Community Preservation Committee: Medford High School Project Funding Strategy - 2026-07-14

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3-flash-preview from the transcript below, which is the record. It may be incomplete or wrong; it does not report votes. Every item links to the moment it began.

The committee recommended funding for the Osgood House restoration and Playstead scoreboard contingency while establishing a subcommittee to evaluate long-term CPA support for the Medford High School construction project.

1:56 Osgood House Restoration Funding — Approved a recommendation for $10,000 to the Unitarian Universalist Church for exterior repairs and the installation of fiberglass gutters at the historic Osgood House.
9:06 Playstead Digital Scoreboard Contingency — Approved $32,000 in additional contingency funding for the digital scoreboard at Playstead Park after project bids exceeded the initial allocation.
22:23 Medford High School Project Introduction — Discussed potential CPA funding for non-reimbursable elements of the high school building project, such as playgrounds, grass fields, and site trees. The committee agreed to form a subcommittee to develop a specific funding and bonding strategy for the multi-year project.
1:23:59 Administrative Updates and Potential Project List — Reviewed a list of approximately $3.4 million in preliminary project requests for the upcoming cycle, including City Hall limestone restoration, firehouse repairs, and park improvements.
1:37:01 Approval of Minutes — Approved the minutes from the June 9 meeting.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: to order the meeting of Medford's Community Preservation Committee on Tuesday, July 14, 6.30 p.m. We're meeting hybrid with some of us being located in Medford City Hall in room 201 and some of us joining via Zoom. And we are going to start the evening. If you need a moment to catch your breath, we're going to start with a You know what? Actually, to give you a moment to catch your breath, I'm going to call roll. Yeah, why don't we do that to establish who we have in the meeting? So I'm going to start online. Doug?

[Theresa Dupont]: And myself. It's like we're only missing Joan, which I think we had Joan was traveling, so. I'm sweating. It's all good.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Okay, so welcome. Welcome back. And why don't you reintroduce yourself and tell us again about your project. And for those of us who were here last time, I think that was some of us, you can tell us what has changed since you last presented your proposal. Super great. Great.

[Ammons]: Well, I'm glad to be here. I want to make sure people can hear me. My name is Liz Ammons, and I'm here as the person who submitted an application for the Unitarian Universalist Church of Medford for some exterior work on the Osgood House, which is the historic property that the church owns at 141 High Street, 1785. It looks beautiful now, is what I'm trying to say. because the exterior has been rehabbed. And it's important, I don't know if you want me to go through what I had said last time more or less, but I can. And I do have the photos up just so you know. Okay, great. So most of the exterior of the house is in pretty good shape now, but the gutters at the top, the wood gutters, are very rotten. You can see from the photo that that's the contractor actually sticking his finger through the wood in a place where it doesn't even look rotten, whereas other places do look rotten. So there you can see a good shot of where you can just look from the sidewalk and see the rot, which is why we submitted the grant. And then when he did more investigation, it became clear that it's really extensive on the gutters. and the crown molding right below the gutter. And so I came maybe a month ago with the original application, which said that we would like to put on new wood gutters because that's what's on the house. And we assumed that for historic reasons, we needed to duplicate that. But the committee recommended that we could use fiberglass because it will last much longer. painted, you can't tell the difference because you can get good facsimile, which is a great suggestion. So I went away and looked into that, redid the proposal, which you have now with the fiberglass gutters. The reason that we believe it's important to save this house and keep it in good shape is that it's an important historic landmark in the heart of Medford, right in Medford Square on High Street. And it also benefits the community as a historic landmark. It also benefits the community because it's part of, owned by the church, and the church makes itself available to various community groups, from the community-covered food pantry to various 12-step programs and other ways that the public benefits from the institution.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. Are there questions from committee members? Do I see a hand, Losa?

[Ammons]: This is a shot above a window where that would be part of the repair as well. You can see that metal's been put there, and it's rotted.

[Jeremy Martin]: Teresa, would you mind just running high level through the numbers that are in the updated proposal? Yes. Maybe there's a copy of it.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, I apologize. I do have a copy here. So the new proposal is split up into two. So there's the gutter job, which you're mostly throats, aren't you? I am. The gutter job, which I believe is 7,800 And then the storm windows were $1,200. So they are asking tonight, if you look at the budget sheet, thank you, Roberta. Please over your shoulder, my friend. So the work itself will come right to $10,000. So it was $9520, $9,520. So this comes in at that $10,000 threshold. So we added a little bit of contingency just in case he pokes his finger through something else that's rutted up there. So they're asking for $10,000 tonight, which would cover The estimate was a little bit after.

[Jeremy Martin]: And to refresh my memory, what was the request previously? Was it for $10,000 but for a different product, the wood gutters?

[Ammons]: That last time we actually, it was for $10,000. So we asked for $11,000, which goes above what these grants are. So we were happy to adjust. I understand.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. Would any committee members like to make a motion to recommend funding for this project? So moved. Second. I heard Jeremy first. Sorry, Anna. So I will call the roll on a motion to recommend $10,000 to the Unitarian Universalist Church for updates to the restoration of the Osgoode House. And I don't think we need any, because this is repeating a project that had been previously done, we don't need any conditions on this.

[Theresa Dupont]: No, but we could put our boilerplate, you know, all restoration efforts must be to the conditions line out in the Secretary of Interior Standards.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: I assume that's in our grant agreement anyway. That is in our grant agreement. So if it's boilerplate, then we've already covered it. Yeah. All right. So then I will call the roll. Doug?

[Ammons]: Yes. Congratulations. Let me say thank you. And also thank you for coming up with a suggestion for us to come back. I mean, I thought, oh no, I don't want to come back. We did a lot of work. But it really is a much better way to go with the fiberglass. So thanks for the recommendation. Orienting maintenance. That sounds nice.

[SPEAKER_14]: Less annual maintenance. Less annual maintenance. Any time the world's going to do it, it's special. It's very true. So thank you, folks.

[Theresa Dupont]: Thank you. I wasn't going to do any notes tomorrow about next steps, but thank you.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: All right. And then, I hate to ask something, but I, yeah, thank you for joining the meeting. Are you here just to see what's happening?

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Glad you're here. All right, then the next on our agenda is an off-cycle application for Playstead Digital scoreboard additional contingency funding.

[Theresa Dupont]: So Coach Erazio-Azarello, as you may recall, this is a project that we have funded in the past for $100,000 last fiscal year. Unfortunately, Coach was unable to make it tonight to support the project. But I have been largely the project manager for it. So I feel as if I can answer most questions that are had here. So essentially, they came to us. They want a digital baseball scoreboard at Mombo Ket Field, which is Medford Boys Baseball's home field. That's their home field. Right now, there is no scoreboard. They rely upon manual scorekeeping, which is just a little bit archaic in these modern times. So we put this out to bid. Thankfully, with the $100,000 that was already secured from CPA, however, bids came back a little higher than what we had anticipated. The lowest bid which will meet the project scope of work came in at $125,800.

So essentially now they're seeking additional funds of, we have it for $32,000 just to have some contingency. So essentially they're looking for right now $25,000 and then we'll tack on a little bit of healthy contingency to have that for the record. So they're here tonight asking for an additional funds in the amount of $32,000. Sir, can I help you find something? You're almost there.

[Theresa Dupont]: I'm sorry. Yes. Right. Right. So we're going to have to work on that.

