2026-09-23 - Community Preservation Committee

00:00Let me go.

00:02>> Thank you. Good evening everybody.

00:04Thanks for joining. This is the

00:05Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026 meeting

00:07of the city of Somerville Community

00:09Preservation Committee. I'm Ryan Kiraov,

00:11the chair. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the

00:14Acts of 2025, this meeting of the

00:16Somerville Community Preservation

00:17Committee will be conducted via remote

00:18participation. We'll have a video

00:20recording available upon request as soon

00:22as possible after the meeting. Roberto,

00:23could you please call the role?

00:25>> Yes. Um,

00:28David Turan

00:30>> present.

00:31>> Michael McNell

00:33>> here.

00:34>> Rona Fishman

00:35>> here.

00:36>> Joe Capuano

00:39>> here.

00:40>> John Bronnen Kant

00:42>> here.

00:43>> I do not see Mary Joe Bohart or Carlos

00:46Ayala.

00:48Um,

00:50then Eric Parks.

00:51>> I'm here.

00:52>> And Ryan Kikov,

00:54>> present.

00:55Thank you very much. First matter of

00:57business is the approval of meeting

00:58minutes from August the 26th. Does

01:01anyone have any comments or questions

01:03about the draft minutes?

01:09>> Hearing none. Can I have a motion to

01:11approve?

01:12>> I'll move to approve as written.

01:15>> Thank you. And a second.

01:16>> I'll second it.

01:18>> Thank you very much. Roberto, please

01:19call the role.

01:20>> Yep. And I just want to recognize Carlos

01:22Aola just joined us and we are um the

01:26motion was to approve the meeting

01:28minutes from last month. So I will call

01:31the role.

01:33Um David Turan

01:36>> uh approve.

01:38>> Michael McNell.

01:40>> Hi.

01:42>> Rona Fishman.

01:43>> Yes.

01:44>> Joe Capuano.

01:46>> Yes.

01:48John Bronnen Kent.

01:50>> Yes.

01:51>> I still do not see Mary Joe Bohart

01:56and um Carlos Ayella.

02:01>> I'm going to hold off since I wasn't

02:02able to make it last meeting.

02:05>> All right. Then Eric Parks.

02:07>> Yes.

02:07>> And Ryan Kov.

02:09>> Yes. Thank you.

02:11>> All right. Next matter. I think Roberta

02:13is going to walk us through a overview

02:16before we dive into the applications of

02:18our available funds for fiscal year 27.

02:22>> All right. Um yes, I will. So, I'm going

02:24to start with a slide presentation.

02:27Um try to uh move through this as

02:31quickly and simply as we can to look at

02:33the funding availability for this fall's

02:37funding round. Um, and then I will ask

02:42the committee to make a decision about

02:46um doing a

02:49a catchup distribution to the funding

02:52areas. But first, let me figure out how

02:54to share my screen and um

02:59start the slideshow.

03:03Um and I sorry

03:23Okay. So, you should be able to see the

03:24slideshow now. And I will run the

03:27slideshow from the beginning. Yep. Okay.

03:32And next screen.

03:35So, I've just tried to make this as

03:38simple as possible. So, I have a series

03:40of tables. Uh I don't know if you've had

03:42a chance to look through this in

03:43advance. Table one just shows the FY27

03:48CPA budget as um intended to be adopted

03:52by um the CPC and the city council last

03:57spring. As we talked about a couple

03:59months ago, I had made a minor error in

04:02calculating the debt service amount and

04:05that's what you originally approved and

04:07sent to city council. um it is now in

04:11front of city council this week to

04:13correct that debt service amount. And so

04:17assuming that that correction gets made,

04:19what we see on table one is the amount

04:22that will be available for you to spend

04:24out of current years. Um and that should

04:28be FY27. It's every time I look at these

04:31tables, I change the numbers that I

04:33wrong and this one isn't even copied

04:35from another. And I still somehow wrote

04:37total available for FY26 projects when

04:40it's FY27 projects. Um

04:46then the next um table two shows the

04:54um we have potentially available carried

04:57over funds. So, I peaked into all of the

05:02accounts that we have that carry over

05:04from year to year because if CPA funds

05:07aren't spent, they are held in the CPA

05:11accounts until a future time when they

05:14can be spent. So, the um I looked in the

05:18accounts and what I see is 1.9 million

05:21in the undesated fund balance,

05:2412,647

05:27in the open space and recreation reserve

05:29carried over from last year and 311 in

05:33the historic preservation reserve

05:35carried over from last year. And going

05:39back to the undesated fund balance, the

05:42CPC has customarily

05:45withheld some funds from their

05:48calculation of availability

05:50um because they've already been reserved

05:53for a project which is the Adams

05:55Mconhouse project which hopefully we'll

05:58have a chance to get off the ground this

06:00year. Um, and because we approved a uh

06:06bonded project last year for the Kennedy

06:08Schoolyard and the PAF is in the process

06:12of implementing that project and bills

06:15may come due and the bonding may be

06:18drawn this year. It is prudent for the

06:21committee to reserve funds in case a

06:25bond payment comes up later in the year

06:28that wasn't budgeted for. And finally,

06:32the committee has um in the past for

06:36several years elected to maintain a

06:38minimum balance of $750,000

06:42in the undesated fund balance. So that

06:45leaves a total of $833,000

06:49that are available in the undesated fund

06:52balance.

06:55Table three shows us that some of the

06:59money that's in the undesated fund

07:01balance are

07:04funds that were received last fiscal

07:07year FY26

07:10that have not yet been distributed to

07:13the three different program areas.

07:16So that includes

07:19an anticipated FY26 revenue because we

07:23collected more um property tax sarge but

07:29in the amount of $620,000

07:32more property tax sarge last year than

07:35had been estimated when we developed

07:37last year's budget. and some

07:39miscellaneous

07:41um

07:42charges that collect in revenues that

07:46collect in the account over the year

07:48from um interest payments and investment

07:52income almost $200,000 last year in

07:56investment income on CPA funds. There is

08:00no state match difference last year

08:02because we actually made a budget

08:04correction last year after the state

08:07match came in. So we were able to adjust

08:10up to the actual state match at that

08:13time. So we don't have any unanticipated

08:17state match to account for this year. So

08:19that leaves 830,000

08:22in unanticipated revenue that we

08:25received in FY26. And then also in FY26,

08:30we carried over some unspent funds from

08:34the administrative budget and from the

08:37budgeted reserves. Um just $18 of of

08:42budgeted reserves, but the rolled over

08:45funds from the administrative is

08:48$157,000.

08:51So um next table this is essentially the

08:57the the decision that I'm going to ask

08:59the committee to talk about this evening

09:02after I finish this this brief

09:03presentation.

09:05Um, in the past it has been the custom

09:09of the CPC to

09:12distribute those undistributed funds

09:15from the previous fiscal year according

09:18to the commitment that you made at the

09:22beginning of the fiscal year when you

09:23developed your budget. you said that 55%

09:27um of CPA revenue was going to go to

09:30affordable housing and um in in the last

09:36couple of years we've stopped there

09:39because the CPC is going to have the

09:43discretion to use the remaining funds

09:46for open space and historic

09:48preservation.

09:50So you can um distribute to each of the

09:54program areas or you can just leave the

09:58funds um in the undesated or in the

10:02flexible account um the undesated fund

10:06balance as flexible funds. Um, and so

10:10you, this has been your custom in the

10:13past to do this for all of the funds

10:18that were carried over from the prior

10:20fiscal year. And I'd like to give you

10:23the option to discuss option A to

10:27continue with this, option or option one

10:30to continue with this or option two to

10:33not distribute the funds. um not given

10:37additional distribution to the

10:40affordable housing trust. So this is um

10:44this is for the committee to decide and

10:46this table shows that you could do this

10:48for all of the undistributed funds or

10:52for only the unappropriated revenue um

10:55or for only the rolled over revenues. So

10:59the um you we can calculate this um

11:03after the committee has a chance to

11:05discuss it in a in a moment. Um table

11:09five just shows that once we've made

11:12this calculation of how much the funding

11:16is that we want to distribute to the

11:18three program areas and how much to

11:20retain as flexible funds. We're going to

11:23fill in the question marks on this table

11:26and that will show us what the total

11:29available funds are adding the budgeted

11:33revenue to the carried over funds.

11:37And table six shows what that possible

11:42range could be of

11:46um affordable housing

11:48versus uh flexible funds if you were to

11:52leave the funds in the undesated fund

11:55balance or distribute funds to the

11:58affordable housing trust. And I believe

12:02that is all for this presentation.

12:06Um,

12:08>> thank you. That's super helpful and a

12:11lot of information. I know that's

12:12probably a lot for um a lot of folks to

12:15digest, especially if they haven't had a

12:16chance to dive in yet. So, uh Oh, sorry.

12:19Can you keep keep that up there?

12:21>> Yes. I was just going to try to switch

12:23to the um table where I can walk through

12:26the calculations with you.

12:28>> Okay.

12:28>> But if we can stick with the

12:30presentation for now if you prefer

12:32because

12:33>> let's let's do that for just a second. I

12:34think it would be helpful, at least for

12:36for my mind at the end of a busy day to

12:41try to get down to uh um the decision

12:44points that we're going to be weighing

12:46up here. So, I guess the my first

12:48question, if you can go back up to slide

12:49two,

12:53I just want to make sure that I

12:55understand. Uh or yeah, I guess table

12:59two, sorry, slide three, table two. So

13:02this $833,000

13:05I think throughout the rest of the

13:06presentation we're looking at $830,000

13:08in excess or un unspent unallocated

13:11funds that we have to decide how to how

13:13to allocate. How do I think about that

13:15833

13:17versus that?

13:22>> So

13:24first I I want to acknowledge that the

13:27elected minimum balance is also a CPC

13:30decision. That's a number that you can

13:33adjust if you wanted to adjust that

13:35number.

13:36Um, so the 833,000

13:40assuming that you kept 750 the same is

13:45the additional funds that

13:50are added to the last column in table

13:55six

13:56to get to $43 million total.

14:03So, I had thought what we were going to

14:05be weighing up here

14:08how to distribute was the $830,000

14:13and how we split that up. But are you

14:15saying that's on top of this?

14:18>> That is the $830,000

14:23is what is being distributed. So, I'm

14:26looking at table five. It's

14:30the the question marks in table five add

14:34up to $833,000.

14:39Okay.

14:44So, okay. So, going going back again and

14:47maybe somebody maybe maybe somebody I'll

14:49go to Mary Joe in a second. Maybe

14:51somebody else can explain this to me as

14:52well since I'm I'm being um in in the

14:55weeds here. But if you can go back to

14:57the slide uh table two again.

15:00>> Mhm.

15:03>> So this 833 that is not what we're

15:06weighing up how to distribute. That's

15:08already in our base budget. Correct.

15:10>> This is what we're weighing. Well, so

15:13within the eight so within the 1.9

15:16million is the revenue that we received

15:19last year.

15:22And we're backing out

15:25[clears throat] the 750,000 and the 175

15:29and the 150. We're backing all of that

15:31out of the 1.9 million. So that's 1.1

15:33million

15:34>> we're backing out be to get to the 833.

15:38But um so it's really difficult to

15:42explain but there the with the

15:47the revenue from last from last year is

15:53let me see what the

15:57unappropriated. So the 830 + 157 so

16:02that's 980,000.

16:04that 980,000 is part of the 1.9,

16:11but we're subtracting to see what's

16:14actually available to spend. We're

16:16subtracting out these items on this

16:20table. So the 833,000

16:23that's actually available is a little

16:26bit less than the total amount that

16:28we're talking about distributing. So

16:31when we get to the amount that's left in

16:34the flexible funds, it's going to um be

16:40cut short

16:42because we if we back out 50% of the

16:46980,000

16:48for affordable housing, we're going to

16:53be elimin,000.

