking hold on. So we're talking potentially $36,000 between Fulton Heights meeting, we need that money right now. And then we need another, I'm just gonna assume it's the same amount, but it might not be, another 18,000 for our next fiscal budget whenever we do our budget meeting. Which essentially keeps our budget the same as it has been
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Well, no, that doesn't.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, year to year, that's that's half of our half of our budget, but that that line item has been in our budget for the past several years, right? It's a piece of our budget.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. And for years, you know, for years, it's just been the mayor, you know, before. the past two administrations it's just been oh we'll get you the money and then they come up with an account and then it gets spent and you know the city's looking into where that money came from and they said that it was a grant account which means that you know it's potentially that somebody just dropped funding in there from wherever and it got funded but you know I you know, yeah, they just at some point they just said, well, it's just easier to give you on a year to year basis. And when projects were rolling on a fiscal year to fiscal year that worked, but, and I'm hoping to get us back on a fiscal year to fiscal year, but also, you know, things happen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And both projects have been awarded to our current consultants.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right. So yeah, and so even if we do go for a new one, It can't go to them, it just can't. And then it has to be caught up that the work is done and billed in the fiscal year.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, so it's a public bidding process. So we will just open the bids, but it would make it very clear in those bidding processes that they would have to meet the demands of a rigid and firm schedule. And if they can't, then they can't. Okay.
[Unidentified]: All right, well, keep us posted. Let me know what I can do to help. Okay, can do. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody else have anything for tonight before we approve the meeting minutes? No? Okay. Peter sent around the meeting minutes. I will take a motion to approve when someone is ready.
[Unidentified]: Move to approve the minutes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Okay, motion to approve the meeting minutes from December 2022. I'll take a roll call vote. Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Ryan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jess? Present. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay so the motion passes 5-1. Well 5 and an abstention. Yes as Jess was not here last month so she can't vote on the minutes. Okay thank you everybody.
[Unidentified]: Move to adjourn.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Jess. Yes. Doug.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, please.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Ryan. Yes. Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Dinner time, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, everybody. We will see you on February 13th.
[Doug Carr]: Jenna, are we still doing virtual meetings? Definitely.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, well, I haven't heard that we have to go back to in person. I think we're through the end of March with the current thing. I think we're waiting for the governor, the new governor to decide what's going to happen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, so I, well, I guess that begs the question, do we want to go back to in-person? I will, there's no, I think last time we discussed this, there's no flexibility in being able to stream from 201, could stream from city council chambers 207. We could also meet at city, at the library and do a meeting there with like the OWL system where people can all see us That seems to work, but do you want to go back to in-person meetings with an online component?
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is not our problem to solve. This is bigger than us.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, no. I mean, the question for our commissioners is, do we want to go back to an in-person meeting?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: There's still a facilities problem. I mean, as Ryan just pointed out, and I presume we will not be getting the George Hassett Chambers on a regular basis. You know, you've got the owl at the library and that's about it. Other than that, public participation is going to, you know, you can call, yeah, we'll give you a number to call in.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm going to put this as an agenda item for next month.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. All right.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you all.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Good night.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, everyone. Good night. Thank you.
|
total time: 2.5 minutes total words: 202 |
total time: 4.3 minutes total words: 483 |
||