[Jeremy Martin]: The garden looks great. It does, really. I'm very happy to see it. And it looks like almost 75% of them are planted out and looking green. Yeah, I'm excited about it. I've got a few neighbors who have plots there, and they're upset.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: For everyone online, there was just a person who came wandering down the hallway who needed to be given some directions. So Teresa, being her naturally helpful self, popped up to go give him directions. And we're just waiting for her to come back.

[Jeremy Martin]: I understand. And you're investing your time into making this garden.

[Suzanne Galusi]: That's hospitality professional. You don't just point somebody.

[Theresa Dupont]: Apologies. So they are here tonight seeking additional contingency funds in the amount of $32,000 so that we can bring this project home. Happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Any questions from committee members? I have a couple of questions.

[Myisha Majumder]: You had mentioned 125, and I see that on the request, but the bid that I saw in the drop box is 123.4, so just wondering where the rest of that is coming from. I know it's a small amount, just curious where the delta's coming from.

[Theresa Dupont]: Proclaiming that it's it's probably just a scrivener's error there. I had in my head 125 Okay, it is 123. They still would like to have 32 000 for contingency.

[Myisha Majumder]: Thank you Yeah, that's fine. Which is curious. Um, and then I had like a timing question so I think that on the bid it says that it would start no later than august 17th and no later than september 4th, but I think on your application, the start date is after their guaranteed end date. So would we get any new contract that has a guaranteed end date just to make sure we're safe guard there?

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, thank you for that question. So when we put out the original bid documents, that was our expectation for a timeline is to try to have this in place by September 1. We were informed by the bidders that that is not a realistic timeline. I brought it back to Coach Azzarello, and he shared that September 1 would be nice, but it's not an end-all be-all. So in the contract, new dates will be reflected as to what the current market lead times are. We've learned that the steel industry is Perfect.

[Myisha Majumder]: Yeah, I think also like September 15 I feel like it's a good date, I like I right now with like my job like we always try to start construction before like the first for us otherwise you end up having so many issues with the crowd so. Okay, and then my last question, sorry, is about the. The MWRA permit, I was looking into that for a little bit. It looks like you need to start 60 days before work begins. And in your application, you mentioned that for me is already underway. So just curious if you already submitted that application and what the timeline looks like so far.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yes, thank you. So yes, the MWRA, Massachusetts Water Resource Association, they have some utility easements to go through. adjacent to the installation site, so they require an access permit. Essentially, this is what we're talking about, an 8M permit that has been applied for about two months ago, so we're already in that 60-day window. And at this point, MWRA is just awaiting our final contract with the vendor, and then they'll sign off on the permit. So it's been underway, and it's just in a holding pattern right now until we can submit an executed contract to them. Notice to proceed is actually what they're looking for.

[Myisha Majumder]: Yeah, perfect. Yeah, it's the stuff I deal with all the time at work. Utilities for construction projects for solar take multiple years, so I'm glad it's only two months for you. Okay, thank you. That's all my questions.

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you. I remember a discussion about portability of signs and or of the scoreboard. Is that something that we have already baked into the conditions or am I jumping ahead?

[Theresa Dupont]: Just want to confirm, do you say portability as in able to be reinstalled?

[Theresa Dupont]: This would be something that could be removed and reinstalled later, yes. It would need a new footing but you know the actual apparatus that we're purchasing would be able to be reinstalled. Okay, remember the labor and over the language of that condition. Yes.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, essentially, this is just a large footing that's going into the ground and then this thing's being bolted onto it. So it's easy enough. I mean, I can't do it. I would need a crane or something, but it can be done.

[Ada Gunning]: Just wondering if they had any insight about why their estimate was off, just so we have that learning for future projects.

[Theresa Dupont]: I think it really has a lot to do with market volatility right now. When we originally got the estimates, we honestly should have added a little contingency. I believe the original estimates that were gathered for this came in at like 99 and change. So I think that's a learning opportunity that we should have added a contingency at that point. So maybe we wouldn't be here today asking for it. a little bit of additional funds.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: And if we had added a contingency, a 33% contingency would have been about what we needed.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah. So it's really a lot of just market volatility availability right now that really swayed the difference in costs.

[Losa Julie Genevieve]: My question is for you since I wasn't there of the, uh, when this originally came the first time, am I allowed to, um, vote on it today? I just don't, I don't just want to make sure.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Yes, you are. So what we are voting on today is to award new funds to the pro to the project. So you are 100% eligible to vote today. Thank you for verifying. Thank you. And I have a question that might be more of a Reg question than a Teresa question, but do we generate revenue from this field, or can we generate revenue from this field?

[Reggie Graham]: One of the reasons why we haven't generated revenue from this field is A, it doesn't have any lights, and B, it doesn't have a school board. OK. There's another reason, and that's the field condition, OK, which was addressed last year. not to the satisfaction of the users. If we make improvements to the field, I do believe that we could possibly generate some revenue. Andre Chiefs may come back. There might be some other suitors who might be able to come back because of the location.

With lights, it would be fantastic. And I think we could generate quite a bit of revenue because there's enough local baseball that could be played. Thank you.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: And actually, I have a follow-up question that would be a Zach question.

[SPEAKER_14]: Oh, no. So just leave three yeses before you go. So if I understand correctly right now,

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: If we do generate revenue from a baseball field, that goes into the general fund and it does not go back into the baseball field.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: So could it be possible for us to create a revolving account that enables the revenue from our ball fields and tennis courts to be dedicated to the improvement and maintenance of our ball fields and tennis courts?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Um, I think so. My understanding is that at least some of the pool and rice pond, there are some revolving funds in the rec department to my understanding. Um, I don't know why there wouldn't be for these purposes, but there are for other purposes. I would want to talk to them.

[Reggie Graham]: They do have some revolving accounts now, but it's strictly for the pond and the pool. Okay. Yeah.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: On the school side, we have them for Edgeley. So all the rentals from Edgeley go into our revolving fund there. It sounds like there's precedent there.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: There's precedent. I would love to see that because this amount of funding that we're being asked to pay out of CPA should or could potentially be coming out of recreation fees for use of our fields could be used to build lights in our fields and improve the surface of the fields. So I'd love to see that be possible.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: It's logical to me. We would need to receive a paper from the mayor.

[Jeremy Martin]: Is there a process if the mayor would propose a paper and say the council would adopt an ordinance? Right, yeah.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Establish the budgets of some sort of past general law process but I would not if I had my partner anyway.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: All right, thank you. Something to look into. Yeah, I can. So are there any more questions? Thank you. No. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for visiting, President Bears. Any more questions from committee about this project? Would anyone like to make a motion related to this project? Reg?

[Reggie Graham]: I would like to make a motion that we allot the additional $32,000 to the project for

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: with the same conditions that already apply to the project.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Thanks. And would anyone second that? I second that. All right. Thank you. And I will call the roll. Doug?

[Suzanne Galusi]: On behalf of Medford Public Schools Athletics Division, thank you very much for your support.

[Theresa Dupont]: Thank you. You should start seeing us probably go up in late September.

[Theresa Dupont]: So Coach was thinking about organizing an alumni game in the fall, which I think if this all works out, could be cool. If this works out. It would be nice. It would be nice. I like October baseball.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: And all right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next on the agenda, a potential project introduction for a new Medford High School outdoor amenities. Would you like to come and join us at the table so we can all see you?