16:58um

17:00taking out 543,000.

17:04So 500 that 543,000

17:08subtracted from the 833,000

17:12that's actually available

17:15is

17:16um means that what's left over for

17:19flexible is 300 something,000. It's a

17:24smaller amount.

17:27Okay. All right. So, I think my primary

17:30concern there was just making sure we

17:31weren't double counting the the funds

17:34that were or underounting the funds that

17:36were available to us. So, at the end of

17:38the day, I'm hearing we have two

17:40decisions to make here as we have this

17:42discussion, right? One is

17:44>> is $750,000 kept dry powder for the rest

17:48of the fiscal year appropriate? We

17:51decided on that number last year, but we

17:52have a different landscape this year. So

17:54that's that's one thing for us to conser

17:55consider. And number two is how do we

17:58want to allocate this $987,000

18:01that is currently unallocated?

18:04Um

18:06there are a couple different options in

18:07front of us, but that at the end of the

18:09day, that's what we're those are the two

18:10things that I think we are debating. Am

18:12I missing any, Roberta? Um, yes. And

18:16Allan just reminded me one other

18:18decision that's not reflected in this

18:20analysis is that it you could choose to

18:24distribute less than 55%. So, it's not

18:27an all or nothing proposition for

18:30housing. It you can, you know, you can

18:33choose where you want to fall with any

18:35of those numbers. I've tried to lay out

18:37what I think are likely decision points

18:40for you, but I don't want to limit your

18:42your options.

18:44>> Got it. All right. Thanks. Thanks, Alan,

18:45for trying with that. All right, Mary

18:46Joe, thanks for your patience.

18:48>> Hi. And sorry I was a bit late uh

18:50signing in. Um Robera, can you refresh

18:53my memory? It's more of a procedural

18:56thing. um what uh formalities or

19:00flexibility do we have when we take

19:03things out of the undistributed fund

19:06balance category? Um in other words,

19:09once we decide

19:12um something goes into the UFB,

19:16um what steps did we go through when we

19:20want to then reprogram that fund, those

19:25funds?

19:25>> That's that's a great question. And so

19:27I'll go back and explain a little bit

19:28how the UFB comes about. Um, basically

19:33the money that has

19:36any revenue that's received in the CPA

19:39program that has not been put into one

19:42of the reserves. The reserves being the

19:46three program areas.

19:49The

19:51um, let me go back up to table one. So

19:54the admin and operating expenses, the

19:57three program areas, and the budgeted

20:00reserve, these are the buckets. So any

20:04any money that has not been put into one

20:07of these buckets just stays in the

20:10undesated fund balance. So, the money

20:13gets put into the bucket when the CPC

20:16and the city council set the budget in

20:18the spring using estimated

20:22um numbers. So, if the actual the and

20:27usually the actual is a little higher

20:30than the estimated revenue because we

20:33intentionally try to be conservative, we

20:36get into trouble if we have a deficit.

20:38So to avoid a deficit, we always try to

20:42air on the low side of the revenue that

20:46we think this the program is going to

20:48bring. So that means that there will be

20:53this um funds unanticipated revenue as

20:57there's additional assessment revenue

20:59that comes in and these other revenue

21:02sources that we don't even try to

21:04estimate what they'll be and we do try

21:06to estimate what the state match is

21:08going to be each year. Um and likewise

21:11typically

21:13there will be surplus state match that

21:15comes in as well. So all of the that

21:18that unanticipated revenue stays in the

21:21undesated fund balance until we ask for

21:27it to be moved. And so when I uh ask

21:30whether the committee wants to make a

21:32distribution

21:34that is asking for it to be moved from

21:37the undesated fund balance into a

21:40different program area. And the rolled

21:43over funds are rolled over because those

21:45are the administrative funds and the

21:48budgeted reserve funds that didn't get

21:50spent get put back in the undesated fund

21:52balance at the end of the fiscal year.

21:55>> So, one little quick add-on question

21:58having heard what you just said. Does it

22:00take an approved approval type vote of

22:03the city council once we take funds out

22:07of the UFB

22:10and then assign it to something quite

22:12specific or is that simply the

22:14prerogative of the committee to take it

22:17out of the UFB and assign it to one of

22:19the buckets?

22:21doing anything with CPA funding requires

22:25you all to recommend it and then the

22:28city council approves it. So in that

22:31order um and that includes moving money

22:35between your categories as well as

22:38spending money. If what I did want to

22:41add is that sometimes the committee will

22:45spend funds directly from the undesated

22:49fund balance when you get to the end of

22:51your project. So what we're likely to do

22:54actually let me go to

22:57this table. So

23:00the right hand column when this is

23:02filled in the flexible funds are going

23:06will include both the budgeted reserve

23:10and the undesated fund balance that's

23:12still available.

23:15And so in order to move something out of

23:17the undesated fund balance we have the

23:20committee will make a two-part

23:22recommendation. The first part is to

23:26move the funds from let's say it's going

23:28to go to an open space project. So

23:30you'll make a recommendation to

23:33to move the funds from undesated fund

23:36balance into the open space reserve and

23:39then the second recommendation will be

23:42to fund the project from the open space

23:44reserve.

23:49Roberto, is there a difference? I see

23:51I'm sorry. In in some places I see this

23:54$1,45,000

23:56balance referred to as budgeted reserve

23:58and sometimes as flexible funds. Are

24:01those the same thing or

24:03>> same thing? So say for example, table

24:05five, flexible funds includes both

24:09budgeted reserve and the undesated fund

24:12balance.

24:14>> They can be used in the same way as

24:16flexible.

24:17>> I got it. Okay.

24:20All right. Anybody else with kind of

24:22foundational questions here about the

24:24couple decisions we're going to need to

24:26talk through here? Michael,

24:28>> just a quick one. And when uh well,

24:30first off, Robera, thank you for your

24:32comprehensive analysis as always. It's

24:34it's super helpful for us to be able to

24:36make these decisions faster. Um on slide

24:39five, slide five, table four, I think.

24:43Um yeah, so you mentioned option one,

24:45option 1 A, 1 B, and then option two. is

24:47is there an option three where we just

24:49kind of decide to wait on these funds?

24:51And I asked just to add a little bit of

24:53color, the distribution of projects

24:56we're seeing this year have a very

24:57different order of magnitude of dollars

24:59versus previous years. And so I just

25:01wanted to I wondered if we have the

25:04option to stall a little bit longer as

25:07opposed to following previous year's

25:08precedent.

25:10>> Um

25:12you do have that option. So you could

25:15not make a decision tonight and wait

25:17until next week. In fact, when we

25:22when we when we conclude this

25:24conversation and we start talking about

25:28projects to um like how how are how is

25:32the committee going to

25:35make a decision on the projects that you

25:37have available? Um,

25:40I've queued up some projects that I

25:43anticipate are probably going to

25:48be easier decisions for you to make

25:50first and then save for next month

25:54projects that you're more likely to need

25:57some more time. And so, you could wait.

26:00The projects that I expected you might

26:03be able to make earlier are ones you

26:05could probably make within the available

26:08budget this year so that you can decide

26:12next month if you chose what to do with

26:15the undesated fund balance.

26:19>> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

26:22>> Thanks, Michael Rona.

26:24[clears throat] Yeah, I would just

26:25propose that we have this in our minds

26:29as we listen to the three other three

26:31projects that we're going to talk about

26:32today because they're all uh open space

26:35projects

26:37and that will give us an idea of whether

26:40we want to do uh the blue area.

26:45>> Raj, I uh agree with you to that we can

26:49hold some of these in in mind. Uh you

26:51may be referring to last month's agenda,

26:53the three open space uh projects that

26:56were presented today. We're going to be

26:57going going through debating I think

26:59starting with historic. Um okay, but but

27:03in any case, yeah.

27:04>> Yeah, I thought we were going to be

27:05reviewing the three that were left.

27:09>> We heard those in July.

27:12>> Oh, okay.

27:13>> They were presented in July.

27:15>> Okay. My notes are wrong then. Okay.

27:19Okay. All

27:23right. Any other questions off the top

27:25here then?

27:27>> Goodbye.

27:29>> David,

27:31>> sorry I just I just lo I just logged on

27:34on the computer and didn't I wasn't

27:36muted.

27:37>> Oh, no problem. Okay, got it. So, I'm

27:40hearing, you know, Robera acknowledged

27:42that we do not necessarily have to make

27:45an allocation decision about these

27:46dollars. Michael, I heard you say that

27:48there could be benefits to um to waiting

27:52or maybe better understanding where the

27:55committee is on the applications that

27:58that are before us before we make a

27:59decision like that. Um is there anybody

28:02who um would strongly advocate for

28:06making an allocation decision right now?

28:13I think there are benefits to it. I

28:15think it gives us a really, you know, a

28:16base understanding of exactly what's in

28:18our our purse, so to speak, as we start

28:21debating these. Um, but I see the other

28:24side, too. Any strong feelings?

28:32Just to make sure I understand if if we

28:35punt it that that amount just we could

28:38do anything. We're not encumbering

28:40ourselves to any kind of decision.

28:42>> I think that is option. I think that's

28:44what Robera calls option two in the in

28:47the table, right? It sits it stays in an

28:49undesated fund balance. So by not taking

28:52a decision, we're taking a decision for

28:55a month.

28:56>> We're leaving the door open. We could

28:57put it all into open space. We could

28:59divide it up by the percentages or

29:01whatever.

29:01>> We could do whatever it is. It is the

29:03flexible the most flexible choice.

29:12And I also just wanted to mention one

29:15other

29:17one other detail. The reason why we

29:20don't have to distribute the funds from

29:23FY26

29:24is because the committee generously

29:28spent um its funding last year fairly

29:32evenly across the categories so that

29:35you've already met your minimum 10%. If

29:38you hadn't met your minimum 10%, then we

29:40would have to distribute the funds last

29:42year's revenue to make sure that we that

29:46we brought it up to the minimum for each

29:48category. But you you've met the

29:50minimum, so it's within your purview.

29:55>> Great. Well, I'll just offer my two

29:58cents here to stir the pot and uh maybe

30:01I'll elicit a reaction, but the um you

30:04know, in my mind, whatever ends up

30:07staying with this committee, meaning not

30:09get the money that does not get sent to

30:11the affordable housing trust, be that

30:14the entire 957,000, be that a smaller

30:17amount. My inclination is that there is

30:21no benefit to us to designate between

30:24the different project areas that keeping

30:26it as flexible as flexible as possible

30:29for us just given what came in the door

30:32this year and what might come in the

30:33rest of the year. I don't I just am

30:36struggling to see the the benefits of

30:40making those allocation decisions

30:42among those dollars. Now, the split, if

30:46we want to take a split that goes to

30:47housing, I'll have that debate and I can

30:50see both sides of that and I'm not

30:51committed one way or the other, but um

30:53that's my feeling on whatever piece

30:56remains with the projects that we are

30:58considering in this room.

31:06>> Eric, any thought or feeling on that?

31:08>> I I agree with that. I think we're

31:11facing a very lopsided round this

31:14particular year in that I mean just

31:16looking at the numbers historic

31:17preservation is just a smidge over what

31:19we're obligated to spend on it. Um open

31:23space is looking for way more than we

31:24have available and the affordable

31:27housing the thing is that we don't

31:28really get succinct projects so it's

31:30like not like we know that if they got

31:32another $50,000 they could do another

31:34thing. So it's sort of like a nebulous

31:36bit of money we give them. So I um I

31:39guess the it's a theoretical question of

31:42whether we're felt duty bound to

31:45allocate hypothetically if we allocated

31:47a chunk to historic preservation we

31:49didn't end up using it all it would just

31:50get kicked to next year what would

31:52happen practically speaking if we use

31:53these percentages and I don't know if

31:55that is the makes the most sense given

31:58what we're facing.

31:59>> Yeah.

