Name: Community Preservation Committee 09/08/26
Uploaded: 2026-09-09
Duration: 1 h 44 min 52 s
Description: The committee recommended funding for five community preservation projects covering archaeological surveys, historical restorations, and park lighting. Members also reviewed the FY26 budget and finalized the 2026 meeting calendar with an emphasis on project tracking and public outreach.

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 five community preservation projects covering archaeological surveys, historical restorations, and park lighting. Members also reviewed the FY26 budget and finalized the 2026 meeting calendar with an emphasis on project tracking and public outreach.

1:10 Brooks Estate Archaeological Survey — Recommended $10,000 for a desktop archaeological survey of the 57-acre Brooks Estate and cemetery parcel. Condition: project coordination with M-BELT and the cemetery trustees.
23:55 FY26 Budget Review — Reviewed the funding availability for the fiscal year, confirming approximately $2.66 million in total assets against $2.58 million in proposed project allocations. The committee verified that sufficient reserves remain for off-cycle requests and small grants.
54:09 World War II Fountain Restoration — Recommended $167,800 for the restoration of the Angel of Victory and Peace fountain. Condition: the city must provide a long-term maintenance plan.
56:37 Cross Street Cemetery Monument Restoration — Recommended $126,500 for monument restoration and repairs to the perimeter wall at Cross Street Cemetery.
58:49 Shiloh Baptist Church Window Restoration Phase 2 — Recommended $150,000 for phase two of the stained glass window restoration. Conditions: identification of specific windows and submission of schematic drawings before disbursement; a motion to increase the grant amount by $35,000 was defeated.
1:09:01 Tufts Park Field Lighting Improvements — Recommended $432,000 for upgraded lighting at Tufts Park Field 2. Conditions: future renovations must prioritize the retention and reuse of the new equipment or require repayment of the grant funds to the CPA reserve.
1:18:04 Application Process and 2026 Meeting Calendar — Approved the 2026 meeting schedule and discussed improving the application process through earlier surveys and quarterly project updates. Members discussed increasing public engagement via park signage and tabling events.

[Roberta Cameron]: I'm going to call to order the meetings of Medford's Community Preservation Committee, Tuesday, January 13 at 6.30 p.m. We are meeting hybridly in Medford City Hall room 201 and via Zoom. And since some of us are in the room and some of us are remote, I will call the roll. I saw you say here, but I didn't hear you. We're good. Yeah, that works great.

[Roberta Cameron]: All right. So first item on the agenda is a small grant application for an archaeological survey at Rosa State. And I understand that we have Ryan Hayward here who can tell us about this application.

[Theresa Dupont]: I did make you a co host in case you did want to share any visuals, but.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I think I did my best to summarize everything in writing form this time, so I have no visuals for this application. Sorry to disappoint, but my name is Ryan Hayward. I serve as the vice chair for the Medford Historical Commission. As many of you know, the Medford Historical Commission, one of our roles and responsibilities is to work with the Brooks State Land Trust to help them and advocate for the Brooks estate. And as part of their ongoing projects, the commission felt that it would be advantageous for them to support those projects by doing an archaeological survey. And we're proposing that because two of the sites in the immediate vicinity contained high levels of archaeological sensitivity at Thomas Brooks Park and the Mystic Valley Parkway. So it's only logical to investigate Brooks Estate landscape to make sure that if there is archaeological resources subsurface that they be considered as part of ongoing projects. And the way that I've structured this project, there's usually a large buffer zone that a consultant, when they prepare these reports, does. So it also includes the seven acres of the cemetery trustees landscape as well. And they're aware and they're actively involved with this project and they're on board with it. So it's sort of a, I'm calling it the Brooks Estate Archaeological Survey, but it is, and it is the Brooks Estate per se, but it also includes that parcel just so it's clear.

[Roberta Cameron]: And I really appreciated the thoroughness of the application and the I felt myself that it was a compelling case for why this archaeological study is needed. Are there questions or comments from committee members?

[Adam Hurtubise]: I just have a question before we get into questions. Did the example that I sent around, I know it's not with the public application, but did the example that I sent around for Thomas Brooks Park, get included and sent to the board, because if not, I thought I sent a sensitivity report, but if I didn't, I can provide an example for the board just so they know and understand what that document looks like.

[Theresa Dupont]: I don't think I saw that. It wasn't included and it was sent to me. I apologize. I missed it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's OK. If any of the board members have questions about it, we've done one for Thomas Brooks Park. It's just not generally. There's a public version and then there's a not for public consumption version that I just wanted. I thought I'd sent around the not for public consumption version just so they understand what that looks like, but that's OK. So if you guys have questions, just feel free to ask and I'll. do my best to explain. Thank you.

[Jeremy Martin]: I have a question. Thank you. Ryan, I'm reading through the process here and understand that this is, I'll call it more of a desktop review. Is that kind of a fair way to describe it? Yeah, yeah. What do you see as being the next steps after this report? What does it lead to in terms of action and further investigation?

[Adam Hurtubise]: So as part of the request for the consultant, if we hire a consultant, one of the things that we're going to ask them to do is to tell us what those steps are for three things. One, what are the highest areas of probability to avoid construction in areas that we can avoid construction? What do we do to mitigate ahead of time through a planned removal? And then the third one is, what do we do if we accidentally come across stuff? because there's always the possibility that you can do a sensitivity report, but it really can be a shot in the dark. So we'll have all those answers. And it's sort of a template for this site and any other site that the city might be working on to just say, you can take those same recommendations and apply them anywhere in the city.

[Jeremy Martin]: So it gives you a kind of protocol for dealing with these kinds of things?

[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, thank you for that. And then it is a very thorough application. Personally, I'm a map guy, so I appreciate seeing a map. I don't need to see 1 now, but does this cover the entirety of the state? What are the kind of extensive the report that would be considered?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so it's the 50-acre Brooks parcel, then the 7-acre cemetery parcel. So that's everything that the Brooks Estate and Cemetery owns that's largely undeveloped. And then there's a 2,000-foot buffer on all sides of that, extending into Winchester, Oak Grove Cemetery, on Grove Street, et cetera, that you can say with certain level of certainty that there'll be some level of importance there. We did talk about extending further into Oak Grove, especially the older section known as Rock Hill. That's the section that if you're standing at the Brooks Manor House, the 1880s manor house, the section of the cemetery that's closest to that location. Because most of those graves were hand dug, there's a lesser chance that it's been greatly disturbed, so there's a high probability for archaeology there. And especially with the cemetery planning projects like road improvements and, you know, potential restorations, potential changes to roadways with the ADA accessibility. It might make sense to extend in that area, but for this project and to start, I'm just focused on the Brooks Estate because you have two very large projects planned there. You have the development of the seven-acre cemetery parcel, and then you have the Brooks Estate parking lot coming up.

[Doug Carr]: Thank you. Speaking of that, Ryan, the parking lot, I spoke to the pedestrian engineering. They're preparing the specifications, the final specifications, the drawings that this board had seen for the parking lot approved funding for at the last meeting. Are there pieces of this that we want to include in that spec since we can?