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: I sent you a link like a half an hour ago. My apologies. The traffic odds are not today.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Um, so by way of introduction, I'm the chair, I'm Jenny Graham. I'm the chair of the Medford comprehensive high school building committee. Um, and you've probably heard about this project at this point. Um, but we started, uh, the mayor put me in touch with Teresa to say, can you have a conversation about like where there might be some intersection with CPC and this project and like largely the project. will be built outside of anything the CPC can do. It's a building. It's a school. It's all those things. But Teresa and I and the project team have talked a couple of times about where are there places where we could potentially seek support from CPA. And I think for me, my interest in all of this is to hear from you all tonight. what the interest and willingness is in a partnership on this. And as you know, like, as you may know, like this is a huge transformational, like once in a generation kind of project, and it carries a price tag that is huge transformational and once in a generation.

And so I think, you know, we all care a lot about keeping these costs like as reasonable as they can be for our taxpayers in our city, but also trying to say like, this is a chance for us to do something transformational for our students and as importantly for the community. So if you've been following along with some of the conversations we've been having, like we had a pool party at one meeting because we had a huge contingent of people supporting the pool show up. That's a thing that we all think of as part of the high school. It's indeed not part of the high school from the MSBA's perspective. And so for us to rebuild a pool, Um, the Medford has to decide to incur the totality of that cost where like the MSBA is going to cost share on the high school elements of the building that are reimbursable. And so, um, Teresa and I started talking after we, after the mayor put us in touch about like, you know, is there a way that the CPC could help support this project in some way on permissible uses? And so we've been brainstorming about what those permissible uses might be. and can sort of like walk you through and talk you through what some of those might be, but we're just here to say like, is there interest and willingness to have like a continued conversation? We're happy to submit an interest form and all of that good stuff based on what we have so far. And so I think Teresa, if you want to flip a couple of slides, I can, many of these are just here in case you have questions, but this, This slide shows you the proposed building. So everything in blue is the proposed building. The stuff in dark blue that you can see, that is a decision that the building committee has made to renovate our extensive gym and pool spaces. If we were to rebuild those spaces completely, they would be much, much, much smaller than what we enjoy today. And so the building committee said, no, we want to keep and renovate those things. So the building had to sort of like wrap around that.

And so everything in sort of that lighter shade of blue, if you can sort of distinguish those two sort of the arc around the L and the arc around it is would be new construction. So this is a big sort of monster complex project. And it is about, you know, more than just what happens nine to 12. That building today houses our nine to 12 students. It houses our MFN. It houses our central office. It houses Kids Corner, which is our municipal daycare. It houses our welcome center. And until COVID, it housed our pre-K programming. So the proposal, this building is intended to allow all of those things to be present in the next high school. And in addition to all of that, we will co-locate our Curtis Tufts program, which currently sits in South Medford on the opposite side of the city, into this space in a dedicated wing so that the programming needs of the students at Curtis Tufts are preserved and maintained, but they have ready access to connect to the rest of the high school offering that is really hard for them to access right now. So this project does all of those things, which is why you see such sort of a big sprawling building. But if you take a look at the diagram, and actually, Teresa, if you want to move to the next slide, this is sort of like, I think, maybe a nicer visual. That big sort of block on the, yeah, right there, Teresa, that's the back block there is what is today our gym and pool, right? The little piece that juts out in front of it, that's part of our athletic complex that we're choosing to preserve. That's our gymnastics studio, our weight room, and the batting cages, and one or two other things in there. Um, what's proposed is that the auditorium would then be located like on the other little like, um, if you go down. Nope. Other side right by the pool right there. That's the proposal is that that would be our auditorium, so it would be moved. And then the rest of what you see in the building at varying levels. Um, is our pre-K programming at that very base level of the jutting out of that building closest to the road. So the very ground levels of that would be our pre-K programming. So they have their own space and entry. Central offices, I believe, are over there. And then the academic programming envelops the rest.

The academic programming is intended to be really integrated. So today, even though we're one school, it still is very much, there's the academic side and there's the vocational side. And so there's going to be like a marrying of programming and adjacencies in the building that will sort of shift how that works so that the things that belong near each other are near each other. So for example, like the example that people talk a lot about is like construction craft laborers should probably be near the stage so they can support set design for our arts programs, and that's not possible today. So that's what's happening in the building.

Teresa and I have talked about a number of things that could happen around the building that would be permissible uses for CPC funds. The two fields you see that are sort of the big obvious things are intended to be turf fields, and my understanding is that that's not eligible for CPC funds. However, on this site, There's another practice field up there that's intended to be a grass practice field. It is a practice field today for the football team.

It's in huge disrepair right now, but the intention is that it can become like a meaningful practice field grass. Obviously, the trees all across the site are another sort of permissible use. The other thing that we've talked a lot about in collaboration with Friends of the Fells and DCR is stormwater mitigation, which I understand is also permissible. Obviously, we have had floods at the high school where the rain comes down off the fells, floods the loading dock, takes out the elevator, floods central office, multiple inches of water on the floor. So there's lots of stormwater mitigation because of where it sits relative to the elevation of the fells.

that is on this, that is sort of on the agenda here. And then I think the other thing that's really hard to see, but down by that lower practice field, there's like some faint yellow line. I'm sorry, down by the lower multipurpose field, there's some faint yellow lines in between there and the parking lot. Those are like built-in, that's like built-in seating for the field. So there's an elevation change there. and that would like sort of act as like landscape bleachers, spots to hang out, community use, et cetera.

And then the final thing that we've talked about, which is not easy to see on this, is that there will need to be two playgrounds on site, one for our municipal daycare and one for Kids Corner Meep, because they are two different age groups with different like early ed requirements for permissible spaces. So those are the things that we sort of have identified as like everything on the table, all the things that could be possible from a support perspective. And then I think, Teresa, if you flip to the next page, what we asked the project team to do yesterday is give us an understanding of what that total cost right now could look like if all of those things were part of sort of a larger package. Teresa did share that you all have the ability to bond separately for longer term projects and thought, you know, my interest is to hear from you all sort of interest and willingness to think about this as maybe that right project where you would be willing to do something like this because this does obviously add, all these things add up and If we were able to do something like this, um, the beauty of that is that would come out of the total ask of any debt exclusion that would go out to vote for taxpayers. And I think, you know, what I hear from people is. people want all of the things.

And also they want us to turn over like every single rock, right? About how we pay for those things. So here I am, I'm turning over this rock with all of you. And we're doing that in lots of different ways. Certainly trying to maximize our reimbursement from MSBA and looking at incentive rebates from National Grid and all the energy incentives and all those. So this is like a, very multi-pronged effort. But when we were meeting yesterday, Teresa said, we have a meeting tomorrow. And it just like sort of the stars aligned. And I said, like, why don't we just ask you all what you think?

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: So. I really appreciate your coming in and talking to us. I think this is a great way for this committee to be able to provide some early feedback on what might be included in a proposal for CPA. A little bit of a concern just from this list here. The stormwater mitigations are a gray area. So the purpose of CPA funding is for outdoor recreation, and there's definitely some of that on here, and for preserving open space and natural resources. If Joan were here, she always has handy that matrix that the state gives us that defines those terms. Well, here we go. Matrix. This is our Bible of what we're allowed to fund. So open space is land to protect existing and future wells, aquifers, recharge areas, watershed land, agricultural land, grasslands, fields, forest land, fresh and saltwater marshes, wetlands, ocean, river, stream, lake, pond, frontage, beaches, dunes, other coastal lands, lands to protect scenic vistas, land for wildlife or nature preserve, and land for recreation use.