32:01Thanks Eric.

32:04Um, okay. Well, it's sounding like

32:06there's no real uh uh push for making an

32:11allocation decision right now. I think

32:13it's okay to leave in the undesated fund

32:16uh for the for the moment. Why don't we,

32:18unless any objections, why don't we move

32:20on and go into some projects and we can

32:23um uh get get the lay of the land on

32:25where folks are on the first the first

32:27couple. As Robera mentioned, I think our

32:29intent is to try to start with ones that

32:32um could be uh shorter conversations,

32:35but uh obviously open to to folks

32:38feelings. Michael,

32:40>> Mr. Chair, I I was thinking a little bit

32:42about the the process now that I've gone

32:45through the whole process previously and

32:46and trying to reflect and and and share

32:49just observations I made from the last

32:51round a little bit. And I wondered if

32:53this time before we get too far into the

32:56um debates around the specific projects

32:59if it was worth adding an agenda item of

33:03sorts that would basically be

33:05deliberation around some of our debt

33:07obligations and whether or not we want

33:08to start proactively chipping away at

33:10that regardless of what the applications

33:13look like. And it could be that it's

33:15better to have this conversation before

33:17the applications. It could also be

33:18better to have it after the review of

33:20the applications. But I just wanted to

33:21surface that as maybe another topic that

33:24we didn't have as clearly like separated

33:27in the last round and our debt

33:29obligations are a bit higher than they

33:31were last round. So just want to put

33:33that out to the committee to see if

33:34there's any thoughts on it.

33:36>> Set another way. You're asking if we

33:37would consider paying off principle on

33:40outstanding CPC bonds in order to reduce

33:43future interest payments.

33:45>> Correct. And I the reason I was saying

33:47it might be an agenda item to pull up in

33:49this in the process is because we might

33:51be increasingly wanting to prioritize

33:54that issue over maybe some of the

33:56applications in front of us. And and

33:58maybe it's the opposite as well. I just

33:59wanted to to raise the idea.

34:01>> Yeah, I'm I'm open to that. I'm open to

34:04that discussion. Does anybody

34:06[clears throat]

34:07have a feeling sorry, excuse me. Does

34:08anybody have a feeling uh strongly one

34:11way or the other on on that just given

34:13the projects that we have in front of

34:14us? Mary Joe,

34:15>> super quickly and it might be a question

34:17for Allan. Um, is the existing debt that

34:21we have on the various projects where we

34:24um that that are already under underway.

34:27Um, are the interest rates on each of

34:30those obligations fixed or is there

34:33something variable? I it I assume

34:36they're fixed because it's municipal

34:38bonds, but but once again in in this

34:40weird interest rate climate. I wondered

34:43I is there any pressure we're feeling to

34:46discharge some of that debt because

34:48interest rates have changed or are we

34:49fixed and it it doesn't really affect

34:52those live bond obligation projects?

34:54>> Uh thank you and through the chair uh

34:57Mary Joe thank you very much for this

34:58question. There was something I wanted

35:00to clarify and also take some time to do

35:03research on my end. So to your question

35:06specifically

35:07um with respect to CPA bonds um

35:13city bond general fund bonding and CPA

35:15bonding work slightly different whereas

35:17general fund bonding sometimes we will

35:20bond shortterm uh we have a period where

35:23we can bond short-term at short-term

35:25rates and then eventually have to long

35:27lock in and go longterm and when you

35:29enter into a long-term bond it's a fixed

35:32rate um CPA A because it's a dedicated

35:35revenue source only for CPA projects. Um

35:40we typically go long-term from the

35:42beginning. Um so we lock in the rate the

35:46very first time we you know right when

35:48we bond for the project. Um, the one

35:51thing I did want to note, um, with

35:54respect to paying down principal is I'd

35:56have to check with our auditing

35:58department and our our staff that works

36:00closely with the bonding because I know

36:01with some bonds um, there is kind of a

36:04threshold where if you don't pay

36:06principal within a certain period, you

36:09you kind of you're due the interest on

36:11the full 20 years, 15 years anyway. So

36:14that and with some bonds you do reach a

36:16period where I I believe the term is

36:18like defeasance or something where you

36:20owe the entire interest over the

36:23lifetime of the bond whether you prepay

36:25it or not. So there's really like

36:27minimal gain.

36:31>> You want to mute on sorry I'd have to

36:34check with uh our auditing department

36:36and see the specifics of CPA and how

36:38that works. But with some bonds,

36:41sometimes there is not necessarily um an

36:43advantage to prepaying if you know you

36:46reach a you reach a certain phase of the

36:49bond and you owe the remainder of the

36:51interest no matter what.

36:52>> That's helpful. Thanks, Alan. Michael.

36:55>> Yeah. Um that's really helpful context,

36:58Alan. Um that's not how I thought about

37:01this when we were previously approving

37:04these things. I thought we kind of had

37:06the luxury to pay this down faster if we

37:08wanted to. And I know we did so a little

37:10bit very quickly last year. Um, so I I

37:15would definitely appreciate that piece

37:16of information before we talk about

37:18bonding future projects because if

37:21there's a risk that we are saddled with

37:22that permanently, I definitely want to

37:24understand that a little bit more

37:25clearly.

37:26>> Sorry. Also, quick note on last year.

37:28Um, that worked out actually quite well

37:31because we we actually we never actually

37:35got around to bonding it because the the

37:37project hadn't started. So, we just

37:38reduced the authorization. My camera's

37:41my camera's going in and out. We

37:42actually reduced reduced the

37:44authorization before we ever actually

37:46went out to market. So, that that worked

37:48out well in that particular case.

37:51>> So, then that begs the question, are we

37:53in that period yet for any of our

37:55obligations right now?

37:57No, I believe that Kennedy uh I I'd have

38:00to check tomorrow and and get a

38:02definitive answer for you tomorrow, but

38:03uh the Kennedy project's underway. Um so

38:05I think we've incurred uh we might have

38:08already incurred expenses in that, in

38:09which case we're obligated to go out to

38:11market for any expenses the city has

38:13incurred.

38:14>> Okay.

38:18>> Yeah, it'll be interesting to to maybe

38:21learn more about that. I think you know

38:22what I'm thinking about this just my my

38:24opinion. I'd love to hear from John and

38:26from others. Uh but especially as PUF is

38:29such a huge tranch of our asks this

38:31year. You know, we heard from peace of

38:34folks that this they believed that this

38:38was likely the biggest

38:42uh biggest ask that is going to come

38:45before CPC for a while just based on

38:47their pipeline. And this is kind of the

38:49year in which we're, you know, the state

38:51the snake uh digesting the whatever the

38:54much bigger animal is. Um, and

38:58for it's for that reason why I

39:02personally think if there you know if if

39:04there were going to be years where

39:07dedicating money not to projects but

39:09dedicating it to paying down bonds, it

39:12it seems like it might be the next

39:15couple of years after this one. if the

39:18if the the plate is not quite as full,

39:20but the revenue remains as as strong

39:23coming into CPC. Um it's just my two

39:27cents. I know that's also going to be,

39:29you know, somebody else's chair's

39:31problem if if we punt something like

39:34that. But um but in any case, I think

39:37this in my years on CBC, this is a

39:39unique year. This is the first time

39:40we've had projects substantially more

39:43than the budget before us. Um, and so it

39:47it I just think maybe other years are a

39:49better fit for an exercise like that.

39:51Understanding that there are time limits

39:53it sounds like based on what Allan and

39:54Michael were just talking about. So

39:56that's my two cents. Uh, Michael, I saw

39:59you come off mute. Did you want to say

40:00something that

40:01>> Oh, no. Sorry. I was just excited to

40:03leave nodding my head like I think

40:04you're exactly right. It's gonna be

40:05[laughter] a function of how fast we can

40:07pay it off, right? If we have the

40:08luxury, you're 100% right.

40:10>> Exactly. Yeah. John, am I on base with

40:14the timing comments?

40:15>> So, so two things about that. So, yeah,

40:17these are our two biggest projects over

40:19the next while. Like this is a big ask

40:21for the art farm specifically, but this

40:23is a project that's going to take many,

40:25many years to complete and construct.

40:27So, this like bonding ask is a lot this

40:29year, but it's kind of spread over

40:31multiple years. So with that we can kind

40:34of frontload the ask over the years you

40:38know like we need to know our committed

40:39funds for this project but like the

40:43scenario I'm thinking about right now is

40:44the Kennedy project is actively in

40:47construction. So the thought is to give

40:50all of the available funds to that

40:51project so that it doesn't need to bond

40:54as much and giving the art farm project

40:56more of the bonded request with the

40:58expectation that over the next few years

41:01we're not going to be asking for as much

41:03and that that funding can actually go to

41:06reduce the bonding ask and can just

41:08become liquid cash for the art farm

41:11project when it does go out to bid and

41:13needs to have full committed funds for

41:15the project. Yeah, understood.

41:20Okay, thanks for pulling this up, uh,

41:22Robera.

41:24So,

41:26okay, so just based Michael, I I hear

41:29you on the the bond question. Sounds

41:31like we need some more information

41:32before we can weigh it up. I agree with

41:34you. It would be ideal to lay out those

41:35things before going into a debate like

41:38this. Um but just given given where we

41:41are and the projects in front of us, I

41:43think we should at least start to dive

41:45in here a little bit. Um the

41:49so let's let's to level set here before

41:52we go into here. So the total dollars

41:56available to us as we weigh up these

41:59Robera, I can't remember how many

42:00applications we're weighing here. Is it

42:03uh nine?

42:05One, two, three, four, five, historic

42:09preservation

42:11and

42:13one, two, three, open space and

42:15recreation. There is a letter, a

42:18memorandum from PAF in your meeting

42:21packet

42:22um requesting to cancel the application

42:25for the West Somerville neighborhood

42:27school graphics because they decided to

42:30um use other funding for that project

42:32instead.

42:33>> That's right. Okay. So it was nine,

42:35we're looking at eight. And you can see

42:37down there at the bottom in row 20, it

42:38looks like Roberta, our total ask

42:41excluding housing is 7,63,000.

42:44Right.

42:45>> Yes. And if we refer back to Robera's

42:48analysis,

42:49if we do not make any allocation

42:54choices, if we do nothing uh with the

42:58additional

43:00900 odd thousand dollars that have come

43:02into us,

43:04we have

43:08>> uh just a moment. this

43:12>> I believe it should be about 8.5 million

43:16>> um the available to

43:21uh okay let me

43:24um

43:26let me see if I have

43:30only in the presentation the last table

43:34I show what the

43:37total possible available to you would be

43:414.3 million if you gave no additional

43:45funds to housing and um used everything

43:48that is available to you. Still assuming

43:52that the 750,000

43:54carried over is constant.

43:56>> That's right. So we that that 750,000 is

43:59not included in the 4.3.

44:01>> Yeah. So that's the that's the

44:06uh that's the bank we have gang for

44:08considering $7 million we have 4.3

44:11million. Okay. Um and that is assuming

44:15that we do not give any money to the

44:17housing trust out of this incremental

44:20amount that we are debating 987,000.

44:23So we're leaving that where it is right

44:25now. I think we're going to start with

44:26historic um looking at some of these uh

44:30projects. Part of the reason why is

44:32because the historic budget is more or

44:36less Robera, right? More or less in line

44:39with what was requested.

44:41>> Yes. Um

44:44so the

44:46uh the table

44:49line

44:53so cell J27

44:57is the total requested for historic

44:59preservation and that just exceeds the

45:03FY26 available funds by $60,000.

45:07>> That's right. And so we have flexibility

45:10obviously in the flexible funds to cover

45:11that gap if we were to decide to fund

45:14all the historic preservation projects.

45:16>> Yeah.