[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm not, I'm not sure. Yes, so I'm assuming there will be a review process with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, who I believe holds the easement on the house, right? So they might have a say on the archaeology and then this report will just help you guys to say you have an understanding of what the potential for archaeology is there. I would say. archaeological monitoring might be worthwhile while you're doing excavation and site prep there, yes. I don't know, because we don't know what's there yet, whether or not there'll be a need for, say, preliminary recovery if, say, there's a known important site to pre-contact material that may come up. um but it might not be a bad idea to do some like testing light after this report comes out to see like you know what that might what that might mean the the estate itself has multiple layers and what's nice about the brooks estate is that over the last 25 years, M-BELT has put together a series of reports inclusive of the master plan, but there's also a landscape plan, a land use and development plan. There's been multiple studies about how the property was used and should be used. All of that's going to go into this archaeological report. And I would say the archaeologist who does this report is probably going to have one of the best understandings of this landscape and really hone in on all that information and talk about where the areas have been most disturbed, least disturbed. And I would expect the area around the houses, the former house site and the current house site, have probably been pretty heavily changed. So I'm not overly concerned there. It's other locations. that have been less disturbed, that have been used as pasture or just open grounds, that would probably be more of the concern.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, that's fair. We should coordinate offline on this. I think the Mass Historical Commission, I think their purview ends at the building. I don't think it goes beyond the architecture of the building. So I think it might be under the DCR and trustees portion of the oversight, if you will, for the landscape in terms of any archeology.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. I did look up the DDs just to see, and it's written that the Historical Commission shall advocate for archeology among many things. Somebody has jurisdiction over it and there'll be a process involved with that.

[Joan Cyr]: Can I ask a question about the application itself? I was looking at the packet, Teresa, and I opened the FY26 Brooks Estate Archaeological Survey full, and I only see the application which says $15,000 total budget, CPA 10,000 request, followed by the Freedom's Way letter that talks about a $3,500 grant. So where's the full budget that points to that $15,000 and $10,000?

[Roberta Cameron]: My guess was that they might have requested $5,000 from Freedom's Way and were granted $3,500 and maybe didn't update the All budget for the project to reflect the funding given.

[Adam Hurtubise]: No, as part of my application, I. the amount that I'm asking for is, uh, Freedom's Way gave us the grant to kickstart funding. They're our seed, and, uh, the maximum that they were willing to do is the amount that I put there. And, uh, it's a two-to-one match, so we're asking CPC Small Grant to be the two-to-one match with the difference being covered by the Historical Commission.

[Joan Cyr]: Um, so usually there's a budget page Listed here that lays all that out.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm looking to see if I have it in my. My packet, because if I didn't send it Teresa, I apologize and I can send that right now.

[Joan Cyr]: So, I guess I'm still not clear. Did they offer 3500? Or did they offer $3,500 up to $15,000 if we match them? It's whatever the thing is there. So if it says $3,500, it's $3,500. It says $3,500. Yeah, it wouldn't be $15,000.

[Adam Hurtubise]: It's $3,500, but it requires a two-to-one match. So then on page one, it says total budget is $15,000, CPA funding request $10,000. So is that not accurate? That is correct. $10,000 from CPA.

[Theresa Dupont]: 3,500 from Freedom's Way, and then the 1,500 remaining will come from the Historical Commission's budget. So 5,000 in total is coming from other sources beyond CPA, Freedom's Way.

[Joan Cyr]: That's why we usually get to break down, because that wasn't clear to me. I was trying to figure it out.

[Roberta Cameron]: Another question is the estimate for this type of report. Is there any indication that can be given to us of what these reports typically cost or would cost specifically for this project?

[Adam Hurtubise]: It'll be a not to exceed, well, if I get that budget, but it'll be a not to exceed 15K. The consultants believed, that number comes from the two or three consultants that I talked to for these type of projects, and they said more than 10,000, but less than 15. It's going to be right in that sweet spot. It's not going to be any more than that. It is, as we mentioned earlier, it is a desktop exercise. They will go out in the field once to sort of review locally what the conditions are.

[Roberta Cameron]: I don't know if we asked the question exactly in our application, but that would be helpful information to provide is how you derived your budget. And so you've just given that to us verbally, but that would be helpful to have in writing.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I do have it out to, I have a preliminary project bid out to bid for multiple consultants and it's due tomorrow. So I may have actual physical numbers for you tomorrow. Teresa, do you want me to send you the CPC breakdown budget?

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, if you could, that way I can pop it into the packet and everybody feels more better about it.

[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. Other comments or questions? I actually have another comment or question myself. And maybe this is a question that we should have raised a long time before with Brooks Estate, but, you know, just, really came clear with your application. The question of who controls the easement or the conservation restriction that's applicable to this area and what permission, have you sought permission for this project or what permission do you need to obtain for this?

[Adam Hurtubise]: So Doug, you may have to help me with this, but I believe the Brooks Estate in its entirety, the 50 acre parcel has a management agreement with the city of Medford and that they are responsible for the management of those projects that go on in that. There is some additional responsibility that the city of Medford has a whole to support that organization. The Medford Historical Commission and I believe other organizations like the Medford Historical Society and various members of the municipality have official seats on the M-Belt board. So there is sort of a collaborative there. They are the ones responsible for management of that property. Doug, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Doug Carr]: No, you're right, but there's a conservation restriction on the land and there's a preservation restriction on the building, right, and those are held by outside state level parts, right, obviously the historic commission and the state for the building. So any changes that we made in a manner over the last 25 plus years have gone through the historical, mass historical mission. And Paul Holmes, I think, is the contact there. I've gotten to know him over the years. On the landscape side, it's the trustees who really have been the most active. PCR has, even though they're on the list of grantees for the restriction, I think they basically have not done a whole lot of oversight where the trustees come out almost annually, I think, and anything that we do goes through them, just like on the architecture side, it goes through the building and the state commission. So, for example, the parking lot project, the new president of MBO showed them that, walked them through that project and submitted the drawings to them. I don't know if she's gotten the written approval, I think she has, but that's not what I do, but that's what she's, she's the contact, the trustee. I think it's the trustees that they'll need to be in contact with. It's informational, because this is a tabletop. There's no intervention going on here. There's nothing. They're going to look at the history. They're going to look at every document that's been done for the last 50 years, I think. And they're going to make an assessment. I think there was a Palisade Court, where Pointer Rocks is, before that building. But pre-settlers, we know that from the record. Artifacts have been found over the decades. Native American arrow was found by one of the Brooks family 40 years ago. But so there's, I think there's a just kind of, they just have to contact the trustees and kind of go through that process, keep them informed more than anything else. They're not going to want to see anything like the parking lot because you're not intervening. You're kind of laying the groundwork for future work essentially.

[Roberta Cameron]: And I understand that it's the historical commission that's overseeing this project, not involved. That's correct. Okay, so then we need to make sure since it has a relationship with your conservation restriction holders, we need to make sure that that that's being communicated in this project.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'll just have Carly, Ryan, and myself kind of make sure that those thoughts are connected. OK.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. And just so it's clear, I had a meeting with both Carly, the president of Embelt, and the cemetery trustees to get their approval before coming to this board, because I had to do that for the Freedoms Way grant. So everybody's sort of in the loop as to what's going on here.

[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, just the importance of that communication, I have come to understand because in my other community, I've seen a project where they actually had to go and undo something that was approved by the local historical commission because their restriction holder at the state didn't like what they did. So that was one rough week. Yeah. So like, the more you know, that is a situation to avoid before it ever gets there. That's for sure. OK. I think that's everything that I have on this project. Is there any further discussion? Does anyone, would anyone like to make a motion to accept the application for the small grant application to recommend funding for this project?

[Doug Carr]: I think I should have stayed with Ryan, but technically we're on the same page.

[Roberta Cameron]: Okay, condition? Um, yeah, I would perhaps make a condition that, um, the, um, the historical commission coordinate with inbuilt and the conservation restriction holders. Oh, and you're right, and the cemetery trustees too, so that wasn't wrong.

[Theresa Dupont]: Let's do a quick screen share for everybody so you can see me.

[Theresa Dupont]: Okay. Great. Coordination or cooperation? Coordination. All right. Perfect. Excellent. And I'm going to stop sharing. Excellent. This will be included at next week's committee of the whole meeting where we'll be reviewing all fiscal 26 applications. So I'll see you again next week, right? Thank you, thank you.