So stormwater management to protect the school isn't on the list. To prevent the school from polluting the park. would be. So right now we have a, like, it's going in the wrong direction. It's coming from the park into the school. But it does impact our playing fields and our recreation. So if we define what we're doing so that it aligns with these categories, that's what we have to do, is make sure that this is what we're funding. Yeah, Teresa can provide you with a copy of our matrix to help with that planning. The site trees, I'm also a little bit concerned about because trees in the middle of a parking lot are not really open space. That's just better. That's good parking lot design, but not necessarily open space design. Who has their hand raised? It's over here, but it is Doug. Doug.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: I'll go after that. Yeah, so I just want to be selective about where on the site we support trees. So it might be helpful if your designers, architects, were to draw a map that delineates the recreational areas of the site, and then once we determine this is recreation, then we can fund whatever improvements you need in that recreation area or that are supporting that recreation area. I think that could help both of these concerns is making sure that what we're protecting is qualified open space.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think that's totally doable. The numbers that you see are were picked apart from the estimates that went in for our preferred schematic report at the end of June. And so if we have to pick that apart further, that wasn't like a 24 hour exercise, but we can certainly do it. And just from a cost estimating perspective, like the next time, like we will do like an actual round of estimating once our construction manager at risk is brought on board in like late October. and they're the ones that are actually gonna build the building. So that is the round of cost estimating that becomes like the project scope and budget, which is like due to us at the end of January or early February. So we have these estimates. This is what we're, this like group of estimates is what between now and then we're gonna work with. We'll like, we can sort of pick it apart and put it back together in a variety of ways. And then that final cost estimating will be what we like. lock-in and what ultimately becomes a debt exclusion. So there's definitely some iteration to this project. But I think for the support to be able to be provided as part of the package when we're considering a debt exclusion, that vote will happen in the spring of next year. So that's why we're here now is so that we can think about what support is possible before that happens.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: I would love to come back to that because I have some thoughts about timing, but I did want to recognize Doug who had a question.

[Jeremy Martin]: I have a question and a couple of comments after Doug as well. Okay. Thank you.

[Doug Carr]: Sure. Look, the thing that this reminds me of in a very different scale is what we did in the library about four or five years ago with a CPC I'm pretty sure I funded about a couple hundred thousand dollars, I think, Roberta. I don't remember the exact detail, but I thought it was a history room and maybe a little bit on the exterior from the landscaping, I thought. I thought that's what it added up to. I went to that high school. I certainly see the need for a new one. I'm 100% on board.

with that but just again just scale like the contingency for this project will represent I think 20 or 30 years of CPC funds total just like you know big picture here so we have to choose our battles and I think we can come up with some creative ideas but it's going to be it's it's it's not going to move the needle on the project I know you're looking for every and all resources you can get and I I get on board with the project, and I certainly believe in looking, I should say, under every rock for more dollars. I'm not being negative here. I just wanted to say, obviously, we have 2 point something million dollars every year, and it's just going to be It's hard for that to have a huge impact. It might have an impact on the visual side if it's a very prominent project, like a playground or something like that. But in terms of moving the needle on your budget, it's hard for me to imagine that, even with a couple of years' worth of CPC. And I'd be curious what Roberta thinks about timing too, because obviously our cycle is just beginning for this next one.

you know, you've got a few more years of design, a few more years of construction, you know, we're really talking about four or five years down the road before we're actually, this money might be spent depending on what it is, but I'll just leave it at that and let the other commissioners speak. Thank you.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah. And I think, Doug, you're totally right. Like this is not, this is not going to change in a substantial way, right? Like the total cost of the project, however, it could help, right? Like, so, and I think, you know, what in my mind, like, you know, Waltham built a new high school and they didn't need a debt exclusion. That's like, would be my dream, but that's not who we are. And that's not where we are. And instead we're here in Medford and these things, like every penny does matter. And so, you know, I want to make sure that we are thinking about all the ways that we can save. And even if it's not, you know, an order of magnitude of the project, I do want to be able to, like, tell our residents that, like, we are trying to do what we can to mitigate what we're going to ask them to do, right?

And so is it symbolic? I don't know. Maybe you could say that. But I don't think it's even symbolic. It's about how do we try to look for all the places where we can take the bite off of this project? I don't think anything we can do here, or maybe any of the other rocks I'm going to go turn over, is going to change the bigger project. But could it take the bite off? in the years where it's like the worst, maybe. Like maybe it could do something like that. And the cash flow of all of this is like super, super complicated. And we're working with the mayor and her team to understand what the cash flow is, because there's the bond, and then we're going to take it out in multiple chunks. This is a three-phase implementation of the building. It's going to happen over like six years.

all of those things tally up to a really complicated cash flow. And when the cash flow is really complicated, what it means is how taxpayers will feel the project is equally complicated. And so what I often am seeing from other communities is that there's a bell, right? And so there's a peak for some number of years that hurts the most. And so I don't know, maybe there's a way to bring down that ceiling somehow through all of the rocks that we're going to turn over and make that feel better, particularly for people who are on fixed incomes, are seniors, et cetera. So yeah, I don't think this is a magical answer by any stretch, but I think it's an option that I want to be able to say we looked at and we considered. And I also know that this money is super coveted in Medford. It's a pot of money that were it not to exist, our parks would get nothing. There wouldn't be no scoreboard. All of these things would not be able to be funded at all. So I think weighing the balance of what those possibilities are versus the possibilities that exist to create even more accessible open space at the high school is a real question for this group to think about and to talk about. So yeah, I totally get it. Thanks, Chairman.

[Jeremy Martin]: Thank you. Thanks for bringing this to us today. I know you're at a point in the process where you're either about to or maybe just got feedback from MSPCA on what will and will not be reimbursed. Have you gotten that? And it's the list that you're showing us. Are these definitely things that won't be reimbursed or we're still waiting for some of that?

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Um, that's super tricky. The real feedback from them won't come until like January or February of next year. There are some things like the playground for kids corner will not be reimbursed. That's super clear. Yeah. All of this site work is interesting because they do provide reimbursement, but they have pretty low caps. And so every project exceeds like what that site work cap is. So, um, this is like a fraction of the site work. So there's again, there's probably a conversation to be had about how all of that fits together. But, um, if the city of Medford is funding it, then, um, you know, we could work with the MSBA to make sure that they're clear on what those things are. But I mean, the site work is one of our big cost drivers that's a little bit unique for Medford from many of the other projects that are going on across, you know, when people talk about Waltham, they talk about, you know, Brockton, people are talking about these contemporary Salem.

The site work at Medford High is like next level compared to all of those projects. We sit on a giant piece of ledge, we sit up on a hill, there's a huge elevation change from the street. So the site work is like, super substantial and a big cost driver for us. So even if you funded all of this, this doesn't like scratch the surface of the site work. So I don't think we would, I don't think we would trip on MSBA reimbursement, but we can learn that.