45:16>> Um and the money that is to head off the

45:19question because I had the same question

45:20last week. Money that is currently in

45:22the historic preservation budget is not

45:24easy to move out to spend in another

45:28category. So it's not like it's it's

45:30fungeible. It's not funible. Um it's

45:33there for historic preservation

45:34projects. So that's part of why we were

45:36comfortable getting started um with

45:38historic preservation. Anybody with any

45:40other comments or questions before we go

45:42and look at the first couple apps.

45:50>> I would just um give a little bit of

45:52orientation. Well, maybe I should allow

45:55uh committee members to ask any

45:56questions before I orient you.

46:04orient.

46:05>> Okay. So, um on column J, actual

46:09request, you see that I have highlighted

46:12in red some of the projects that I

46:16anticipate you're going to need to have

46:18more discussion about. The ones that are

46:20in black, I expected it you might more

46:24quickly come to a decision about what

46:26you want to do with those projects.

46:29So, I um I've prepared recommendation

46:33letters for all of the ones in black.

46:35And you can see that in the table to the

46:39right, column P, I am showing what it

46:43would look like if they all came out of

46:45the historic preservation reserve. Um

46:48just because we have to identify that at

46:50the time you make the recommendation.

46:52So,

46:52>> interested.

46:54>> Okay. Excellent. All right. I'm going to

46:57propose we start by talking about the

46:58Elizabeth Peabody House um frequent

47:01flyer and known entity to us. Um uh

47:05application request for 230,171

47:09for work on the clock tower portico and

47:12main entrance restoration. Anybody with

47:16comments, questions, feelings about the

47:19peody house request.

47:30>> Michael,

47:33>> I also wanted to wait a little bit to

47:35see if anybody else wants to go first,

47:38but if I need to break the ice, I will.

47:40Um, so you know, this group, like you

47:44said, has been a frequent flyer.

47:45Fantastic organization. Historically, at

47:48least last year, um, because my purview

47:51is limited, uh, they paired their

47:54applications with community benefits and

47:56community programs in addition to the

47:58fact that they were trying to preserve

48:00the building. And I felt that those

48:01applications were much stronger than the

48:04one this year. So, um, just as one

48:07member, uh, this application, in my

48:10opinion, wasn't as strong as previous

48:12applications from from this, uh,

48:14applicant. It doesn't mean it's not

48:16still worthwhile. It still is a valuable

48:18asset to our community to continue to

48:20preserve and and make this building

48:22last, but it's not as compelling to me

48:24as it was in in previous uh, cycles. So,

48:27just want to kind of add that color.

48:29>> Understood. Thank you, Michael.

48:33the Can you give a little quick recap? I

48:36remember last year I was getting into

48:37trouble that certain things we're

48:39allowed to consider, not consider. We're

48:40not really supposed to consider the work

48:42that

48:43they're secondary things like what they

48:45do when we say they do a service for the

48:47community and all that. That's is that

48:48sort of outside of what we're

48:50considering

48:51>> for last year's application. It was more

48:53relevant to consider the the impacts be

48:58of the work that was going to be done

49:00because it was work that would be on the

49:02interior of the building that would

49:05enable them to

49:09um recover the use of the full use of

49:12the building which was limited because

49:14of structural limitations. So they were

49:17going to repair the structural

49:19limitations enabling them to recover the

49:22full use of the building. And so it was

49:24relevant for the committee to consider

49:27how the full use of the building

49:30provided a public benefit. In this case,

49:33the public benefit is

49:36purely to the exterior of the building.

49:40Um there isn't an interior component to

49:43this

49:45>> um project.

49:48That said, um the

49:53I it I think it's important for

49:55committee members to consider that the

49:58public benefit is the exterior

50:01preservation of the building, but the

50:05fact that it's an organization that

50:08provides services to the community may

50:13be a criteria that you take into

50:15consideration.

50:16as you prioritize how you want to spend

50:19the CPA funds.

50:22>> I think that was the I felt like there

50:24was a discussion we had last year about

50:25that like if if the new use that was

50:28facilitated was a ATM lobby versus um

50:33what they do um how far or detached from

50:36the act of preservation are we allowed

50:38to consider the benefit of giving if

50:40it's if it's a beautiful building and it

50:42keeps it standing. Is that really all

50:46um that matters or is it a publicly used

50:48benefit within it that's enhancing

50:51versus a privately used benefit that

50:52it's enhancing?

50:55If my question is making sense there,

50:57>> right?

51:00>> I think that's up for up for our debate.

51:03Ron, did you have something? Yeah, I

51:05just I want to speak in favor of this

51:08just because that whole section of

51:11Winter Hill is going to change

51:12dramatically

51:14in the next two years because the star

51:16market is finally gone

51:19and I think that this structure is

51:21actually going to be much more relevant

51:23to more people in Somerville. So, I just

51:26want to sort of plug it in that way.

51:30A

51:30>> great point. Thanks.

51:31>> Yeah, it's a really great point.

51:35And to add to RA's thing, I think Oh,

51:38sorry. Nipped off David.

51:42>> Go ahead, Eric. We'll we'll go to David.

51:44>> Um, the clock tower that this is

51:45focusing on is a bit more of an icon for

51:49that building. So, it's not like we're

51:51stabilizing gutters in the back or

51:53something. It's the clock. It's fixing

51:55the clocks up. It's the shingling and

51:56stuff, the front entry. So, it's a more

51:59prominent part of the building even

52:00though it's not necessarily facilitating

52:01a new use inside of it.

52:04>> That's kind of where I am, Eric, is, you

52:06know, we've been funding we and before I

52:08was on CPC, this has been funded for

52:10years and years. It feels like this is

52:12possibly the most visible

52:15portion that will if if we vote to fund,

52:18it will be the most visible portion that

52:20CPC has contributed to. Just just my

52:23take. It's it sounds like you're saying

52:24the same thing, Eric.

52:25>> Yeah.

52:26>> Um David, please. I I kind of feel now

52:28I'm just kind of piling on, but I I I I

52:31kind of agree. I think that this is, you

52:34know, really purely a, you know, an

52:37historic preservation project for a

52:39really prominent, you know, part, you

52:41know, part of the street. I think

52:43Michael, you know, you had, I think, the

52:45the handicap, so to speak, of of being

52:48here for what I think was a little bit

52:50more of an anomalous application where

52:52we were looking to figure out because it

52:55was interior, you know, it was it was

52:57emphasizing your access, you know,

52:59making interior space accessible. How do

53:02we kind of still,

53:05you know, still include, you know, how

53:07do we still justify it? and and and so

53:10then then of course the use of it and

53:12the and the benefits of the organization

53:14you know became a much more pert you

53:16know pertinent part of the discussion

53:18where this I think is is really more

53:19purely historic preservation.

53:23>> Thanks David.

53:24>> Okay. Uh sounds like we're headed in the

53:27same direction here. Anybody want to

53:29speak that would not be comfortable

53:32funding the request uh as it was

53:34drafted?

53:38I just wanted to um add one more thing.

53:41I'm sorry again to um jump in before

53:44someone has a chance to answer your

53:45question, Ryan, but um I wanted to

53:48acknowledge the public comments that we

53:50received. Um there's a folder of public

53:52comments in the meeting packet. Um and

53:55there's at least one comment that was um

53:59supportive of this project specifically.

54:03Um the many more comments about other

54:06projects and I can summarize some of

54:08those if you want later.

54:10>> Thank you.

54:10>> Were there any that were not supportive?

54:13>> No.

54:14>> Okay.

54:16>> Always good to know, dude. All right. Um

54:20can we take a look at the um draft? Um

54:26why am I blanking out the draft

54:28description?

54:32What's the word? I can't think of

54:33resolution.

54:34>> Uh recommendation

54:36>> recommendation.

54:39Long day, gang.

54:41>> Okay. Uh

54:44all right.

54:52All right. Pretty straightforward to me.

54:54Is this a standard conditions?

55:01Sorry, I muted because there's a

55:03saxophone playing right outside my

55:05window.

55:06>> Um,

55:06>> you could do you could do worse.

55:08>> Sounds nice.

55:11>> Um, there uh for this project because

55:15it's it is a project that the CPC has

55:18funded many times in the past. Um,

55:21they've already met all of the

55:22conditions that you could possibly think

55:24of to put on the building. So, there's

55:26no additional conditions.

55:28>> All right. Very good. Anybody questions,

55:30comments, reservations before I ask for

55:32a motion?

55:36>> Does anyone have any questions about the

55:38budgeted, you know, the the request

55:40amount requested? Like I I haven't

55:42really looked at the numbers. I've only

55:44looked at kind of the the scope and

55:45objective of the project.

55:51>> I think they told us at the hearing that

55:52they'd gotten that number from the

55:54contractor that was going to do it or it

55:56seemed like it was a harder number.

55:58Yeah, I think they over the years, my

56:00impression is they're they've been

56:02consistently

56:03very well tied to an architect's

56:05estimate for this work. It's been the

56:07same architect through the years. Um, it

56:10did not seem unreasonable to me.

56:12>> Okay.

56:13>> Um, but I welcome any other comments.

56:20>> Yeah, my notes say Sam Dennis,

56:22architect, $230,000 is a wellressearched

56:25estimate.

56:26>> Yeah. Okay.

56:28Thanks.

56:29>> Quick question. Um just and it's more of

56:32a scope thing just for whatever reason I

56:34don't I don't have um it in front of me

56:37right now but but um is the clock tower

56:40restoration

56:42does it also include getting the clock

56:44operational or is it more just the

56:46tower?

56:51>> I looked at their description and it

56:53says making them operational. I think

56:54maybe Robera could correct me when I

56:56looked it over.

56:58>> I saw that as well.

57:07>> Okay.

57:10All right. If no other questions or

57:13reservations, I would love to welcome a

57:14motion for this.

57:18>> I'll make the motion.

57:21>> Second.

57:24All right. Thank you. And Robera, that's

57:26to uh to approve the uh drafted

57:30recommendation. Do we need to say that?

57:33>> Oh, I move that we approve the

57:35recommendation drafted by Robera for the

57:40um

57:42for this project.

57:44>> Fair enough. I think that works.

57:46>> Robera, you're on mute, but I hope I did

57:48you proud.

57:49>> That's good. Thank you. Um, I will call

57:52the roll. Let me bring you all back up

57:54on the screen so that I can see you all.

57:58Stop share.

58:02And um, Eric,

58:05>> yes.

58:06>> Rona,

58:07>> yes.

58:08>> Carlos,

58:09>> yes.

58:10>> Mary Joe,

58:11>> yes.

58:12>> John,

58:13>> yes.

58:14>> Ryan,

58:14>> yes.

58:16>> David,

58:16>> yes.

58:17>> Michael,

58:19>> hi. and Joe.

58:21>> Yes.

58:23>> All right.

58:25>> All right. Thank you. One down. All

58:29right. Let's go next to the city of

58:34Somerville request for the Armory.

58:38Um request is for $19,000.

58:46Pulling it up my notes here.

58:51Uh, I'm seeing it, Robera, is 109,000 in

58:54our worksheet, but the application was

58:55for 110,000. I don't know if is that

58:58real?

58:59>> I think that they said that they would

59:02find $1,000 to match the 109,000, but I

59:07can

59:08>> $1,000 on the is listed as armory re

59:12revenue.

59:13>> Yes.

59:14>> Okay.

59:14>> Thank you for for finding that.

59:16>> They say that is in they say it is in

59:18hand.

59:19All right, excellent. Love to hear it.

59:20So, we're debating for 109,000.

59:23This is to prepare an updated needs

59:25assessment of the Armory's historic

59:27exterior, implementing the

59:29recommendations of the Somerville Armory

59:30master plan for converting it into a

59:33public community arts center. We heard

59:37from Ted Fields

59:40uh and I think Ralph Henry as well uh in

59:45our meeting last month. Um, I think we

59:49did have some good conversations asking

59:51them about the roof and other long range

59:55capital needs that they anticipated, but

59:58um seems that uh this is a necessary

1:00:03step along the way that will uh enable

1:00:07some of the some of the actual repairs

1:00:10and upgrades work that they need to do

1:00:12before this turns into its uh its new

1:00:15use. Anybody have any questions or notes

1:00:18from from this one? There there was some

1:00:20conversation,

1:00:23David, please.