[Roberta Cameron]: All right, so we still have some projects left over that we wanted to revisit with more information. These include the World War II Fountain Restoration, Cross Street Cemetery Monument Restoration Phase 2, Shiloh Baptist Church Window Restoration Phase 2, and Tufts Park field lighting improvements. So the, I think a few pieces of information that we were looking for since last month was to have a more concrete understanding of our budget that's available this month and so that we know exactly how much is on the table for us to spend and also for some of these projects to get a little more information from the applicants. Is there one that people would like to start with or should we take them in the order? or perhaps maybe the place to start is with the budget. You can walk us through the budget.

[Doug Carr]: Sure. Did we agree on the numbers last time or was that repetitions or we're still talking about numbers?

[Roberta Cameron]: We agreed on the numbers and conditions for all but these four projects the last time. Okay.

[Theresa Dupont]: Everybody should hopefully be seeing this lovely spreadsheet that we've been staring at for a few months. So I kind of just as a quick walkthrough, yes, we've had all of the projects listed, but I kind of went through and cleaned up all these various different little tables that we've been using and under consideration to hopefully make it a little bit more easy to navigate here. How do I make that not there? So just starting top left, this is our fiscal 26 budget broken down by category in the yellow. In the purple, this is everything that we've received at the estimated portion. Continuing down to the green bucket here, the prior year funding availability, that includes what we've budgeted for per category for fiscal 26, as well as the little ravy money that was left over from previous projects. This is again, you know, projects came in under budget or we just had a little leftover or what have you. It's in the blue upper. The total of those two is here in the blue, again by category. And then this was the exercise we did down here in like kind of the light buttery yellow. By scenario, it's if we were to funnel the projects as we kind of had a gut check at our last meeting, This is our total by category if we were to fund everything. I'm now going to scroll back up.

[Jeremy Martin]: Teresa, does that 2.579 include the projects that we are still considering this evening?

[Theresa Dupont]: Thank you. That's actually a nice little segue comment instead of saying, I'm going to scroll up. I'm going to scroll up to show that these are considering everything that we still have left to consider for tonight. Excuse me. Sorry about that.

[Joan Cyr]: So this- One question. One question. Does the total available include that undesignated fund that says it's not available until fiscal 27? It does not.

[Theresa Dupont]: Okay. That 572506 that Joan is referencing here is just the affordable housing, historic, and open space buckets. That undesignated fund, just so everybody is aware, is technically in our bank, but it's good practice and legal practice to not spend that money until the books are officially closed on that fiscal year. So that'll be available to us on July 1st, but not quite yet.

[Joan Cyr]: So funding, if we were to fund everything as you have identified here, that doesn't mean we go down to less than 100,000 or just about, because we still have that amount sitting in the bank. Correct. Okay.

[Theresa Dupont]: Now, again, it wouldn't necessarily be available to us until the turn of the new year, but it is technically there. So for scrolling up, last time we went through, we added this column of scenario funded. This was just like, well, let's pretend we funded everything as we could here. So that These these souls are being pulled again into our scenario funded by category. That makes sense so far.

[Roberta Cameron]: So I'm seeing the total available is 2.6 million and the total funded if we funded everything as shown is 2.5 million so.

[Theresa Dupont]: And that is accounting. I just want to also highlight that is accounting for reserves are calculated and active.

[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. Reserves, meaning the the amount that we're that we can touch. That we can.

[Jeremy Martin]: I know that one of the projects we're going to consider tonight, the Tufts Park lighting had some degrees of funding, some different levels. Which one are you accounting for in here, Teresa?

[Theresa Dupont]: I am counting for the 432, which was the lower tier of that. That's a great point. Thank you, Jeremy. The original ask was like 860 or so. which I felt like from gut check, nobody really was excited about funding that amount, plus it would just exceed our available funding. Anyhow, so the factor, I factored in 432, which is again, it's just for field two lighting.

[Ada Gunning]: So am I understanding this correctly that we could just fund everything?

[Roberta Cameron]: So the first question is, looking at the four projects, the Fountain Restoration, Cross Street Cemetery, Thilo, and Tufts Park, are there any projects there that we hold on to purely because we wanted to make sure we had sufficient available funds and would feel comfortable funding That question had been answered affirmatively. I don't know if my question was unclear.

[Doug Carr]: I guess my sense from the last meeting is that I thought there was consensus that the four products highlighted in green that we're talking about tonight were I felt coming into this meeting that we had pretty much agreed we were going to fund them at pretty much this level. That's why I kind of left the meeting at the last line. We can't reconsider it, but I thought they were all reasonable. And the Crosby Cemetery and the Shiloh to me were, I think, pretty important. And I deferred to Reg here, and he, I wouldn't have counted as much, but he was really comfortable with that. And I kind of deferred to him as an authority on that. that their ops wasn't being bored, because he thought that was the best approach. So that was his mindset.

[Jeremy Martin]: Karen. Sorry to take you back to the overall accounting, but if we were to fund all of these at the levels that you're showing there, just remind me again in round numbers, and we can assume we're in July 1st, what do we have left for off-cycle requests?

[Theresa Dupont]: That 225, we'll have that available to us until the end of this fiscal year for off-cycles, additional small grants. If another project comes and says, oops, actually we need maybe more, that 225 will be available to us.

[Roberta Cameron]: Okay, so I didn't understand what the reserves meant. The reserves is what we're holding on to in case of, okay.

[Theresa Dupont]: It should probably have a different name other than reserve, but yeah, because everything's called reserve.

[Jeremy Martin]: Just to finish the question, so the 225 is available at any time, and then in July, the 221 kicks in as being available as well?

[Theresa Dupont]: Correct. And later this spring, before the end of this fiscal year in May, we will establish our next year's budget too. So that, you know, if we don't touch that 225, and we'll have that 221, you know, we'll have an additional, you know, what is that 450, 440 available to us in addition to our fiscal 27 budget. So that will carry over if we don't touch it.

[Myisha Majumder]: Where is the delta between the 2661 and the 2579 going? That's like 81,000. Is that considered reserved? I'm just a little bit confused about why those two numbers don't add up, the available and the total.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, that's a great question. This is what we have in the bank, and this is what we're being asked to either fund or hold. So that 81, that delta would just kind of slide into the additional reserves. Okay, technically, it would be like closer to 300,000 that we would have.

[Ada Gunning]: Okay, so remind me if we fund the tough lighting project at the lower cost, are we saying we will continue to fund this project next? Like, is that that's the issue? Are we like, I did have funding it or is this going to be like a standalone thing like even if we never circle back to this project, we will have had an impact here.

[Theresa Dupont]: Um, I will say that, based on the conversations that we had that. I'm not answering your question exactly, but when we discussed this all as a group last time, there were concerns about, you know, if there's construction that comes through and wipes this out again, are there ways for the project to be saved or any of the elements that we're funding today for future? So I'm wondering if maybe there's, I don't think it would be a condition thing where we would say like for future funding, I'm not talking, I'm not explaining myself.

[Roberta Cameron]: What you just said scares me though. Yeah. What is the probability that we're going to turn around in the next few years and renovate that park?

[Ada Gunning]: And who, yeah, who is the person that is the holder of that information?

[Theresa Dupont]: So it is something that is still, on one hand, we know we have a stormwater issue at Tufts Park. Engineering, EPW have been trying to evaluate less invasive ways of addressing it without, you know, ultimately the greatest thing would be tear up the entire park, do some remediation underneath it, and then, you know, rebuild the park. Obviously that would be a large endeavor. So they're trying to absolutely paint. Are there less invasive ways to address it that wouldn't involve ripping up the whole park and ergo ripping up these new lighting fixtures being installed? So that's happening on one side. They're still trying to figure it out. So I don't have a definitive answer on this, but this is something that I don't know how we can condition this, but any future redevelopments of the park would have to not disturb this lighting. It just feels extremely backwards.