[Jeremy Martin]: And I think I'm asking that question because I know you're, I think I know you're going to get a list at some point that says here are the things we're not paying for. And so your priorities or opportunities of what we could fund as a committee or help fund. make changes at some point as you get that list back. So, like others have said, we're not committing to anything today. We're necessarily in our next cycle. But as far as what we would support, I'd be really, I think this is a great opportunity for us to make an impact in this project. Maybe echoing a little bit of what Doug said and thinking about scale and impact, what would be meaningful seems like something that people can, the community can tangibly, like say, CPC funded this. That's not to me things that are like baseline requirements like stormwater mitigation. It's things like a playground or tree planting in appropriate places where we can say, hey, this is a like a really measurable and experience. It's something that people can experience as having influenced and impacted the outcome of the high school project. So as we're thinking about this, as a committee and as you're thinking about with your design team of other opportunities, those things that are bite offable and holistic in a way that a playground might be, to me, that's very appealing. So that's just my thoughts on it.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: And for me personally, I would love to see the legislature lift their ban on turf. I know turf is like, I keep waiting for someone to magically solve the turf problem and like find a way to grow grass magically in urban areas that don't need to be rested. But, you know, those to me, like when you look at the map, right, like those are the spaces that could be like so big and visible, and they're not permissible at this moment. Although yesterday I was like, I'll send it to the current legislature and I did. to say, is there an opportunity to revisit that? But I think when you talk about playgrounds, those are obviously big permissible things. But I guess my other thought is, could this be a package that the CPC is supporting with a variety of things that could be really visible?

by virtue of being on this campus in this moment, at this time where we're going to be out asking taxpayers for money, it will be visible, right? Those are the kinds of things we would be really having to talk a lot about to secure votes. So yeah, I think there's a lot of questions and comments to come.

[Jeremy Martin]: It could be like we're funding a part of a larger package perception of what we've contributed. And I do think to the question about, or the comment about like community perception, people wanting to know that you've looked at every opportunity to fund this. There is the reality that these funds are also taxpayer funds. And so we should be careful to avoid any perception that like we couldn't find the money in a debt exclusion. So we tapped into CPC and now we're sort of taking from a pot of money that we've already given. So there is some complexity there. And that's why I think if people can say, oh, wow, my CPC funds went to this thing, that may be more convincing than, yes, we used a chunk of CPC to pay for this big package. So again, just things for us to consider as we get into more detail.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Thanks. Other questions from committee members? Reg, I don't know if Reg can.

[Reggie Graham]: I just had a question. I mean, I know you said that the site is primarily ledge.

[Reggie Graham]: Yes. I was wondering, how much of that pre-existing trash is going to be affected? Is it near the back on the other side of the gym? Is that where it's going to be?

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: I don't exactly remember where it is, but it is towards the back part. And it actually, in the site investigation, it was smaller than I think I had heard. So it is there, but it's not.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: That little parking lot up in the corner there, up in the upper right corner.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Okay, so that little parking lot is totally surrounded by dumped building materials, which are probably, I'm guessing, city buildings at some point that were dismantled and dumped in that field. So that's just an example of what I picture as trash.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Oh, no, no, there's like trash in the ground. It was a trash dump at some point in time.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yes. But that we have been in contact. We are talking with DCR. because they are like our neighbor on three sides. So we have been talking with them throughout this project and we're scheduling a site walk with friends of the Fells and we've been partnering with them because obviously like our intention is not that there's like Fells and school and like no transition, right? Like, so that transition is not something that's ever been cared for before. And it's our intention to care for that in this renovation. There's a lot to come, and that building material is on the cleanup list, for sure.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: So the playgrounds, the two playgrounds that you're describing, would those be available to the public outside of school hours? Yes. OK. Oh, I'm sorry. Ari.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, I want to agree with parts of what was said and disagree with parts. I agree that we should be using CPC money and we should make sure it's visible. What I disagree with is that the visibility means we can't also do the fundamental work. And I think that groundwater mitigation is as important, even though I agree that a playground is better public messaging. I think that we should put a lot of strategy around allocating as much money as we reasonably can without losing our ability to meet other goals. I think for a few reasons, one is if it's going to be what, a minimum six year project, a substantial chunk of our funds, I'm not saying all of them by any means, but a substantial chunk of six years,

as one of many sources, does genuinely move the needle substantively, even though a small amount. Secondly, I think it's very good public messaging that we just passed this override to increase our funds. And if we're saying this is such a community priority that we want another overlay, I think saying, we're going to kind of prioritize these funds as well. I think that makes sense. And I do think it is genuinely, like, whatever is in our remit, I think that we should divide them up into subprojects. I don't think it should be an all or nothing. And that way we can divide them up over years or weigh them against competing priorities. But I think that this is a citywide priority. I think it's important for us as a community. I think we should put our money there.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Thank you, Ari. Maybe that leads to the thoughts that I wanted to articulate about the timing and the debt exclusion, you know, with respect to the debt exclusion. It feels as though you're asking for the debt exclusion you need to have a budget in mind, meaning you need to figure out how much CPA funding you're likely to ask for. So, but I know that I have gotten the impression from my fellow committee members that we're a little bit wary about committing too far into the future, hampering future committee members from being able to make decisions about the use of funds, especially if we're not going to be using those funds actually. If we make a commitment today for funds that aren't going to be spent until five years from now, then we're really making a decision for the committee five years from now. And so that might be an uncomfortable position. But as Ari just mentioned, the taxpayers have already

funded a lot of, you know, put trust in the CPA program to fund a lot of work that overlaps with what we're doing in the high school. So it makes sense to tap this funding source to reduce the amount by which we have to increase taxes again. So, you know, maybe to help with timing, we could develop You could map out what your specific asks for CPA funding might be in total, delineating the areas that would be qualified recreation and open space areas, according to the categories on this sheet. And then what are discrete projects within that? And we could, you could maybe develop a timeline for applying for funding for those discrete projects. So it's kind of like creating a high school CPA master plan. And each year, according to that timeline, you come in and request the next project that's in that master plan. And my prediction is that future CPCs will be very supportive of meeting that master plan without necessarily making that commitment today. for the entire thing all at once. And some of those may be more than we can commit in a single year, but a lot of the asks, when you show that budget of what the specific items might cost, a lot of those asks would fall within what the CPA program might be able to fund in a specific year or over two years. So you might be able to fund a lot of that out of our budget over the next six years before having to ask for bonding of CPA funds. So I think there's a CPA funding strategy that could be developed here. Small words.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and I think I'll bring that back to the team. My question about that process is, does that change definitively what our debt exclusion ask would be? Because if the money is not, like, we have to be able to guarantee the total project budget in order for the project to go forward. And so if it's not guaranteed, then it still has to be part of the debt exclusion. Could it still be useful? Absolutely. Could it help sell the project? Less so. So I think that's, I just don't know the mechanical aspects of that, but I can find out how that would work.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Okay, so I don't know the mechanical aspects of what kind of commitment you need going into the, and so there's another scenario. If you need a full commitment up front, because I'm just talking about doing this on a large project in Somerville and mapping through this exact strategy of how this might work. You make the full commitment up front, and then each year, according to your strategy, you can make a request to reduce the debt exclusion by the amount of the project that we want to do this year out of current funds. So it's like we commit, say, You showed 9 million just to use that number. I don't know if that's what we end up with. Commit 9 million debt exclusion now. And then next year, you come back and say, we'd like to request that you swap a million current year's funding and reduce the debt exclusion by a million. and then the following year you could do that again so that we can reduce the debt exclusion over time, taking back some of our CPA funding capacity before you ever draw the debt.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think all of that is possible. I think, you know, when I think about needing the community to come and say yes, Right? Like they, I think the community, I think there's a swath of the community that is yes. And I think there's a swath of the community that is no. And then I think there are the people in the middle who are like, I don't know if I'm a yes or a no. And they want to know like what this is going to cost them. I think everyone wants to know what it's going to cost them. Even the people who are like, yes, they still want to know like what it's going to cost. And so I think the question becomes how can we, how can we communicate effectively about, like, the more complicated the cash flow is, the more complicated the messaging is overall. And so obviously, like, this is a, like, in one way, a complicating factor if we're going to do this, right? But I think it's, like, worth doing because it means, like, net less cost. So we just, I think we just have to figure that out. The city is working on, like, the cash flow aspects of this project over the next, like, month or so. So there's probably going to be a better answer on the cash flow side probably in line with your timing around when you want an application.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: So I think that's the good news is like. That's another question to come back to. I'll recognize already first.