1:00:24>> Yeah, I

1:00:26we had a discussion about why they need

1:00:29another assessment so shortly after the

1:00:33assessment that they did in 2021.

1:00:36>> Correct.

1:00:36>> I for one found the explanation kind of

1:00:39uncompelling. I I I wasn't I didn't

1:00:42really understand

1:00:44that there wasn't plenty of work that

1:00:46they could do that was identified in the

1:00:47previous assessment that they hadn't

1:00:49done.

1:00:51>> I can speak to that actually. Uh, when I

1:00:55reviewed the previous assessment, it

1:00:57focused primarily on the mechanical

1:00:59systems and the roof, but it didn't

1:01:03really talk much at all about the um the

1:01:08stucco exterior cladding or the windows

1:01:12and it didn't have any mention of

1:01:15historic preservation at all. So I they

1:01:19had initially come last year with a

1:01:22recommendation with a request for um

1:01:26replacing doors on the exterior which

1:01:30again didn't have any real historic

1:01:32preservation element to it. So I

1:01:36recommended to them that they need to

1:01:39look at this project through a historic

1:01:41preservation lens first and then ask the

1:01:44CPC for funds. So that's why they they

1:01:47came with this request.

1:01:49>> Okay, that's very very helpful.

1:01:51>> Yeah, thanks thanks for that, Roberta.

1:01:53I'm looking at the at the app itself in

1:01:56the status section. I mean, I think what

1:01:58you just said adds more color to it,

1:02:00Roberta, but the the writing says, "An

1:02:03updated needs assessment is vital at

1:02:04this time to determine the exact state

1:02:06of the armory's exterior, particularly

1:02:08the facade, roof, gutters, and integrity

1:02:10of upper floor windows and first floor

1:02:13doorways,

1:02:14uh, etc.

1:02:16Um, so I think the the context of how

1:02:20the 2021 study was different is really

1:02:22helpful. Um,

1:02:24>> and imagine if you put the two and two

1:02:26together, you get a full study. There is

1:02:29a little overlap between the two

1:02:31updating the condition of the roof um

1:02:33primarily but um that study looked at

1:02:38the building from one angle and this

1:02:40study would look at it from another

1:02:41angle and you put the two together and

1:02:43it shows the full capital needs of the

1:02:45building but not necessarily

1:02:48most of what was identified in the 21

1:02:51study was not CPA eligible was not

1:02:55historically oriented.

1:03:01Uh, someone remind me if I'm just

1:03:03forgetting. Have they identified a

1:03:05consultant to take this work on or do

1:03:08they have to go out to bid?

1:03:10>> They have an inhouse doctor who was

1:03:14already under contract with the city who

1:03:17they would um issue this task to.

1:03:22>> They they they mention a firm Cambridge

1:03:257. Yes.

1:03:26>> And they also have a great deal, there's

1:03:28a lot of detail in here about their

1:03:31plans to use a drone to do analysis

1:03:33using

1:03:34a firm which they say is, you know, FAA

1:03:38certified.

1:03:40So, they seem to have those things lined

1:03:42up.

1:03:45So that was my my concerns paralleled

1:03:48kind of what David's were, which was

1:03:52repeating work they'd already paid for,

1:03:54which apparently they're not. The only

1:03:56other uh I don't have a saxophone. I

1:03:59have one of those little mini bikes

1:04:00zipping by me.

1:04:02>> Um,

1:04:04normally with a project like this, in my

1:04:06experience, they'd hire an architect

1:04:08would do this work as as part of their

1:04:11ultimate project of preparing bid

1:04:12documents. So it's like a one-stop

1:04:14chopping kind of thing. You hire

1:04:16someone, they come out, tell you what

1:04:17the preservation work needs to do. At

1:04:19the end of that, they give you a set of

1:04:21bid documents and that goes to bid and

1:04:23that's that. I was from the notes I had

1:04:26from the meeting, they sounded like that

1:04:27after doing this, they're they're then

1:04:29going to hire a consultant to to do to

1:04:32prepare documents based on this. So I

1:04:34was a little unclear if they were like

1:04:36double

1:04:38charging for that. I'm assuming that

1:04:40whatever work they do as part of this is

1:04:41going to save an eventual consultant and

1:04:43they're not going to have to do that. So

1:04:47that was my only concern. I was a little

1:04:48bit confused what their optimate goal

1:04:50was hearing that they have never

1:04:52actually studied this stuff in the

1:04:53previous

1:04:54>> reports. I'm fine with it. The goal, the

1:04:56bigger picture, this is obviously a

1:04:58worthwhile building. It needs to be

1:04:59fixed. It it's, you know, it's a public

1:05:01benefit. Everything about it is

1:05:02worthwhile

1:05:04as as a project in its own right to me.

1:05:08Thanks, Aaron.

1:05:10>> I'm sorry. One other thing I wanted as

1:05:12I'm as I'm scrolling through the thing

1:05:14is they also describe part of it as

1:05:16optional an optional water filtration

1:05:18infiltration testing service. So, I

1:05:21don't know if folks have looked at it as

1:05:23a

1:05:25you know a could fund all of it or could

1:05:28fund part of it um project.

1:05:33Where are you referring to the

1:05:35>> I'm on page I don't know what page I'm

1:05:38on. I'm on I'm about I'm about eight

1:05:41pages in

1:05:44in a in documents uh with Gail on the

1:05:47letterhead

1:05:52and pages aren't a number but if you

1:05:53scroll about four pages into the Gale

1:05:57documentation it talks about the

1:05:59optional water infiltration testing

1:06:01services.

1:06:05now. I'm not positive if this is

1:06:09if how this letter relates to their

1:06:12application. I don't know if Roberto you

1:06:13can speak to that.

1:06:23>> You're on mute again if you're speak.

1:06:32Did you find it, Ryan?

1:06:34>> Uh, I see the table in the Gail report.

1:06:37Yes.

1:06:38>> Yeah. So, I'm just trying to navigate

1:06:40it, navigate to it myself right now.

1:06:44Total basic services 76,000.

1:06:49And

1:06:51um

1:06:55I'm trying to see how that um comes into

1:07:00the budget on page seven.

1:07:04>> It's because I'm this read this is a bid

1:07:07document from Gail to them.

1:07:09>> Yeah.

1:07:09>> Yeah.

1:07:10>> So I see the water infiltration testing

1:07:12line in their budget. This is page seven

1:07:14of the PDF. I want I would assume that

1:07:17is part of

1:07:20>> Yeah. So it looks like they've applied

1:07:21for all of it and and the next page the

1:07:24infrared facade survey. So they've

1:07:26they've covered they've added they've

1:07:28included all of that into their

1:07:30application to us. Okay.

1:07:31>> Yeah. And on page seven it shows the

1:07:34detail the infrared

1:07:37the structural assessment.

1:07:40>> Okay.

1:07:41>> Water infiltration testing.

1:07:45Yeah. Okay.

1:07:46>> John, did you want to add something?

1:07:48>> Oh, I I answered my question because I

1:07:50was confused because Gail is only

1:07:52charging 14 in their base bid, but all

1:07:54of those other additional numbers add up

1:07:56to Gail's 29.

1:07:58>> Ah, they do. Okay, that's that's where I

1:08:00was hung up, too. All right, got it.

1:08:02Helpful. Thank you.

1:08:04>> So, Gail's like a subcontractor to

1:08:06Cambridge 7 on this project.

1:08:09>> Exactly.

1:08:11It was ugly. Okay, cool. Anybody with um

1:08:15with qualms, remaining uh

1:08:20reasons not to vote for this or

1:08:22additional information you would want to

1:08:24see before taking a vote.

1:08:31Okay.

1:08:32Uh Robera, can we take a look at the

1:08:34draft recommendation? Sorry, I know you

1:08:37had it up before and we made you take it

1:08:39away.

1:08:42Hang on.

1:08:47All right. So, to prepare prepare a

1:08:50historic exterior needs assessment

1:08:53to identify strategic capital

1:08:54investments to stabilize and preserve

1:08:56the city-owned community arts center

1:09:00focusing specifically on exterior

1:09:01renovations. Okay.

1:09:07And I assume, Eric, this was this uh

1:09:10historic preservation commission was

1:09:12weighed in on this building long long

1:09:13ago. I would guess many

1:09:16>> um actually, didn't we just do it this

1:09:18meeting last time? We didn't listen this

1:09:19on our agenda. Robert, didn't you come

1:09:21and present this to us?

1:09:24>> I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last thing

1:09:25you just said.

1:09:26>> Oh, didn't you didn't we discuss this at

1:09:28our last meeting?

1:09:29>> Oh, the HPC meeting. Yes. And I included

1:09:32the findings from HPC in the meeting

1:09:34packet this afternoon. So, uh, HPC did

1:09:38find this building and the artifacts

1:09:41included in the Somerville Museum's

1:09:43application to be historically

1:09:45significant.

1:09:46>> Ah, so it did only just happen. I was

1:09:48kind of kidding. I'd assume this

1:09:49happened in the 70s, but uh, okay, fair

1:09:52enough.

1:09:53>> That's um, that was my thought exactly

1:09:55when we're talking about the last

1:09:56meeting. Like, why are we, you know, I

1:09:58thought this was a done deal with this

1:09:59building. What are we doing? Okay.

1:10:01>> This was not on paper anywhere. So now

1:10:03you guys have have officially connected

1:10:06that dot.

1:10:07>> Yep. All right. Um standard conditions

1:10:09here. Correct.

1:10:12>> Um so this project will follow the

1:10:15general conditions outlined in a

1:10:16memorandum of agreement. I didn't

1:10:18include any project specific conditions

1:10:21um standard conditions unless there's

1:10:23something you'd like to add.

1:10:27is does this one require the three-year,

1:10:31you know, that they have to begin with?

1:10:33>> Yes, that's included in the standard

1:10:35conditions.

1:10:36>> Okay. And so they're already in here.

1:10:38>> Yes.

1:10:39>> Those are the general conditions, right?

1:10:41Is that what you mean?

1:10:42>> Yeah. The the general conditions that

1:10:45>> Okay. So, I know in some places it's in

1:10:47theou and sometimes it's in the grant

1:10:49agreement. And then

1:10:50>> so if it's a grant agreement with an

1:10:52outside entity, it's automatic because

1:10:54the city limits contracts with outside

1:10:57entities to 3 years and then has to come

1:10:59back for a renewal. So we've added that

1:11:02to our use that likewise for city

1:11:05projects, they have to come back in in 3

1:11:09years to ask for renewal.

1:11:13>> Got it. Okay. All right. Any other

1:11:16questions, comments on the draft

1:11:18recommendation here? Hearing

1:11:24none. Would anybody like to make a

1:11:26motion for this one?

1:11:30>> Yeah, I'll make a motion.

1:11:31>> Thanks, David. Second.

1:11:37>> I'll second it.

1:11:39>> Thank you, Eric. Please call the roll.

1:11:42>> All right, Rona.

1:11:46>> Oops. Yes,

1:11:49>> David.

1:11:50>> Yes,

1:11:50>> Carlos.

1:11:52>> Yes,

1:11:53>> Michael.

1:11:54>> Hi,

1:11:56>> John.

1:11:57>> Yes,

1:11:58>> Mary Joe.

1:11:59>> Yes,

1:12:00>> Eric.

1:12:01>> Yes,

1:12:02>> Joe.

1:12:04>> Yes.

1:12:05>> And Ryan?

1:12:06>> Yes.

1:12:07>> All right.