[Jeremy Martin]: I appreciate the concern from everyone. I do think that if there was a renovation project, there is the capacity to take these lights down and put them back up again without losing the asset. I mean, it's a good question to ask, but. having renovated some parks, I think there are ways that you can save that and reinstall it again without much complication or loss. To me, the benefit is still there even with the potential of the park getting renovated in the future.

[Theresa Dupont]: That's really helpful. I will say that, thank you for mentioning that, Jeremy. Our parks planner has also mentioned, yes, these could be uninstalled and reinstalled, you know, there's obviously still costs associated with that, but yeah, it's not like we're throwing away brand new, but that's a good idea.

[Roberta Cameron]: as certain after the last meeting that we had consensus among the different boards and commissions and planners and staff about what is the use and the needs for lighting at the park. However, just going back to the original ask was to improve existing lighting to a more modern product that is easier to control and easier on the eyes for the neighbors. So- Less excessive lighting. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, and perhaps less expensive to operate and maintain as well, right? So, maybe that itself made this the argument for it. So, I don't know like if others have opinions about this.

[Ada Gunning]: I was just, has anyone been following the Marie Bluzenkamp Perez thing in Congress about light pollution?

[Ada Gunning]: It like just this week, I think she's like launched this campaign about how headlights on cars are like insanely bright. And it reminded me of this project actually. Cause like we've replaced all halogen with LEDs. It's like 10 times as bright as past car lights. And everyone's just sort of like accommodated to that, but there's just like rampant light pollution everywhere. And it just made me think about this project, because I'm like, we've sort of just accepted that we're going to over light our parks and like totally pollute everyone's light in the neighborhood. There's just like funny timing.

[Roberta Cameron]: It was one of the aspects of this park to make the lighting more concentrated in the park so that light's not escaping to the neighborhood as much and we're better able to control. Right. That was what inspired us.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, yeah. The lighting pictures that are there now are just, you know, old and probably been there since the late 70s, early 80s. So light pollution is still a modern thing to think about. So the lighting pictures that we are putting in our parks, most of the lighting have like irises that you can control. So you can like point the light in one direction, but block it the other. So this would you know, appease the neighborhood's complaint about light pollution spilling into their yards.

[Ada Gunning]: And also just being able to turn it off when you're not using it is something we can't currently do. Yeah. I was just thinking about it because it looked like this week, it was like... Topical. Yeah, very topical.

[Roberta Cameron]: Among the other projects, I think we also wanted to Well, we wanted to clarify whether Cross Street Cemetery, any update on Cross Street Cemetery? Yes.

[Theresa Dupont]: So it was included in the application materials, and I did a disservice to Ryan by not highlighting that. But what happened was the application was submitted for both the monument restoration as well as that perimeter wall. And he had disseminated it out in the budget pretty easily to say, oh, the wall is $40,000. So we are, he has actually asked, why don't we just focus on the monuments? You guys have limited monies available and, you know, the wall is a nice to have, but it's not a kneecap where the monuments themselves are failing. So we have reduced the ask for, I believe it was 126,500 down to 80,500. Okay. But why reduce the ask if we have all this extra? Actually, we can at this point, the applicant has said I'm comfortable with the fact that I guess if the committee would like to fund the wall that is pricing for that. And that is, again, 40,000 plus 15%. So yeah, $46,000 increase to this, which brings us to the 1.25. So, We probably should have shared that, but I guess the committee could elect to fund it.

[Ada Gunning]: Well, I'm thinking about the 81K Delta that's kind of unaccounted for. It's important to this project.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I didn't think of it that way, but actually, I agree with you. This project would be better if it tried to do as much softwood in one fell swoop, just because I don't know how many more bites the apple they're going to come back, but this potential upswing would cost it to return.

[Roberta Cameron]: And when they do come back, it'll be more expensive. It will be. Right.

[Theresa Dupont]: 1151. 1151. So I'm going to change this number back to the 126.5. That's somebody who works right outside of the bathroom on the third floor. I think that's what they say most of the time. Sorry for the folks who are not in the room. So I did just adjust it back up to the 126.5 so we could account for that additional amount as we're looking at everything down here.

[Roberta Cameron]: if you so choose. Just like so we can see the numbers, add a delta below the total scenario, so say balance remaining. Okay.

[Theresa Dupont]: Which way am I supposed to look at? Okay, 43. Okay, 53. My favorite thing, though, is work. Okay.

[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. And any other changes here? So just going back to Shiloh Baptist Church, one of the reasons why I had wanted to hold this application was because I wanted to have a more updated estimate of what like identify what windows they're specifically going to be preserving this round and a more updated estimate of what that, that or those windows are going to cost.

[Theresa Dupont]: So it was a little hot off the press, it hit my inbox a little after four today, so totally fine if nobody has seen it, but I did type it into the meeting packet so folks who have the time We did get an updated cost estimate for re-letting the windows. So we had previously had pricing at, it was like 275 for just re-letting the existing windows. This is not new, and store windows, but it's not new frames. It wouldn't have been new glass or anything. Estimate from 2022 for 275,000. In that estimate, there was also an estimate for close to a million dollars that was actually going to be for replacing everything in kind. So we've got estimate, this estimate that's in here is reflective of the updated 2026 pricing for just reletting, which is, it seems like it's 372,000. Okay. And that's for all of the windows? That is for all of the windows. Again, just reletting, but that will get to where they need to be.

[Roberta Cameron]: And, but we still don't, that is just for the relighting and we still don't know the cost of adding storms. It includes storms. It includes storms. Yes. Okay. And we have no idea when we're going to encounter when they, like the, the, the carpentry that's going to be needed.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yes. That will probably be additional. There is some things, I'm sorry, I'm struggling right now to share. the right thing so everybody knows what we're talking about.

[Theresa Dupont]: I don't recall. It was not. Like I said, this was in my possession for like two hours, so I apologize. But I can certainly circulate one for everybody. But I'm going to now share so everybody online can see it. Apologize, folks. Sorry to make you talk at me and look at the screen at the same time. All good. We'll be seeing the new estimates. A lot of data here. I'll walk folks through it. On the left, you'll see stained glass windows. That's like S13, S8. This is how they identify and label each individual window. So there are, you know, including I just wanted to verify this is that where you see quarter inch thick clear plate glass that is the store windows. Thank you.

[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you for interpreting this because I looked at this this afternoon and I my eyes. Yes. I call the architect I'm like walking through this.

[Theresa Dupont]: We have. I'm not sure. It might have to do with the frame itself. Might not be able to accommodate something on the outside. It's OK.

[Doug Carr]: I think it's fine either way. I don't know what it looks like, because these are big ones. Yeah, because some of these are pretty sizable. Yeah. Ultimately, I think it would be good to get a schematic elevation out of them to show how they're, like, make sure they're not dividing them, like, through a critical aesthetic piece of the window behind it. Okay. You know, again, the scale here is everything. And I, I go with the largest interior scope I've done, it's about three by six feet. These are massive windows. So there's a subframe here that just needs to be thought of. So there should be before the funding is actually given, having an actual drawing, I think, would be encouraged as a condition, just as a nutshell. If you trust the preservation architect who we talked to, that goes a long way.

[Roberta Cameron]: And I would add as a condition that maybe this could be part of the same condition that before they proceed with the project, they They identify specifically the windows and estimated carpentry costs to address in the first phase. What I don't want to see is that they take out three windows and only have enough money to actually complete and reinstall two of them and have to come back for emergency funding when they're already, they've bitten off more than they can chew. So I'd like to see them identify how much they can really bite off at this time.