[Ari Fishman]: This is a question potentially for Roberta or Teresa. Can you explain the kind of mechanics of what CPA bond looks like and functions as, because I don't believe I've been a part of one. And my understanding is that this ask is not exclusively about kind of our typical funding cycles, that it is also raising the question of this other mechanism we have. Can you do a quick overview on how that functions, both practically and kind of philosophically?

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Sure, sure, I'd be happy to. So we can bond CPA funds. So we can draw a bond or recommend a bond against future CPA revenue. So if, for example, a, I'm trying to think of a recent example that I've actually had, a $5 million bond, we might then, We recommend $5 million. They're able to go out to bond the full $5 million. So we're recommending a bond authorization. So we're saying you're allowed to draw a bond of $5 million. they won't actually draw the bond until they're ready to use it. Once they draw the bond, then for the period of the bond, it might be 15 years or 20 years, depending on what kind of asset they're building. For that period of time, we're making payments that come out of our CPA budget every year. So this year, our full CPA budget was $3.3 million.

It's a two point two points. That's our budget. Okay, two point three million dollars was our full CPA budget. People are asking us for two million. Just flip it around. Yeah, thank you. We'll give you a raise, Reg. The annual payment will come out of the $2.3 million budget we have. So it might be $300,000 worth of payments annually. And so in the future, instead of a $2.3 million budget, we'd be deciding on a $2 million budget.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: We do not. That's not part of our, we don't have a say in the terms of the bond, the interest rate or the length of payment. Is that a city decision? City decision, bond council, you know, the finance people who, you know, it's a function of what the state allows you to borrow for certain types of capital facilities. So the city could decide strategically how much flexibility they have and what is the best term. But we would be given what the debt service payment will be on the day that they actually borrow. So we might, until the bond authorization is borrowed,

we might need to set aside that $300,000 annually and just not spend it to make sure that, should the bond, the debt service come due, we're prepared to pay for it. But it doesn't have to accumulate. We just have to make sure that we always have the minimum debt service payment ready until we know the schedule that is going to be drawn.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: When the bond is drawn, we'd learn the actual interest rate. I think that the city would decide the term, the length of time before the bond is drawn.

[Jeremy Martin]: That's what I'm getting at, is that we could agree to do that. We're a little bit at the mercy of when the bond is drawn and whatever the city comes up with. If they say, we're going to repay this in five years, it's a different story than we're paying it in 30 years. and our obligation.

[Reggie Graham]: We would still have the, well, we would still have the X amount of dollars that we would have, which we wouldn't have to spend until it was actually spent, right? We don't have to pay back until it's actually spent. Right, yeah. So, we could be accumulating funds. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You put that $300,000 to, well, God forbid.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: We have a meeting scheduled, well, I don't think it's scheduled quite yet, but with bond counsel for this project in sort of a bigger way. So I can put this on the radar for them to know that this is possible. Because I think in the context of this project, we are talking about how many loans are we borrowing, and the timing, and the amounts, and all the things. have given them that advance notice, like they probably could give this group sort of a read on what they think would be likely or feasible so that you could all know that as you make decisions.

[Ari Fishman]: I would want to hear that information. I think that it's worth our committee being in those conversations. Like, I'm open to considering it if it makes sense. And hopefully others are with me.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: I agree. I really appreciate being part of this conversation early so that we have the opportunity to ask questions of the Bond Council and your committee as you go along, so we can be part of that planning process. Did you have more, Jaron?

[Jeremy Martin]: I did, but I can stop at any point. I think it's all fascinating. To the two scenarios you proposed, outlined earlier. I wonder if there's a third where you all say that you're going to pursue CPC funding for some of these projects, and it is an incremental thing that you come to us one year and say we need a million dollars for a playground, and the next year we need $500,000 for trees. And we're not trying to subtract that from the total bond amount, ultimately, because we may not know all those numbers up front. But at the end of the day, CPC will have funded part of that. And I have to imagine when you get to the end of this project, there will be unforeseens, there will be additional funds that will be needed. And we're almost like offsetting some of those eventual costs throughout the process so that at the end of the day, whatever we have contributed as a committee, you still have to use to cover whatever close out costs. We see this with all of our, not all, but many of our projects. You get to the end of the project, we need another $20,000 or we need another $50,000. It blows up the project. We're not trying to figure out all of the math up front. We're just saying,

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: we'll support wherever we can, and that's going to come off of the total, regardless of when that's sort of advertised or... Yeah, I think one of the things that's super interesting about these building projects, like I hear in the community, everyone's like, well, whatever they say it's going to cost, it's going to cost way more than that. That's actually not... the experience most communities have with MSBA projects. It's the opposite. So whatever is bonded, people typically come in under budget.

I think there's so much rigor in these projects with the MSBA that that's part of it. But I think generally, people who are building schools are good stewards of taxpayer resources and try to make good decisions along the way. I think money that doesn't have to be paid by the taxpayers, no matter how it comes, is good. But I do think these projects, I think the one exception to that was when costs sort of went through the roof in 2022, those projects sought state relief because the escalation was way more than they could have imagined. Um, my cousin sits on a school committee in Southeastern Massachusetts, and they were one of the, they were one of the building projects that just was like, we, we aren't going to be able to finish if we don't have some relief. So, um, and that was the year we submitted an application, like in earnest, and we were delayed because they could take many fewer projects because of all the escalation that was happening in the live projects. So. Generally speaking, projects come in under budget, under what the taxpayer ceiling is that is set with the debt exclusion. But not paying money in your monthly taxes, however it comes, is good. And so I think that's another thing to explore. I think that will be less impactful in terms of the taxpayer conversation and the pitch, which I care a lot about. And I think people really want to know that the best time to do this project was 10 years ago. That's just the truth. And here we are. So we're moving as fast as we possibly can anyway so that the escalation doesn't continue or increase. But yeah, I think there's lots of ways that we could do this. So I appreciate all the conversation because I think having you all as partners in this would be great.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Awesome. Thank you. Yeah. One last thing is when you would need the CPA commitment, because it sounds as though it doesn't align with our application schedule. So we might be looking for an off-cycle request from you for, from my understanding of our conversation tonight, you might make an off-cycle request for the full amount that you expect to bond. And then that could be accompanied by a strategy that takes into consideration the actual timeline of construction so that the CPC might be able to reduce the bond authorization over time to something that we can not commit so much of our future funds toward. So something like that, but we'd be looking for that When do you need the commitment from the CPA?