1:12:10>> Thank you very much. All right. Uh let's

1:12:16crack on to one more here. At least we

1:12:19do want to leave a little bit of time at

1:12:20the end of this to talk some admin

1:12:22before we break. So I will stop us um uh

1:12:27by 8:20 at the latest. Um

1:12:32right, we should stop at 8:30.

1:12:34>> Um that's your goal.

1:12:37>> All right. I I I strictly adhere for

1:12:40this for this group. Okay. Um,

1:12:44let's do the um Mission Church of Christ

1:12:48on

1:12:49um uh Highland.

1:12:53This is a request for $25,000.

1:12:59Sorry, I'm trying to open it.

1:13:04$25,000 is for building needs

1:13:06assessment.

1:13:08Um,

1:13:10they want to hire a firm that

1:13:13specializes in historical preservation

1:13:15to draft a condition assessment report.

1:13:17Provide a preservation plan for the

1:13:19church building the 130 Highland A.

1:13:24Um,

1:13:25anybody with questions, comments?

1:13:28Michael, please.

1:13:29>> Thank you. Um, so I think the ask here

1:13:32is relatively low, so I don't want to

1:13:33spend too much hot air on it, but I I do

1:13:36see a comment in the financial tracker

1:13:39highlighting a lack of compliance with

1:13:41previous grants. And I'm Robera, I was

1:13:43wondering if the applicant followed up

1:13:45with you on that to kind of either

1:13:47clarify things or explain the deficiency

1:13:50or anything like that.

1:13:52>> Yes, actually, thank you for asking. Um

1:13:55so the deficiency was that way back when

1:13:58um early in the program they used funds

1:14:03to repair their roof and they were

1:14:06required at the time to put the building

1:14:08under a preservation restriction which

1:14:11they did not comply with at the time.

1:14:14they just never completed. They got we

1:14:16got halfway through the process with

1:14:18them and they never signed the

1:14:20preservation restrictions so we couldn't

1:14:22move forward with it. And since then,

1:14:26first the committee decided to um not

1:14:30require preservation restrictions

1:14:32anymore going forward. Our law

1:14:34department decided that they really were

1:14:36not in favor of entering more

1:14:39preservation restrictions given the

1:14:41limitations on our ability to monitor

1:14:44them. And the applicant I had a

1:14:47conversation with them because they

1:14:49applied before this was really finally

1:14:52decided and they said that they would be

1:14:54willing to comply now should we require

1:14:58it of them. I think they didn't fully

1:15:00understand the ask at the time and

1:15:04didn't understand that they hadn't

1:15:07signed the documents that needed to be

1:15:10signed. So, um there are um I think they

1:15:14would be willing to comply, but I think

1:15:17the city is no longer requiring them to

1:15:21meet that require like go through that

1:15:24process. So, um I have added to the

1:15:28recommendation letter a um an additional

1:15:32condition that the 15-year clawback

1:15:35should apply to the roof project as well

1:15:38as to the condition assessment.

1:15:41And I'm not sure how we would enforce

1:15:44the condition assessment um clawback.

1:15:48Um, that's something that I think I

1:15:50would need to negotiate with the with

1:15:54the grantee and the law department, but

1:15:56I think um there would be a an an easy

1:16:01case to be made that we should ask them

1:16:03to also apply the roof to the 15-year

1:16:07clawback.

1:16:09>> I'm supportive of that.

1:16:13Yeah, I I guess I'm I'm okay with this

1:16:16because it has the law department's

1:16:18blessing really. I think, you know, as a

1:16:23as a committee, we have very few ways to

1:16:28pursue

1:16:30uh recipients who don't comply with the

1:16:34conditions that are laid out. One of the

1:16:35very few levers we have is to say no if

1:16:38they come back. Frankly, we we don't

1:16:42have the ability to sue. We can't like

1:16:45we can't put a lean or any of that, I

1:16:47don't think. Right. So,

1:16:50had you not said that Somerville Legal

1:16:53was like okay with this, I think I out

1:16:56of principle would have said no to this

1:16:59because it is one of the only ways we

1:17:01have to hold people's feet to the fire

1:17:04if they happen to come in the door

1:17:05again. Uh

1:17:08but that said, I mean, this this has the

1:17:11the the blessing of city hall. Um, you

1:17:14know, I'm I'm okay with that. And it

1:17:16sounds Roberto like um you know, adding

1:17:19the the clawback for the roof is um I

1:17:24won't say a gesture, but it's a it's a

1:17:27reminder in in writing that uh that that

1:17:31we expect compliance with with what's in

1:17:34the agreement. Is that fair?

1:17:35>> Yes. No.

1:17:39But did they not do the roof repairs

1:17:41then? Or

1:17:42>> they do the roof repairs. They just

1:17:43never completed the condition

1:17:45assessment. I mean, that's not They

1:17:47never completed the preservation

1:17:50restriction.

1:17:51>> Yeah.

1:17:52>> And and not that it matters, I guess,

1:17:54but it sounds like they didn't do

1:17:56anything that would have put them out of

1:17:57compliance with the preservation

1:17:59restriction had it been completed,

1:18:01right? They didn't build a addition or

1:18:03pivot the use or anything like that. So

1:18:05it was kind of a paperwork phaua but uh

1:18:09but in any case it was a violation.

1:18:11>> So so to be clear so now they are saying

1:18:13they are willing to do that that

1:18:17whatever you call it the

1:18:20>> they would be willing to sign the

1:18:21preservation restriction now that that

1:18:23we've um

1:18:24>> now that they're asking for more money.

1:18:26>> I was gonna say yeah sure. [laughter]

1:18:30>> Yeah. Um, I I I think that they

1:18:34the the communication channels broke

1:18:37down a couple of years ago. This was

1:18:39like literally 5 years ago that that we

1:18:41last communicated with them. And um and

1:18:46I I I think that they would be willing

1:18:48to reopen that, but

1:18:51I think that the city is not really

1:18:55interested in pursuing a preservation

1:18:57restriction.

1:18:58But the fact that the city's not

1:19:00interested in it doesn't mean we

1:19:03shouldn't, you know, I mean, I think

1:19:04Ryan's point is really is really valid.

1:19:07Mhm.

1:19:08>> And the fact that they, you know, they

1:19:10should have done A, B, and C and they al

1:19:12only did A and B,

1:19:15you know, and and and

1:19:18I guess maybe if we were to get them to

1:19:20do, you know, C now that ends up we end

1:19:24up ahead of where we are currently

1:19:25where, you know, they've done the work,

1:19:26they got the money, and they haven't

1:19:27done it. And so maybe you know not just

1:19:30the clawback but the whole you know that

1:19:32they actually you know complete

1:19:35you know the whole process you know may

1:19:38be something we should condition

1:19:41you know and the fact that the city says

1:19:42I don't really care. I'm not I don't

1:19:44know. I'm not really sure that that

1:19:45should

1:19:46>> So you could certainly make that

1:19:47condition and if

1:19:51if the city ends up not complying

1:19:55then they will have they will have done

1:19:58everything that they can do. If they

1:20:01sign the preservation restriction,

1:20:03execute it and give it to the city and

1:20:05the city drops the ball at least they

1:20:08will have complied. So that's that's

1:20:12fair to ask. Um, I I think we can't

1:20:15condition it on the preservation

1:20:17restriction being recorded because

1:20:20that's in the city's court, but that the

1:20:23preservation restriction be executed

1:20:25that is within their

1:20:27>> Yeah. and and and hopefully we could

1:20:29convince the city you know you know like

1:20:31like Ryan said this you know this is not

1:20:33just the pres you know the you know the

1:20:36fact of getting it but it's also the

1:20:38principle that we've got so few levers

1:20:41and if someone when they don't do it we

1:20:42just say oh well that's okay you know

1:20:44that seems to undercut

1:20:47you know even the pretend authority we

1:20:49have

1:20:51>> Mary Joe

1:20:52>> um thanks real quickly um two thoughts

1:20:56came to mind as we were discing ing all

1:20:57this one as when I think Robera you may

1:21:01have explained that maybe the

1:21:02communication

1:21:04um had waned over 5 years or whatever

1:21:07first thing that came to mind for me is

1:21:09has there been leadership change are

1:21:12there any parties who are the movers and

1:21:14shakers of that particular church who

1:21:17are not were not there when the other

1:21:19project was embarked upon I'm just

1:21:22asking that not making excuses for them

1:21:25not having done But then the other thing

1:21:28is um that um even if the city and I I

1:21:33guess you're touching on this already.

1:21:34Even if the city doesn't choose to

1:21:37record and formalize Sorry, there's a

1:21:40cat. [laughter]

1:21:41Even if the city um doesn't choose to uh

1:21:44finalize that preservation restriction,

1:21:47it it it seems like we would need to

1:21:52convey to whoever the leadership is, the

1:21:54latest leadership of the church,

1:21:56conditions matter. And and I wonder if

1:22:00by allowing that one that we know is

1:22:02never going to get recorded, but does it

1:22:04is it a slippery slope and they kind of

1:22:06think everything's loosey goosey and so

1:22:08maybe there is value even though it

1:22:10feels like an administrative um gesture

1:22:13uh for us to formalize that one they

1:22:16didn't formalize or at least get it from

1:22:19them. it that's not going to get

1:22:20recorded by the city and that way

1:22:22they're kind of in goodstead and maybe

1:22:25taking conditions seriously in general

1:22:29and then also if they if they had said

1:22:32oh we didn't realize or we didn't know

1:22:34and and maybe I'm paraphrasing Robera

1:22:36maybe that's not exactly what they said

1:22:37but I mean we would want the leadership

1:22:40of that organization to know what

1:22:43conditions are and that they do matter

1:22:46and and and so this is maybe a moment

1:22:48where with is um is this their second

1:22:50time only or their third time? Okay. So,

1:22:53you know, with our frequent flyers,

1:22:55somebody like Elizabeth Peody House,

1:22:57they know, I mean, they're very

1:22:58experienced. This is their second time.

1:23:01And so, it just strikes me as a

1:23:04marvelous opportunity to make sure who

1:23:06the whoever the leadership is that they

1:23:09can't say we we didn't realize.

1:23:13>> It's a great question. Um maybe I can

1:23:15give a little bit more context, a little

1:23:17bit more detail about what broke down.

1:23:19First of all, one significant leadership

1:23:22change that occurred um in in the the

1:23:26time since they first didn't comply was

1:23:30um that this project was started under

1:23:34my predecessor

1:23:37maybe two predecessors back and I think

1:23:40that things broke down in the

1:23:43transitions of the CPA managers so that

1:23:47um they didn'tffect effectively get the

1:23:50correct instructions or the instructions

1:23:52weren't communicated with them clearly

1:23:54enough so that by the time I came along

1:23:57I made one last ditch effort to um to

1:24:01get them to correct a mistake in their

1:24:06submission

1:24:07that they insisted wasn't a mistake but

1:24:12they didn't talk to me um they just

1:24:15stopped communicating with me because

1:24:17they thought that I was um that they had

1:24:20already taken care of something that

1:24:21that they they hadn't. So, I think that

1:24:24I came along too late to be able to um

1:24:28get their attention on the subject

1:24:30because they had been led to believe

1:24:32that that things were all right before I

1:24:35came on board. Um also, Jane Damian who

1:24:40came and gave us the presentation last

1:24:42time is a new person in leadership. the

1:24:47original person is still in a position

1:24:49of leadership, but I think that the

1:24:52people around her may have turned over

1:24:54so that we now have this this person who

1:24:57is very um

1:25:01willing to talk with us and learn in

1:25:05depth about where we were, where we are

1:25:07now, how we can work together. So, they

1:25:11seem to be very open to having

1:25:13conversations now where I didn't

1:25:16encounter that openness back in 2021.

1:25:31Thanks for that context.