[Theresa Dupont]: They're chomping at it. As soon as the project is done, which is slated for early March, so we're in the home stretch, which is amazing. I think from there, there's like an inspection period that the state has to come through. I'm not sure that that's a couple of months, but um we're all kind of cautiously optimistic for a late spring early summer which is great right right time for summer um i'm sorry you had a second uh you he had a condition about the drawing and then you had a condition about um before the i can i can do that everybody um wanted to make sure everybody saw the the estimate there. So now I'm sharing this over here.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So we haven't taken a vote yet, but I am just drafting the conditions here.

[Roberta Cameron]: A full schematic, I think that this might be part of number two. And it doesn't, do we need the schematic to be provided to the committee or to be provided? Like, I don't know if it's, if like the committee is going to receive it or just staff.

[Doug Carr]: It's probably just Theresa. Theresa, I think you can make a judgment if you want to call ride or myself in to look at it, like I don't think we need to make it an act of Congress here, but if you think it looks good, I think I'm okay with that. I think you should take the chance.

[Roberta Cameron]: Okay, so maybe as a third condition, the specific windows to be treated in this space will be identified including the cost, the estimated cost of carpentry will be needed to reinstall, woodwork repair needed to reinstall. will be prior to beginning the project, prior to first disbursement.

[Ada Gunning]: Do you have past experiences with Shiloh coming back for emergency funding?

[Roberta Cameron]: I have prior experiences with so many grantees coming back to request for emergency funding. Have you found... I mean, Shiloh stayed once. But many grantees have done it because of, I mean, very often, especially throughout COVID started escalating at such a rapid pace that.

[Ada Gunning]: It almost makes me wonder when we're done with this, whether at some point we want to come up with like, just like protocol language that we use as the provisions that we like drop into all of these that we've like really thought through and like feel like they really cover.

[Theresa Dupont]: Especially since at this point, we're kind of seeing similar enough projects where, you know, window restoration, you know, that was a common enough thing. Yeah. Yeah. I'm writing it down. Boilerplate. So each dialogue, anything else I can add about that? Other questions?

[Roberta Cameron]: Other questions or comments about dialogue? So I think we've covered all four of the projects, like kind of tidied up what we needed to make a decision. Are there any other comments or questions before we vote on these? Alright, so Teresa, maybe you can pull them up one at a time. And we can look at the conditions and have the amounts on the screen. And we can ask for a promotion to recommend. I'll take them in order as they are on the agenda.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, this is for the Angel of Victory and Peace World War II fountain restoration. Again, to remind this board, they're asking for 167,800,000 to repair the fountain. Our conditions, we have our boiler plate that they have to comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards. And this was a condition that again, came out of the dialogue last time that we would request an annual maintenance plan B drafted and approved, submitted to us and held on file.

[Roberta Cameron]: I just want to clarify that language a little bit. Are we expecting the DPW Commissioner to give a maintenance plan to us every year? Is that what we mean by annual maintenance plan? Or do we need a plan for annual updates?

[Theresa Dupont]: For annual for maintenance, how they will be annual. Yes, you're making a good point that this is kind of money, but it can be interpreted in two ways. You don't want one every year. I'm happy to take any suggestions for drafting. Or we can just edit this to a maintenance plan that highlights annual. So that's a long term plan. Love it. Love it. Thank you. Long term.

[Roberta Cameron]: A long term. No, that was okay. I don't mind, but that one, yeah.

[Theresa Dupont]: It did. Although it's been tricking us lately. I haven't been as smart as you. Oh, really? Yeah. I'll text you like a little screenshot if it was something stupid. Okay. It made me try to sound like I was going to sound like a pirate or something. Great. Well, it's good. All right.

[Roberta Cameron]: I'd like to make a motion to recommend funding for the Angel Memorial. Motion to recommend funding.

[Theresa Dupont]: All right. And the next one is Croft Street, which is a historical commission. All right, so everybody should be seeing a decision, drafted decision, this is for the Cross Street Cemetery Monument Restoration. Note that I did have 80,500 for just the monuments, and again, the total, if we wanted to include the wall, was 126,500. So let's do that. So I'll increase it in this decision to 126-5. Motion to recommend.

[Roberta Cameron]: Can you just scroll down a little bit? Oh, yeah. Sorry if there's another condition. I will call the roll. Joan?

[Theresa Dupont]: Excellent. Just as a note on this one for the community listening, the committee here, they would be looking for volunteers if anybody would be interested in learning how to properly clean headstones and everything like that. It would be in the spring and summer. But if you're interested, let me know. That's great to know. Thank you. All right. Stop and share.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Can we do a pollination from the room? Then 1151. No worries, no worries. I don't know why we have codes on us.

[Theresa Dupont]: I just give them to everybody. Yeah. I am now going to pull up the next one with the Shiloh bag. I'm sorry, I couldn't do them, I have to like, spare each individual one so I'm sorry for the whiplash, folks. All right, so everybody can be seeing this one.

[Ada Gunning]: You're doing a great job putting all these, like, tabs organized here.

[Theresa Dupont]: All right, so we had just reviewed the additional conditions here, but a full schematic or drawing will be due to me before the first disbursement of funding. That will also be in one of the checkpoints in our grant agreement with Shiloh, as well as specific windows to be treated will be identified, including an estimated cost of Carpentry Woodmark treatments necessary to repair and reinstall. They are seeking $150,000.

[Jeremy Martin]: So Teresa, just to clarify, even though they got the new estimate and their potential costs went up, the ask has stayed the same, right?

[Theresa Dupont]: It has. So at this point, effectively, that would be about 35% of the total budget for them to do the re-letting of the windows. We could always, it is up to the committee on how much we'd like to fund.

[Roberta Cameron]: There was, I think, about 40,000 left in the budget if we wanted to recommend increasing the amount that they can treat this, the number of windows that they can address this round.

[Ada Gunning]: And we think they're going to use this money, do as many windows as they can, and then wait until the next round and request more money. It's not like they're going to get money from somewhere else.

[Theresa Dupont]: Well, we are encouraging them. They are looking at increasing, there is a fundraising effort happening right now. It's kind of gone a little stale, so they are looking at, you know, a GoFundMe, increasing their fundraising efforts. And I think that has been something the committee has looked to them to do in the past. We have suggested like, hey, try to find alternative sources of funding, and they have tried. If anybody wants to help sponsor or champion fundraising efforts for them, They, uh, we have encouraged them to try and open sources. And they have, they have, uh, they've received some community fund money. They have twice applied, but unfortunately failed to get, um, NAACP offers a historic black churches grant program. They have unfortunately not been awarded those, but it's a highly competitive grant. So they did get state funding, didn't they? That are not.

[Roberta Cameron]: Should they get a state grant of something like $40,000 that helped with the elevator project? I think that was community funds, but I'm not sure.

[Theresa Dupont]: So they could continue to apply to the state for funding. Right. Freedom's Way is always something there. It's small awards, but it's money. So to answer your question, Jeremy, the project scope has changed, but their requests have remained the same. I'm sure they would be happy for more money.

[Jeremy Martin]: Well, I ought to ask the rest of my question, which was, how were they going to do the project and fund the rest of it? I'm satisfied. Thank you.

[Ada Gunning]: What's our delta right now? I believe it was 35 and change. Is there a reason not to just throw that onto this? Since we want to keep it for rainy day funds. But we still have 225 in reserve. Correct. I would motion to add that to this. Motion might be the wrong word.