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: So I don't actually know, but the timeline for the building committee is that the final costs that we will like contract with the MSBA around will come at the beginning of February. By the end of February, the mayor will have signed the project scope and budget agreement that sets the price. And we're a construction manager at risk project, So they will have set a guaranteed maximum price. So like that price is the price or less, right? Between the end of February and the beginning of June, there's like a series of actions in terms of like the board of the MSBA reviewing the project, agreeing to the project, all of those things, and the city's being able to spin up a special election. the election would be held in early June, so that it happens before school is out, before everyone has had it out for summer, so that there can be some real participation. So I think in terms of when we would need to know, I don't think we would need to know by February. I think we would want to know by end of April, because that's when the conversation in earnest is going to be about the debt exclusion. But I don't know how that lines up with your timeline.

[Theresa Dupont]: I think it actually does-ish. Because we're making our decisions in December, going before city council in January. And applications are due when? Applications are due September 11th.

[Theresa Dupont]: And there's not a lot of room for wiggle room, it sounds like. But yeah, I think we could make this work.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: And I think from my perspective as the chair, I see it as our job to move this project as fast as we can, because every day that we wait, it costs more money. So it's already enough money. And frankly, if you are a student in this school today, you're not going to benefit from this. If you are an incoming freshman, you're not going to benefit from this. it's incumbent upon us as a community to move as fast as we can. So that's why we are moving at the speed with which we are, is because there are whole generations of kids who could have been served by a new building, and instead, there's no heat in the winter, and there's no air conditioning when it's hot. And sometimes, yeah, exactly. The theater lights don't work.

You know, the building is in terrible, terrible need of work. And so every, the other thing for me is like every day we delay is a day that it becomes more likely that we're going to have to replace a roof off the building that we're going to replace. Like that is what like, we're, we're sort of like racing the clock in some ways that is unfortunate, but we're just doing the best that we can to like push,

like the envelope on the speed of the project, you know, wherever we can so that that is less likely because that's just going to cost us more money in a lot of ways.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: So great. I would actually welcome being part of a conversation about a CPA finding strategy. So I don't wait until you come back here to find out whether we like the idea or not, but absolutely. Or whether it's basically eligible, like it's, it's a, All the committee members are here to decide whether we like it or not. But whether it meets the basic eligibility criteria or whether there's a way that we can approach it that is a more efficient strategy for using CPA funds, I'd be happy to help with that. That would be great.

[Theresa Dupont]: Do you think we should have a subcommittee so that maybe a couple other members could also?

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Would other members be interested in being in a subcommittee? Yes, I see definitely at least one yes.

[Theresa Dupont]: Okay, you want to overextend yourself some more? You know my story. I do. So that way you can talk to the subcommittee to bring it back to the regular meeting about what was discussed.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Okay, that's a great plan and when we have a subcommittee we will also take minutes and post the subcommittee meetings and everything just like we have to. Yeah, that's awesome. Fine, thank you. And I cannot let you walk out of the room without asking about the Curtis Test cupola. Yes. Will we see an application to preserve the cupola before we have to dismantle it?

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yes. You got two applications from MPS for the, there were two applications that went in yesterday, maybe? One is for the cupola and the stairs, and the other is for a playground study at our other three elementary schools. And I think Curtis Tufts is an interesting adjacent question to this project. So it is our intention to move the students from Curtis Tufts into the new building when it is ready for their space, which I think is phase two of the project. I don't think Curtis Tuft's movement is phase one, but separately, it's always been our plan for all these things to be housed in the high school. That is the plan, right? But the results of that plan are that this is a big project and it's very expensive. And so we're sort of saying at this moment,

Is there anywhere else, right? Like that's the question. Is there anywhere else that makes sense that is more cost-effective? And the mayor has signed a contract to do a facilities assessment of the Curtis Tufts to figure out could it ultimately be used for something that could help like reduce the scope of this project. So like, could something else like relocate into Curtis Tufts? that is currently planned for the high school. I don't know what that will bring. I also know that we have talked about other possible uses for the city. Like I haven't heard like as part of the finance task force, I haven't heard anybody say like, we're gonna sell off that building. Like I have only heard people have a hundred uses for it. I'm not like me personally, I'm not sure it actually is like, a huge great fit for any of the programs that could move from the high school campus. But like I know Medford Rec is in the mix. So the mayor's team is looking at what it would take to retrofit that building to have a different use than it has today. And it's like it's more than just ADA accessibility. There's no parking there. Like there's a whole bunch of things. That's, again, like us turning over every rock. We know how much it will cost to put these things in the high school. If it will cost less to put them in Curtis Tufts, we should have a conversation about whether that's a better decision for us as a community. So that's the work that's happening right now. So future use of Curtis Tufts, I think, is a question mark. But based on some very early conversations with Teresa, we put in the request for the Google Earth

[Theresa Dupont]: And an allocation from I think it was the capital stabilization funds for the conditions assessment on the facilities directors working on getting that underway. Yeah, that has been a priority for administration. So we should have some more thoughts about the conditions of Curtis Tufts.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, it'll be informative. No matter what lands they are right in the end. Yeah.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. No, I just know that a couple of years ago, the town of Arlington actually had to dismantle the cupola from their town hall because they let it get into such disrepair that it couldn't be saved. And so I hope we don't follow their example and we take care of it before it gets to that point. Yeah.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and I think that's why we put in the application this year just to say whether it's some MPS use or some other use, it is historic and worth preserving.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: And no matter how we use the building, it's going to have a cupola. So let's fix it. Yeah. Yeah.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: So yes, you got that yesterday. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Awesome. So yes, I'll connect with you and Teresa about subcommittee. I'll bring those thoughts back to the team and we can sort of work through this together. Like I think the team would be super excited to talk about this. We have an SBC meeting on Monday. So not Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday next week. So I will give them an update that we had this conversation that I was here. People want to watch the meeting, et cetera. Just so the SBC knows what's happening. They obviously also care a lot about how much the project costs. and what it's going to take to make this happen. But yeah, you all are welcome to join us anytime. And if anybody has questions, reach out to me individually. I'm happy to answer whatever they are.

[MPS Member Jenny Graham]: Awesome. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Get home safe. Thanks. I think I have to go drop into the council meeting, and then I'll go home. Well, there you go. All right.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. So, Vicki, next on our agenda is administrative updates.

[Theresa Dupont]: I don't really have anything too substantive. Technically, today was our deadline for our eligibility determination forms, or EDFs. This is essentially our expression of interest. If you need to turn that, yeah, good luck. So our EDS forms, it was due today. So I might still get a couple in. I might have a couple in my inbox right now. I'm not sure. But I did put some together of what I've gotten so far. And that was that 3.3 number. So honestly, I thought it was going to be a little higher.

Grants continue to be very competitive and even more so every day. And I think screen share. Thank you so much for putting this together, Teresa. I don't want to spend too, too much time on it, because again, it's not fully baked. It's still, you know, technically the deadline's midnight tonight. So if somebody's watching at home and I don't want them to worry because we're looking at it now. So just really quickly, I'll just do a very quick review. I don't think we should have too, too much discussion on it at this point, because there'll be much more time for discussion. So we'll have our Affordable Housing Trust come back for some annual funds. We just funded our Osgoode House project here.

There is a desire from the facilities director. We have a new facilities director. He's been here almost six months. Wonderful. He's very energetic and he has identified quite a few projects. One of them being the city hall facade restoration. There are some areas where the limestone is coming away from the facade. It's an aesthetic thing. Drinking fountains, which is something that this Board has supported and encouraged in the past, but now they're actually coming back to us with a full application. Trolley theater and City Hall conditions assessments for both of the buildings. At this point, one does not exist for either. So let's maybe do like a full comprehensive conditions assessment for both buildings.