1:25:38All right. Anybody else with thoughts or

1:25:40feelings on this one? I mean, I I

1:25:43personally am in in favor of making the

1:25:46award, but um you know, I still am open

1:25:50to the idea of changing from our

1:25:53standard conditions to include some

1:25:56additional

1:25:58uh

1:26:00additional requirements to ensure you

1:26:02know folks are folks are paying

1:26:03attention here.

1:26:05Um,

1:26:07I don't know. Thoughts?

1:26:10Michael,

1:26:11>> looking for an a motion.

1:26:14>> Come again.

1:26:15>> Are you looking for a motion?

1:26:17>> Uh, I I would be interested in hearing

1:26:20what specifically what we've had a

1:26:22couple different ideas here um about

1:26:25what the conditions might be. Um, I I I

1:26:28don't know if people have feelings on

1:26:29that before we go to a motion. I think

1:26:31that would be useful to talk about.

1:26:35So the the new way we do it is to

1:26:39require these callbacks

1:26:42which we would require is this. I think

1:26:45making them do a preservation

1:26:46restriction because they were not even

1:26:48do one when the city wouldn't follow

1:26:50through with it anyway seems perhaps a

1:26:53little bit like just make work for them.

1:26:57>> I I yeah I understand that. I you know I

1:27:01I agree. Um,

1:27:04>> Torbert, apologies if you if you say

1:27:06>> I'm sorry, just a real quick I didn't

1:27:08maybe I misunderstood. Did the city say

1:27:10they wouldn't act on it or they weren't

1:27:13concerned about whether they did or not?

1:27:16Um, well,

1:27:20last spring or the last time I tried to

1:27:25walk a preservation restriction through

1:27:28our law department. They flagged a

1:27:31concern about our need to improve

1:27:34monitoring of preservation restrictions.

1:27:37And then we hired the consultants last

1:27:39year who advised us that preservation

1:27:43restrictions are very difficult for the

1:27:46city to properly implement and

1:27:48discourage the city from taking on more

1:27:51preservation restrictions.

1:27:53>> Um so that's

1:27:56that's where I got the idea that that we

1:28:00didn't want to continue doing this, but

1:28:03it is still your prerogative.

1:28:05>> Yeah. Oh, I understand. And I I kind of

1:28:06misunderstood. So it's actually from our

1:28:09own consultant

1:28:11recommending we move away from that.

1:28:13>> Yeah.

1:28:13>> Yeah.

1:28:14>> Yeah.

1:28:15>> So Robera, sorry if you said it, the

1:28:18highlighted passage here, what what

1:28:21actually could violate what would

1:28:24trigger the clawback on the roof if they

1:28:28did something else to the roof? if they

1:28:31were to replace a patch of roof with um

1:28:36like it's a slate roof. So if they were

1:28:39to replace it with some material that's

1:28:41not slate for example.

1:28:43>> Okay. Okay.

1:28:47Got it. And so the terms that explain

1:28:50that are in our standard language about

1:28:53clawbacks and this is just extending it

1:28:55to the roof.

1:28:57It's a It's a pseudo historic

1:29:00preservation specifically on the roof

1:29:03after the fact, right?

1:29:06>> Yeah.

1:29:07>> Okay, Michael.

1:29:10>> Yeah, I'm I'm sorry to blavorver this.

1:29:12Robera, you you re you reminded me about

1:29:16the enforcibility problem. Can you just

1:29:19refresh me completely and remind me

1:29:21whether or not it's about like just

1:29:23having the people doing enforce versus a

1:29:25legal question or something like that?

1:29:30Well, we do have five projects right now

1:29:32that are or five sites that we hold

1:29:36preservation restrictions for and I need

1:29:39to work together with our planning

1:29:42division to support the HPC in annual

1:29:48monitoring of those buildings and with

1:29:52only the clawback agreement in place.

1:29:55The annual monitoring means that I will

1:29:57go out to that building every year for

1:29:5915 years and look to see if the roof has

1:30:02changed.

1:30:03>> But with a preservation restriction in

1:30:05place, I would need to go out or hire a

1:30:08consultant to go out every year to make

1:30:11sure that nothing about the building has

1:30:15been changed that would violate the

1:30:17preservation restriction.

1:30:19So would have to look so it expands to

1:30:22the whole building and I think it

1:30:23requires a higher level of expertise

1:30:26than I would be able to perform myself.

1:30:29>> Okay. So just this same concept comes up

1:30:34and I'm going to make this point not

1:30:35because application Ryan I see you

1:30:37pulling your hair out. I know you want

1:30:38to move on but [laughter]

1:30:40>> No, no, no. You're good.

1:30:41>> But for beyond this application, I just

1:30:44want to bring up this this discussion

1:30:45topic. Um this problem of enforcement

1:30:49comes up pretty often actually at the

1:30:51planning board where folks are are

1:30:54pushing back on certain restrictions

1:30:55because they're saying oh you know ISD

1:30:58or some other group is just not able to

1:31:00enforce this condition and it's

1:31:03consistently been our posture that just

1:31:06because we don't have those resources

1:31:08today doesn't mean we won't in the

1:31:09future and that it doesn't mean it's not

1:31:11the right thing to be doing. So, one

1:31:13thing for this committee to kind of

1:31:14consider is although adding a condition

1:31:17here might make it more challenging for

1:31:20us to, you know, go about auditing or

1:31:23reviewing today, it doesn't mean that a

1:31:26future city isn't able to service that

1:31:28condition. And so, I would implore us

1:31:30all to think about this in a universe

1:31:32that we have the resources to do

1:31:34whatever our conditions are. Um, so just

1:31:38just one extra thought I wanted to add.

1:31:40Again, it doesn't need to apply to this

1:31:41application. I would be like on board

1:31:43with moving forward without it. But in

1:31:46general, I as an as one member am

1:31:48supportive of putting in conditions even

1:31:50if we're not certain we can enforce it.

1:31:53>> Yeah.

1:31:54>> Pending any legal restrictions. Of

1:31:56course,

1:31:56>> I buy that. I I do buy that. Thanks.

1:32:00Thanks for saying that, Michael. David,

1:32:01do you want to ask him?

1:32:03>> Yeah. And at the at the risk of

1:32:05belaboring this even further, um I I

1:32:10know when we when when we were getting

1:32:12this presentation, one of the things

1:32:13that I was surprised by is that it's our

1:32:17responsibility to make the determination

1:32:19of whether somebody complied with the

1:32:22condition that we that we imposed on

1:32:24their grant agreement as opposed to it

1:32:26being their responsibility to comply

1:32:28with it. you know, kind of irrespective

1:32:31of whether you know, and and and I don't

1:32:32know whether

1:32:34this is something that's like really

1:32:36done deal and established that if we

1:32:38don't go out and determine that they

1:32:41didn't comply, they're fine. You know,

1:32:44that the responsibility is on us to

1:32:47determine that they didn't comply with

1:32:48the condition.

1:32:50So that's a

1:32:52>> and just to back up a little, you know,

1:32:54I did 15 years of Clean Water Act

1:32:56enforcement and if someone had a permit

1:32:59and they didn't comply with it, we

1:33:01didn't, you know, they whether we, you

1:33:04know, however we found it, it was a

1:33:06violation, you know, and we did go out

1:33:08and do inspections, but if we found it a

1:33:11different way, it didn't make a

1:33:12difference that we hadn't gone out and

1:33:13caught them at it.

1:33:20I'm sorry. Okay,

1:33:22>> that's okay. That's that's all all fair.

1:33:26Roberto, did you want to add something?

1:33:27>> Oh, I

1:33:29um that that's actually I'm I'm glad

1:33:32that you brought up that that question

1:33:34of how do we monitor and is monitoring

1:33:38necessary? Because that's something that

1:33:39I'm really thinking about right now. um

1:33:42is how to perform monitoring and asking

1:33:47for self-monitoring is an option of

1:33:51asking the applicants to just send us a

1:33:54report every year for 15 years showing

1:33:57that it hasn't changed is a possibility.

1:34:00So um that's how the clawback would work

1:34:03for the preservation restriction. It

1:34:06would help if we were to incorporate um

1:34:09in our building permitting procedures

1:34:15um a a mechanism to identify a

1:34:19preservation restriction building so

1:34:21that ISD knows that they need to check

1:34:25with HPC if it's a preservation

1:34:27restriction building. And to Michael's

1:34:30point, that doesn't exist yet, but that

1:34:32doesn't mean that it won't be brought

1:34:35about next year. So, um, it it it is

1:34:39possible that because especially since

1:34:41we already have this responsibility for

1:34:44five buildings that that we could add

1:34:46another building to the inventory of

1:34:48buildings that we are um meant to

1:34:52perform these duties for. Um, and I also

1:34:55wanted to mention that this is one of

1:34:58three or four buildings that are not in

1:35:00compliance. So, this may not be the only

1:35:03time that a project ever comes to us

1:35:06where we have to condition

1:35:10a grant on compliance with a previous

1:35:13grant that that had fallen through.

1:35:20So I I like the idea I do like the idea

1:35:23of the self-reporting. Um, I would

1:35:26propose rather than them having to send

1:35:28something to us every year, if we could

1:35:29come up with language where we say as a

1:35:32grant condition, if you do anything that

1:35:34changes, you know, the structure, you

1:35:38know, you know, you know, you know, find

1:35:39the language that, you know, that then

1:35:41you have to report it to us.

1:35:43>> And if they don't report it to us, then

1:35:45they've also violated that agreement,

1:35:47you know, because they're them doing the

1:35:48work and failing to report it would both

1:35:50be would would both be, you know,

1:35:53violations of the agreement. that could

1:35:54perhaps trigger the clawback.

1:35:56>> Yeah.

1:35:57>> So, Roberto, you mentioned the

1:35:58self-reporting could be part of the

1:35:59clawback specifically. Is that language

1:36:01we need to add? That's not in the base

1:36:03clawback language, right?

1:36:04>> No, that's just in my um trying to

1:36:09figure out how I'm going to implement

1:36:11the clawback.

1:36:13>> Okay. So, Okay. So, if we were

1:36:16interested in doing that here, do we

1:36:18need to put that in this agreement, this

1:36:20draft recommendation? So, the what I'm

1:36:24hearing right now is that the committee

1:36:26is weighing a choice of whether to

1:36:29extend the 15-year clawback to cover the

1:36:32previous roof repair project or to

1:36:37require that they comply with the

1:36:41requirement for a preservation

1:36:43restriction that was in their their

1:36:45previous grant. In fact, I'll draft that

1:36:48and you tell me which.

1:36:51>> Yeah, I think that's decision A, but I

1:36:54guess decision B that I was just asking

1:36:55about is if we go the clawback route and

1:36:58we want to have them self-report because

1:37:01there have been issues with this group

1:37:02before. Um,

1:37:05can't do we need to add language in this

1:37:08document to do so?

1:37:09>> No, that's just entirely my uh

1:37:12administrative procedure.

1:37:14>> Okay. All right. All

1:37:23right. So, I'll let uh Roberto write

1:37:26this out, but then I want to hear from

1:37:27the group

1:37:29who

1:37:31who has a a preference one way or the

1:37:33other.

1:37:47I I have to step away for about 30

1:37:49seconds.

1:37:50>> Thanks, David.

1:38:15Okay.

1:38:17>> And you said that they already

1:38:19acknowledge that they that they would do

1:38:21that.

1:38:22>> They did.

1:38:23>> Okay. So, since they

1:38:26agreed to it, I just don't know how big

1:38:28an endeavor that is there standard

1:38:31language. Um so the previous

1:38:35um previously I think we had a condition

1:38:38that the organization that the building

1:38:40will be placed under a preservation

1:38:41restriction. I could keep it as simple

1:38:44as that language. I played with this a

1:38:47little bit because I don't know if the

1:38:50city will agree if the law department

1:38:53and city council and HPC will all agree

1:38:57to sign the preservation restriction and

1:38:59we would then have to wait for the um

1:39:04state to coordinate with us as well.