[Ada Gunning]: I mean, like, if they're just going to come back to us next year for the next round, and we have this, like, money just, like, there, it seems like why wouldn't we?

[Jeremy Martin]: And we would still have the $225,000 remaining in our reserve for this year.

[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: I'm sorry, can you repeat again why do we think they'd be coming back for it?

[Theresa Dupont]: Well, the project itself, based on the new estimate, this is going to be another $400,000. It is a reduction. We thought it was going to be a million, but the overall window restoration project right now is about $400,000. They would still be looking for another $250,000. As they are repeat customers with CPA, I would imagine that they would come back and ask for another additional amount just because funding is challenging for them. So that's why we think we would anticipate that they may come back. Whether or not we would entertain an application is up to the committee, but I'm sure there's desire.

[Roberta Cameron]: And that might be... Theoretically. Yeah. And those windows are... Or it might help to pay for the installation of those windows.

[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: Is it normal practice of this committee to change the amount upwards of what they requested? I mean, I'm just sort of being a little bit more fiscally conservative here, and I'd rather them just come back and ask for it, even because they're frequent flyers. We know they're going to come back. I don't mean that positively. I don't mean that negatively.

[Joan Cyr]: The only time we've made changes really has been about, we usually just ask them to add contingency. That's really what we've always added, not additional work.

[Roberta Cameron]: And well, we did one time had a request for the royal house to replace the roof of the slave quarters building and they initially asked for asphalt route because that's that was affordable. And we said, no, we'd like to see you do it right and ask them to. request enough money to, um, do a shingle roof instead. So, yeah, it's not unprecedented, but, um... Well, that was a roof for a roof.

[Roberta Cameron]: Right. Yeah. I mean, they haven't identified yet specifically which windows they're going to treat. We can't ask for contingency or add a contingency because this is only a portion of the overall project. It's a project that's easily broken down into many small pieces. but understand if not all of the committee members feel comfortable with increasing the budget. I did hear a motion and a second, but if we want to have further discussion about that and reach a consensus about the amount that we'd like to vote on, How about this? We had a motion and a second to increase the budget by $35,000.

[Roberta Cameron]: Ida and I heard Doug. Okay. To increase the budget by $35,000. Why don't we vote on increasing the budget and then come back and vote on the overall recommendation. Okay. On a motion to increase the budget by $35,000, Joan?

[Joan Cyr]: I'm going to say no. I'd rather have them ask for it. I don't want to just start making assumptions on what people might need or want. Kaylee? Respectfully, no.

[Myisha Majumder]: Myesha? Yeah, I'm going to pass on this to just because the reserve amount is giving me a little bit of heartburn at the moment for me. All right, Jeremy.

[Jeremy Martin]: I'm also no, I appreciate the intention of helping, but I think we should stick to a practice of hearing from a request from someone to increase the funding and, and especially with the question about the scope of which windows and our condition to receive that drawing before funding is dispersed.

[Roberta Cameron]: Okay, so I see a majority vote to not increase the budget. So then I would ask if anyone would like to make a motion to recommend $150,000 with the conditions as we drafted earlier. Second. All right, then I will call the roll. Joan? Yes. Haylene? Yes. Myesha? Yes. Jeremy?

[Theresa Dupont]: And again, I'm pulling up This will be a $432,000 request simply for Field 2. We are not voting on the full part. Wanted to clarify that for our friends at home. So the condition, sorry, what I had drafted, we can certainly edit. If in one timeline allows, the Recreation Department shall make efforts to combine this project with other known improvements at Taos Park Field should any such construction have overlapping scopes of work.

[Roberta Cameron]: Did we want to add a second condition that equipment will be preserved and retained in case of future work at this park.

[Doug Carr]: Equipment, new equipment, I assume you mean like suspended application or funded by this grid?

[Roberta Cameron]: And then I might, yeah, I'll let you finish writing this and then if I edit.

[Theresa Dupont]: Renovations require the needs of land to be relocated. That's the word I was trying to say.

[Ada Gunning]: Well, I'm just curious. Like, we're saying you must retain these lighting fixtures, which Theoretically, they would be incentivized to do anyways. So it feels a little bit like we're, why would they not do that? Maybe what we should be saying is future renovation plans should take into consideration retaining, like the process for retaining and reinstalling these. Like, I don't know. The only reason I'm saying that is because, like, let's just say there's some, like, random reason they, like, can't, like, reinstall one of these lights, and now we have this provision that was, like, with the best of intentions, but... I have yet another version to suggest, which is... If future renovations to the park

[Roberta Cameron]: result in the removal of the new lighting equipment. The CPA program will be, the grant will be repaid unless the CPC agrees to leave, you know, let the let the funds be. Yeah, there you go agrees to wait.

[Ada Gunning]: What are we actually trying to say? We're what we're trying to say is, you guys don't want to spend a bunch of new money on lights. Anyway, we're all on the same page. We all want to keep these lights just to make sure to have a good plan that accommodates the fact that we just got new lights.

[Roberta Cameron]: And if all else fails, give us a really good excuse and we'll let you off the hook.

[Joan Cyr]: Any future renovations that accommodate the reuse of this CPA funded equipment?

[Joan Cyr]: Any future renovations to the park should accommodate the removal and reuse of this CPA funded equipment where we're able. Basically, I'm trying to think of what the word is, where applicable. I think the thing is- Where possible. Yeah, where possible. Thank you. That's the word. I think what we don't know about the future design is whether or not this lighting is compatible. So it probably will be. That's why we just want to say it should accommodate the reuse if possible.

[Roberta Cameron]: And then say we could make number five be part of the same bullet.

[Jeremy Martin]: These are options, right? Are we thinking that these are all stated?

[Jeremy Martin]: Could we add something, I guess, to Joan's point of not knowing the future. If future renovations to the park result in the removal of the equipment funded by this grant, and if the city cannot find another use for the fixtures in a different park. then we would want the money back. But we could give them an opportunity to say we can use these over in Playstead Park or something.

[Theresa Dupont]: Future renovations to the park result in the removal of the equipment funded by the grant. and the city cannot find an alternative use for the equipment, the grant shall be repaid to the CTA reserve unless the CPC agrees to waive funding.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, waive this requirement. I like requirement. Yeah, excellent.

[Roberta Cameron]: 400 and something thousand? 432,000 for the Tufts Park Field Lighting Improvement with the conditions shown.

[Theresa Dupont]: Thank you, everybody. Thank you. And that was really the fruits of your labor will be discussed at City Council next Tuesday. If anybody wants to join in solidarity, That's a lot of labor. So fun.

[Jeremy Martin]: Do applicants typically show up and present on their project again? Yes.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah? Yeah. It will be hybrid, so some will be on Zoom and then some will be in person, but yeah, they will be there to address the council directly.

[Jeremy Martin]: The calendar doesn't show a committee of the whole meeting. It shows one tonight. Will they meet again? Right.

[Theresa Dupont]: yet on the agenda. They don't typically post it until the agenda is finalized. And that is something I'll be working with Roberta diligently on tomorrow, because it has to be posted by Thursday, since Monday is a holiday. So you should see it on the calendar by the end of Thursday.

[Roberta Cameron]: All right. All right. So moving on with the agenda, we're going to hold on to the meeting minutes starting December 9 until next month. So next month we'll have two sets of meeting minutes. So let's move on to review discussion of the FY26 application process. And I also will introduce at the same time discussion of the 2026 meeting calendar because there's simply a lot between those two subjects. So the first question that I want to ask everyone is, this application process, how did we all, how did you all feel about it in your roles? And are there ways that you would like to see our application process go differently in the future to continue? Could you give you more information, information at the right time, more opportunities for input? Any thoughts from all of you?