City Hall elevator ADA improvements. The elevators is, reliable for the most part, you know, but is there an opportunity to look at the elevator again? And the stormwater mitigation over at Chevalier Theatre, the basement, which is the gym, gets water inundation coming in through various holes in the foundation. So just looking at doing some lighter restoration there. We'll have a couple of projects from the fire department. There are three historic firehouses in the city. Three, four, and six, that is going to be, three is Salem Street, four is Riverside Avenue, and then six is up in Fulton Heights. Again, some stormwater mitigation issues there, basements flooding, and it's starting at station three.

It's actually coming in through that large hose tower that if you drive by the building, it's got this very tall, it looks like a giant chimney, it's actually a hose tower. And then up at Fulton Heights, some ADA improvements, the entrance that people use apparently a lot of the time when they're visiting car park, they go to station six to go use the restroom there. It's not ADA compliant, so it's challenging. Cupola repair at Curtis Tufts, we just touched on, so schools are applying for that. And our friends at Shiloh Baptist have expressed interest in coming back for the final leg of their stained glass window restoration.

[Theresa Dupont]: So that's historic preservation. But wait, there's a little bit more. When we look at our open space, we funded tonight the baseball scoreboard contingency. Again, thank you very much for your support on that one. We have seen a athletic court resurfacing project from our friends at the DPW once every year for the past 15th year. So this year's at Victory Park. One good thing on this one is they've said that when we finish Victory Park, all of the courts are at least in fair condition. Victory's the last one that's in poor condition. Huff's Park gets flooded. as I'm sure Reg was very aware of, Flood 6. So they're looking to do some underground stormwater collection area to, you know, protect the field from further flooding. You said Vidconza. Yeah, it's still a stream.

Yeah, I saw the maps where it's like, oh, this has an underground river going through it. It's kind of, it's interesting. Um, some park tree plantings, uh, for the forestry division in the past, we've allocated some funding for that and they've drawn down on it for like a few fiscal years. So that would be the idea here. Our friends at PDS, the planning department, um, want to apply for a new playground study at Barrie Park. I have not quite received the EDF, the eligibility form on rights pond floating swim dock, but I think that would be an interesting amenity.

Roberta and I have been in conversations with our friends of Felsmere Heights to do a conservation restriction on a portion of Medford land and kind of protect it as open space up at the old Malden Hospital site. Malden is doing the Malden side, so they're asking us on Medford if we would be able to contribute some CPA funds to protect that land. A few more. Here we go. Metro Public Library, we funded the patio. It's wonderful. They love it. They have some shade issues over there, so they're looking to do something very similar to what we did at Riverside Plaza with a permanent shade installation for the patio.

As Jenny mentioned earlier, there's a request to look at the three remaining elementary playgrounds. This is the Brooks, Roberts, and Misitoch schools. Those playgrounds are in not great shape. Our friends at MIRA, which is the Mystic River Watershed Association, they're doing this great project. They've actually come, they came to us a couple months ago and presented on it. So they're asking for a little bit of design funding here to do the Mystic River shoreline revitalization path.

Trees Medford, this might, this number is a ballpark. I haven't gotten the EDF have not received a grant form yet from them. This might come in as a small grant, though not quite sure what the funding is, but they would like to do some intentional plantings. On the college outside of Berry Park, where we had originally thought about keeping gardens on the tennis court side. Yeah, because right now it's just dead grass strip. So maybe we should plant some trees on. Last but not least, Ben Barkin is a private

It's home harvests is his business and I want to say that's landscape architecture. Don't quote me on it, but he has for a few years expressed interest in drumming up some local support for a skate park in place dead park.

[Ari Fishman]: And he actually runs the Arlington community guard or Arlington community orchard. It's a, I've worked with his company. He. helps kind of home gardeners set up edible situations. And the Arlington Orchard is open for everyone. It's a nice space. Nice.

[Theresa Dupont]: I'll check that out. Thank you, Ari. So right now we're looking, again, might have a couple million bucks. These numbers are estimates. They're not hard numbers, but we're looking at around just shy of 3.4.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: So we're going to have to sharpen our pencils this year. And we'll see who actually applies sometimes when the applications come in. It kind of helps things to shake out.

[Jeremy Martin]: Madis, has this gone through the filter of eligibility? These are all projects you have determined?

[Theresa Dupont]: These are the EDS, Roberta. and I are going to sit down and look at them as well as review with DPW commissioner as well as mayor. So, and then there's the appropriate channels of obviously things need to go to parks commission, but right now, more or less, these are largely eligible. There's a couple that I want to kind of like take apart a little bit, especially the like city hall projects, but largely these are all

[Jeremy Martin]: I was curious about the stormwater design in part because you mentioned it earlier as something that might not be eligible at the high school. Maybe there's a historic preservation angle to this.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, that might be the case. Historic preservation. But yeah, it will... I had a question or a comment about them and I can't remember now, so it's not that important.

[Theresa Dupont]: So yeah, again, these may come to fruition, they may not. Thanks for sharing all of this to share with us.

[Theresa Dupont]: So that's pretty much what I have for administrative updates. It's just to kind of bring you up to speed on what we're potentially looking for this year.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yes. Yes, we are. It was on the original unamended agenda. We can keep that under administrative updates. So yes, I had sent out an email with all the meeting packet information. And I think I teased in a couple of ideas about what we could do. But in August, we don't meet publicly. We have a social outing. And it's always a good time hanging out with you folks, not in this setting. So what would be easiest for folks to determine a date and a place? Should I do a poll? Everybody pull up their calendars right now. We can land on a date. What would be easiest for folks?

[Jeremy Martin]: I thought the poll you did last year was good. It eliminated me, but I understand.

[Reggie Graham]: Sir? Since we always meet on the second Tuesday, why don't we meet on the second Tuesday? That way nobody has to adjust their schedule. Look at you with your logic.

[Ada Gunning]: I agree with Red. Claiming a date and a location right now would be the way to go.

[Jeremy Martin]: I won't be here. Did you make plans for the 2nd of August? No, I wouldn't do anything like that. I don't think.

[Theresa Dupont]: Because maybe if everybody is available on an alternate date, I'll submit a poll. But maybe we pencil in the idea for, instead of meeting here, it's meeting at Tecuba, August 11. That's good. So I'll send out a poll for alternate dates and a location of folks. Because I don't think we've gone to Tecuba as a group.

[SPEAKER_14]: They don't, well, they live on the street. They have a great table, a big person table.

[Ada Gunning]: Mrs. Murphy's also has a nice patio. I mean, they both have outdoor seating. Mrs. Murphy's has the patio right next door. So that's another option. Yeah.

[Theresa Dupont]: True. All right, well, I'll send around a poll with maybe some dates and then to go by Mrs. Murphy's. would rather go on the patio at Mrs. Murphy's, but we'll figure it out. Great. And then I think the only thing that was left was meeting minutes.

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Yep. All right. So meeting minutes from June 9. Does anyone have any comments about the meeting minutes?

[Chair Roberta Cameron]: Or would anyone like to make a motion to accept the minutes?

Zac Bears total time: 0.52 minutes total words: 92	Jenny Graham total time: 33.6 minutes total words: 5290