[Myisha Majumder]: I really like the survey that Teresa sent out before our 1st meeting. I think it really helps frame the discussion and make all these decisions easier. I wonder if there's more pre-work we can do to make it even better next time. I haven't really thought of anything yet, but I'm open to other people's ideas. But I think it was really awesome to see, and I feel like we're really effective in our decision making because of it.

[Jeremy Martin]: In that survey, maybe a way to expand it is to just add a prompt like, what is your one question about this project that you would like to ask in advance that people can add in and that gives us some discussion points.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Hi, Remy. I think I met you once before. You're famous. You're on TV right now.

[Ada Gunning]: Here's a question. My original, like, reason for joining the committee was just like family spaces, like parks, etc. And One thing that really struck me with the COVID memorial group, not to keep bashing that project, was just how far off it was from what I feel like the community actually needs. And there's just so many parks that are in such poor condition. And so I'm just putting that out there as like, I don't know how this process works in terms of soliciting. It just feels like there's a disconnect between the projects that come here in terms of recreation. and what my observable experience as a parent in the community is needed. So I just want to put that out there.

[Theresa Dupont]: It sounds like, would you agree that perhaps there needs to be more courting of applications, like inviting people? Yeah.

[Ada Gunning]: And I feel like I often will bring projects up and it's like, oh, we can't do that because like this. And there seems like lots of rules around the CPC that aren't necessarily totally obvious. But there's like a lot of problematic playgrounds in Medford, just putting that out there that I would love to see. And I was just noticing our totals for this year, how like open space was like the lowest. I'm so glad we're funding affordable housing at a higher rate.

[Joan Cyr]: For next year, perhaps that could be like you should have been here at the beginning when everything was open space.

[Ada Gunning]: I do I do know that that's the history. So I'm not trying to like be complaining.

[Roberta Cameron]: And I think like maybe one of the reasons for that is because we are overdue to have an open space in record. I know.

[Roberta Cameron]: And It would be really helpful if we were to launch that process, because that would answer some of these questions and get things, get higher priority projects in the queue.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah. I will say our open space plan, we were approved for a three year extension, which is still an update to it. So that is something that is being thought of and trying to plan for implementation in the springtime. So that's great feedback, but I just wanted to say that.

[Roberta Cameron]: By three-year extension, though, that means that we were approved to procrastinate for three more years.

[Theresa Dupont]: Right, and I think that was just to meet the legal requirements of the big one, but that doesn't mean that Amanda and the planning office is not also still planning on doing outreach to hear

[Ada Gunning]: What is needed i'm just gonna i'm just gonna kind of plug in for like right on.

[Theresa Dupont]: So much potential the playground is like a major accident waiting to happen they're putting in a new pavilion and walking walk space around there, but i'm not. up-to-date on where the playground stands, but.

[Jeremy Martin]: It's not a part of this project. We saw it at the commission last week. The pavilion will be a nice amenity though. Yeah. I appreciate your question. I wonder if we're also maybe constrained by the capacity of the city departments to actually implement those projects. Playground replacements are fairly big undertakings, but I noticed there was, I think, a project, Teresa, early on in the list of adding some bike racks somewhere and it got pulled. Those kinds of projects, the little interventions, they're not making a big change, but they could have an impact. I'd love to see more of those where they are more manageable and smaller funding chunks. And maybe that's something we can help coax out or pull into the cycle.

[Theresa Dupont]: But back to your point, Anna, the mayor's office came to us and said, can we use CPA money? Can we apply and receive CPA money to put in bike racks in our business districts? And all that is recreation. It's not open space. Articles might come in land. would have loved to have said yes, because we definitely desperately need more by Jackson and our business districts to bring in that type of pedestrian traffic. But because C.P.A. can't just be able to be able to do fun little maintenance, we can't do maintenance.

[Ada Gunning]: I can't feel like playground apparatus for play. Right. So a third of moving park is just out of commission for a year.

[Theresa Dupont]: Right. which obviously they could come to us and say, hey, we want to do a big master plan, but now we're talking the back end of millions and millions of dollars. We want to try to avoid handcuffing ourselves to making that big, huge investment. It's all about the priorities. Well, one thing I was unable to really accomplish last year, and maybe as a committee we can look at it, is having our own CPA outreach in parks, like Saturdays in the park, and have ice cream and lemonade and just ask people, like, what do you want to see in our parks amenities? Have them be all around the city. So maybe that could be something that we can do to try and bring in a great idea and find an organization or a department that's willing to take that great idea and make it happen, and then, oh, now we have an application.

[Roberta Cameron]: If we actually have the, um, have the capacity to do both the park outreach and the implementation, right? This, that would be great.

[Joan Cyr]: So I saw that there was a sign on car park pickleball courts and it had a QR code on it to like, find more information. Is there, I know that there's a plan to put signs on all of our parks. that says, hey, I'm Morrison Park. Hey, I'm whatever park. Maybe those signs can include a QR code to provide feedback about that park.

[Theresa Dupont]: And that again, as a lot of things in Medford, it just comes down to a funding source for that. And again, that would be a great thing if they could come to CPA because probably $100,000 would get us signs in all of our parks, but it's not eligible because it's just a standalone project.

[Joan Cyr]: I think about being in an airport bathroom and you leave and they have a little survey on the way out. What did you like? Smiley face, frowny face, you know, right? Was this something like that, you know, that could be done quickly. Right. And it's specific to that park.

[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. And I wonder whether, I mean, it's something that we could discuss later, but whether CTA funds could be used to make some temporary signs that we could put in each part. I would expect something. Yeah. Yeah. Tell us, tell us how you like, how you enjoy this park.

[Joan Cyr]: And all those QR codes will go to and she's going to collect this is right. I agree.

[Theresa Dupont]: I have a fantasy dream project of installing. community bulletin boards in all of our parks where people can put up, you know, the city could use it for communications and the immediate neighborhoods. So maybe, you know, I was thinking about partnering with like the Boy Scouts on that type of a project, but maybe that's a way we can get signage in here too. Lots of great ideas.

[Jeremy Martin]: I'm curious to hear from you, Teresa. You do a lot of tabling, and I know many of us have joined you. Do you feel like that exposure generates grant requests? And if not, what do you see as the, you know, the value of doing it? Not questioning it, but just curious how we could make it more effective in outreach.

[Theresa Dupont]: Sure. I mean, we did take the comments as well as, you know, every time at my table, I have my board out there with my stickers, and it's just easy visuals to gather some data. So that data is abstracted in our annual plan, and we review it as we use that to help inform, you know, what the community needs right now in terms of like, hi, my name is Bob and I have a great idea for a grant application that has happened a couple of times. But without having a department or an organization to really champion it, it kind of can wither on the vine. So to answer your question, yes, there have definitely been requests, but I haven't really seen them come all the way through to a grant application as of yet.

[Ada Gunning]: I feel like in terms of like the purpose of tabling I feel like the visibility is important because I think the CPC is it is it needs to be defended like are relevant to the community and the fact that we're doing important work and so like I feel like the visibility like in of itself is important. I don't know, Theresa has to do like all of the table I've seen.

[Theresa Dupont]: But yeah, obviously, if anybody wants to join this, but it's happy. I'm happy to do it. I'm a people person. I'd rather be engaging with people than building spreadsheets.

[Jeremy Martin]: But yeah, you have to do both. You're very right, Ada. In the one day that I tabled this year, I think I probably had a third of the people tell me they voted against the CPA when it was initiated, so it does need to be defended.

[Ada Gunning]: There's like still a lot of feelings in Medford about our existence, so I feel like it is important to just be a positive presence out there.

[Theresa Dupont]: And also just general awareness, too, because, you know, even though I say community, preservation, acts, CPA, people are like, CPA? Accountant? You know, so there's just folks that aren't aware of it because, you know, maybe they moved from a community where it wasn't CPA or they've only recently gotten more civic and figured things, you know, there's a lot of reasons why people aren't aware of it, but.

[Doug Carr]: So I am hearing that we'd like to do more individual written or prompts for more individual preparation ahead

[Roberta Cameron]: the deliberation process was really helpful. I feel as though myself, the deliberation process was, went really well. This time it was the right amount of time that we spent discussing the projects here and we had about the right amount of information to help us make the decisions. So I don't know that I would change anything there. And so I'll bring up the calendar because like looking back, we can't necessarily all of us remember what happened last February through August. Um, but we develop an agenda calendar that because we have our funding cycle is annual. We can kind of predict about what it is that we need to cover every month of the year. um, barring off cycle applications that come in and other things that might pop up. So Teresa and I have, um, taken a stab at looking at what the agenda might look like throughout the year. And in particular, um, I mentioned that in just like checking in on the dates for the meetings later in the year, when we really get into the deliberation part of the cycle. And in the beginning of the year, thinking about what kind of information do we need to gather so that we can set a budget in the spring and we can feel like we know what our criteria are going to be for deliberating in the fall. So maybe we could work backwards in the calendar from you know, just thinking, like, the end of the calendar envisioned that it will work just like it did this year, with December and January being the final decisions on the application. And there's a little bit of flexibility that is shown in here. We didn't quite land on October and November. It feels like we might need three meetings over October and November to hear all of the presentations and prepare to begin the deliberations. How do you all feel? Would you like to see three meetings scattered between October and November or to have one meeting in October and one meeting in November? Do you mean just to keep it shorter? So you were meeting, but we had it. So what we did this past year was we split up the presentations over two months, which is pretty far apart in the past. We've done two in October together. Um, do we like splitting it up over two months or would we prefer to keep them both in October? and start deliberating in November, maybe drop a meeting earlier in the year to accommodate two meetings in October. How do you all feel about October?

[MCM00001830_SPEAKER_05]: So Teresa, do you want to start deliberating earlier? Is that what your concern is? Because I was, I mean, I don't know how the group felt, but I was OK with it, October and November. Comparing it to when we had two in October, because I was here for a couple of those years. Yeah. I mean, but if you're concerned with the way the, I mean, I honestly thought the deliberations were okay, too. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I could really go either way. I prefer one meeting a month, but for that one month, it's fine to do two if you'd rather start deliberating earlier. I don't know. Do we need to go straw poll?

[Jeremy Martin]: I only have this year as a frame of reference. I thought it went really well.

[Jeremy Martin]: For me, once there's a meeting in the night, the night's kind of dedicated to the meeting, and whether it ends at 8.30 or 8 or 9, that's the meeting night. It's, I think, a little easier to have fewer but longer meetings.

[Ada Gunning]: I agree, and I would actually expand on that by suggesting We aim to keep our meetings to eight so that we have like a general understanding. We drop a meeting during a dull stretch, and then we plan for two long meetings. And that's just like an expectation. So it's not like a surprise. We planned our night around it. To me, that feels like that's basically how it's been.

[Ari Fishman]: Can I just ask that when we say long meeting, Community development board meetings regularly go till 11 or midnight. I will be very upfront about not having capacity to do that 3 times a month.

[Ada Gunning]: Yeah, I don't think we've gone past 10. that was the number or 930 or something. I think 930 was the worst.

[Roberta Cameron]: I think we ever had was Jeremy's 1st meeting that was 3 hours.

[Ada Gunning]: So maybe the long meetings are 930. The other meetings we aim to get out at 8.

[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So it sounds as though we don't need a second meeting in October, that we will do applicant presentations in October and November like we did this year. And then maybe we like drop a meeting too. Possibly. So let's keep working back in the year. So further back. like earlier in the year. Oh, I see you're updating that. So in September, so one of the things that we did when we were editing this was that we had the application, the applications due a little bit earlier in mid-August so that Teresa will have them and be able to provide them to us before the September meeting. So we can actually kind of give a preliminary review. Maybe that's when we can circulate a survey saying what's the one question that you want to ask about this so that we can prepare the applicants to answer those questions.

[Theresa Dupont]: We can hit that survey twice, like once right at the beginning and then once right when we're deliberating again, just to see if viewpoints have changed. Yeah.

[Roberta Cameron]: So that's the September meeting is going to be talking about the preliminary review of applications. August, we have a hiatus. July is TBD. We only need a meeting if we have some special business that comes up.

[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah. And we also haven't identified specific items in June either. So it could be either or both of those could be dropped or combined. And Jeremy.

[Jeremy Martin]: Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I'm just waiting for a break. I was looking at the list of topics here on some of these sort of interim, whatever, meetings. And is it worth considering another meeting or update with the housing trust, affordable housing trust? Maybe you have it on here. I didn't see it, but.

[Theresa Dupont]: I think I'm just throwing it in April because April doesn't really have anything terribly heavy in it.

[Roberta Cameron]: It could be part of the public hearing, so could be in March, April, or May. Or, I don't know, maybe not May, March, April, or June.

[Jeremy Martin]: is when we present or you present, Teresa, the outcomes of the last year and things like that.

[Theresa Dupont]: I'll put it in for March right now, but I think I'd also, we should ask the trust to see if like, do they have any reporting or deadlines that might correlate best for them to present to us if, you know, I don't know whenever they do their annual plan, if they do one. So I'll pop it into March for now, but make it work.

[Roberta Cameron]: So I did want to acknowledge the quarterly project update presentations that we've added to the calendar. So it was Teresa's idea that several times a year, we invite some of our applicants to come back and give us a presentation to tell us how their project is going. And so that's what those are. And we identified some projects that we thought might be top of mind. to hear updates on. So if there are things that you'd like to know about, as Jeremy just mentioned, call them out.

[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, that was actually Joan's excellent idea to have the objects come back. I want to take credit to her. Yes. So we had just kind of like plugged in once that it makes sense topically, like in their timeline, like, because Thomas Brooks Park is going to go out to bid and start working late spring. So it'd be good to hear about it next month. And so those are just kind of interests that go throughout. But I will, I'll circle up with the chairperson for the trust and being like, hey, we'd like to invite you. When would work best for you? March, April, May would work best for us. Sounds good.

[Roberta Cameron]: Yeah, I would say March or April might influence the amount of funding that we feel inclined to commit to affordable housing in our budget. But over the summer, we have more time if they want to come and give a presentation to us over the summer. All right. earlier. So over the months of February, March, so a March is our annual public hearing, which is required under our enabling legislation. So we use the public hearing to try to invite people to tell us what they think the important needs are in the city. And in order to get people to actually come and talk to us, sometimes we need to be a little creative about who we ask and what we ask them to tell us. So that's something that we can talk more about next month when we talk about public hearing preparation. So envisioned in this in February is to talk more about what we're going to cover in the annual plan update, which is scheduled to be completed in May. And then we have March and April to learn more about the community needs in general through public engagement through the public hearing and hearing from other community entities. So that's that's what the calendar looks like. And yeah, thank you. And always welcome, as Joan obviously has suggested, ideas for how to improve our calendar. Always welcome to get ideas about what do we need to know so that we can feel good about the decisions that we're tasked with making. And I think that's everything I have for tonight. Is there anything else to mention? No, that's great. All right. There's some food there. All right, I will call the roll. Joan? Yes. Haley? I might have heard, yeah. Yeah, sorry, sorry, sorry. Maisha? Yes. Jeremy?

[SPEAKER_04]: Maisha, I love your little robe wrap, whatever it is. It's from Target. It was like $10. It looks very cozy. Good day.