1:39:06It's a long process. It'll be an shorter

1:39:09process because it's already

1:39:12pretty far along, but it's still um we

1:39:16want to let them get the project

1:39:17underway just by executing the

1:39:20preservation restriction that's already

1:39:22ready to sign. Would they could do that

1:39:25when they sign their grant agreement and

1:39:27then be in compliance immediately and

1:39:30then the city takes it from there.

1:39:32>> So if it's if it languishes another year

1:39:34or whatever, it's not on them, it's on

1:39:35other people.

1:39:37Okay.

1:39:41>> Okay. So,

1:39:42>> this is an a eitheror choice to

1:39:45>> this is an either or. Yep. So, Eric, am

1:39:48I hearing you in favor of the

1:39:50preservation restriction?

1:39:52>> Well, being selfish, the preservation

1:39:54restriction gives us a lot more

1:39:57preservation than a clawback. It

1:40:00protects the building. Generally

1:40:02speaking, it's kind of like cheap cheap

1:40:04preservation

1:40:06in a way. A clawback just means we get

1:40:09money back if the roof goes away. But as

1:40:11the preservation restriction applies to

1:40:12the rest of the building, doesn't it

1:40:13Robera?

1:40:14>> Yes.

1:40:15>> And if they're willing to do that, this

1:40:16is a beautiful building. It's it's like

1:40:18it's a one of the high points on

1:40:19Highland A.

1:40:22>> You're you're the theme, Eric, so that's

1:40:24that's convincing enough for me.

1:40:27>> Yeah. And since it doesn't sound like

1:40:29it's a contemp

1:40:32the word that I just blank

1:40:33>> contentious

1:40:34>> contentious I was going to say

1:40:35contemporaneous but that's the wrong um

1:40:39I would do that. I guess that's my

1:40:41recommendation.

1:40:46>> Anybody feel strongly otherwise in favor

1:40:48of the clawback?

1:40:53I guess my one thought was just kind of

1:40:56what's the least ownorous on the

1:40:59applicant solely because of the ask just

1:41:02because of the it's $25,000 for a roof.

1:41:07So, it seems like a low amount and I

1:41:09don't want to deter them from receiving

1:41:11CPA funds for this and I don't kind of

1:41:14want to scare them, but from this

1:41:16conversation, it sounds like it's really

1:41:17not that ownorous. So, and it does

1:41:20protect the building, which is a

1:41:22beautiful building. I used to walk by it

1:41:23every day. So, I'm very in favor of

1:41:26preserving the building as long as it's

1:41:29not one.

1:41:30>> Yeah, that's that's fair. Yeah, callback

1:41:34definitely less ownorous, but uh but I I

1:41:38think we're mulling up the tradeoffs and

1:41:40the fact that, you know, this request,

1:41:41yes, it is modest, but we're taking into

1:41:43account previous priors uh for lack of a

1:41:47better better word. uh on compliance

1:41:51here. So, okay. Well, we've talked about

1:41:55this for a while. Anybody comfortable

1:41:57making a motion with this drafted

1:41:59version in front of us with the ask for

1:42:02a preservation restriction?

1:42:07>> So, moved.

1:42:09>> Thanks, Michael.

1:42:13>> I'll second it.

1:42:16>> All right. Very good. Thanks, Eric. Uh,

1:42:18Robera, could you please call the role?

1:42:21>> Yes.

1:42:25Um,

1:42:27Eric Parks,

1:42:29>> yes.

1:42:29>> Mary Joe Bohart,

1:42:31>> yes.

1:42:32>> John Bronning,

1:42:33>> yes.

1:42:34>> Michael McNell,

1:42:36>> hi.

1:42:37>> David Turan,

1:42:38>> I'm sorry. Can you repeat Can you repeat

1:42:41the uh the motion really quickly? Is it

1:42:44have the clo we went with clo or we went

1:42:46with preservation

1:42:47>> preservation restriction?

1:42:50>> Yes.

1:42:52>> Joe Capuano.

1:42:54>> Yes.

1:42:55>> Carlos Sella.

1:42:56>> Yes.

1:42:57>> Rona Fishman.

1:43:01>> I think I saw a yes.

1:43:03>> Yes.

1:43:04>> Ryan Kirkoff.

1:43:05>> Yes.

1:43:06>> All right. Motion passes.

1:43:08>> All right. Great. [clears throat]

1:43:10>> So, I know we're down to our last 15

1:43:11minutes here. I think I would like to,

1:43:13if there's no objections, I think I we

1:43:15should take five minutes and Robera, if

1:43:18if you're okay with it, I'd love to to

1:43:21do the other low dollar amount proposal

1:43:24here really briefly. Even if we don't go

1:43:26to a vote, at least discuss it for a

1:43:27couple minutes so we can get out ahead

1:43:28of it since we've only gotten through

1:43:30three of our eight. This would get us

1:43:33almost halfway. This would be the Spring

1:43:35Street Triangle request for 45,000.

1:43:38Brett, are you okay if we speak about

1:43:40this briefly?

1:43:41>> Yeah. Okay.

1:43:43>> So, um folks, uh hopefully recall what

1:43:47this is for. It is a um

1:43:52uh neighborhoodled request for um the

1:43:57initial kind of study that uh will

1:44:01enable future improvements

1:44:04to this proposed basically open space.

1:44:08So, this is the um this is the the kind

1:44:12of the tip of the the iceberg in terms

1:44:14of cost here. They estimated a total

1:44:17project cost of $715,000,

1:44:19but this is the enabler to even start

1:44:21down the path. I think folks uh myself

1:44:25included spoke very positively about

1:44:27this uh when the neighborhood group

1:44:31presented it uh a month ago and uh uh

1:44:36director uh Pleweight from the uh

1:44:39engineering division was was on and uh

1:44:42and spoke very competently as well about

1:44:44it. So, um, curious what folks, uh,

1:44:48thoughts are here on whether this

1:44:50$45,000 request is, uh, is of interest

1:44:54and acceptable.

1:45:03>> Rona, please.

1:45:04>> Yeah, the 45,000 doesn't bother me. The

1:45:07715 seems outrageous.

1:45:10>> It's a big number.

1:45:12>> It's a huge number. And therefore, it's

1:45:14it's not we're not going to be able to

1:45:16re re um repeat this all over town if

1:45:20this is going to cost $700,000 every

1:45:24time we make one little neighborhood

1:45:27park like that.

1:45:30>> I agree. I'm sure John can comment on

1:45:32that. Yep, there he is. Hey, John.

1:45:33[laughter]

1:45:34>> Yeah. Um, so after numerous

1:45:38conversations with the public space and

1:45:39urban forestry department, we personally

1:45:42do not support this project and will not

1:45:44be voting yes on this project because of

1:45:47the larger projects at stake this year.

1:45:50We feel that because of our different

1:45:53research and plans and policies that we

1:45:55have a number of projects that uh are in

1:45:58the queue that are much more impactful,

1:46:01much more equitable than this project.

1:46:04And just looking at the dollar value, we

1:46:07feel that this money can be spent on

1:46:09other projects that have a much more

1:46:11greater impact on the community and is

1:46:14kind of outlined in our OSRP that shows

1:46:17that there's a greater support for this.

1:46:19I know it has a great impact on that

1:46:22small community, but there is kind of a

1:46:24little bit of replication and um how

1:46:27much open space we're actually acquiring

1:46:29with this small parcel changeover. Um

1:46:32and we just have some concerns about the

1:46:34actual usable open space that will be

1:46:36created here. With the size of it, it's

1:46:39more of a passive park. So, there's not

1:46:42really any activities that we can

1:46:43program. passive parks are wonderful,

1:46:45but kind of in the surrounding

1:46:47neighborhood, there are a few passive

1:46:49parks that already kind of meet that

1:46:50criteria. Um, and because of this, we

1:46:54feel that there are other projects,

1:46:56personally this year that stand out.

1:46:58That isn't to say that further in the

1:47:00future that this project isn't

1:47:02important, but just with our current

1:47:04research and documents, we find that it

1:47:06is kind of lacking against some of the

1:47:08other projects.

1:47:10>> John, thank thank you very much for

1:47:12those those comments. So when you're

1:47:13speaking about weighing it up, is that

1:47:15in relation to the uh the balance of the

1:47:20715,000 meaning the much larger future

1:47:23spend or are you speaking about the

1:47:25whatever it is 45

1:47:27>> 45,000?

1:47:29You're kind of kind of looking at it as

1:47:31a full picture. You know, this 45,000 is

1:47:33just kind of the foot in the door. Um

1:47:36but it it is kind of a a pre-commitment

1:47:39to a larger ask that they are outlining

1:47:41already. And it would be I mean they

1:47:45they've flagged it in here that it would

1:47:46be a CPA ask for the rest. So you're

1:47:49saying Puff's uh position is that uh CPA

1:47:56open space and recreation funds you feel

1:47:58are better spent elsewhere in the

1:48:00future. Uh not not particularly limited

1:48:03to the 45,000 or to the balance just

1:48:05overall. Is that fair?

1:48:07>> In in this current ask in the current

1:48:09climate projection that we see over the

1:48:11next few years with our bonding and

1:48:13whatnot, we feel that there are other

1:48:14projects that do stand out.

1:48:16>> Okay. I saw Michael first and then I'll

1:48:19go Mary Joe.

1:48:19>> I'll defer to my colleagues first.

1:48:22>> Mary Joe, please.

1:48:23>> Super quickly. Um,

1:48:26it would be more impressive if they

1:48:30crowdfunded amongst the immediate

1:48:32neighborhood for at least a portion of

1:48:34the ultimate project cost to show that

1:48:37they have skin in the game. Um, and I'm

1:48:40not going to debate whether the 715 was

1:48:43even a worthy price for such a small

1:48:45piece of passive park, but um,

1:48:48I I think what Rona said really

1:48:50resonated for me, which is um, this is

1:48:54not replicable for such small passive

1:48:57park space and and so that that's my

1:49:01concern and then taking into account

1:49:03what John said as well which is I hate

1:49:06to use an expression but we have bigger

1:49:08fish to fry with our limited amount of

1:49:10open space uh

1:49:15>> thanks Mary Joe I think we lost you at

1:49:17the very end there but I think we got

1:49:18the got the gist um David please

1:49:22>> uh Yeah, I guess I have two two

1:49:25questions or two comments. One is

1:49:28is whether uh John,

1:49:31did you did the city explore whether

1:49:33there were less expensive ways to

1:49:34achieve this objective and make it more

1:49:36replicable? Cuz I also was struck by how

1:49:38much it was, but I also think that the

1:49:42overall goal of taking, you know, what's

1:49:44a lot of street now and making it less

1:49:46street and more open space is a good

1:49:48one. But the but that price tag seemed

1:49:52prohibitive like like like Rona said to

1:49:54to be able to do it every place that you

1:49:56know it conceivably could be done. So

1:49:58first question is is why so much and

1:50:01were less expensive options evaluated.

1:50:06Um, and I don't know, and I guess my

1:50:08second question

1:50:10>> goes to to John's statement that the

1:50:12city will not support it because, you

1:50:14know, and and that actually I have to

1:50:16admit kind of kind of bothers. It makes

1:50:18me think that that means that they're

1:50:20then putting their ideas above the other

1:50:22ideas that are coming before this

1:50:24committee. And I don't feel like I don't

1:50:27know. I I I I feel like that's kind of a

1:50:30weird a weird place for the city to

1:50:31place itself.

1:50:37Thanks David. So I guess maybe to to

1:50:39redirect the question,

1:50:41John, was parks involved in making the

1:50:44estimate of the 715?

1:50:48>> No. So when they came to us for this

1:50:51project, we were not um going to cosign

1:50:54it. So they went then went to the

1:50:56engineering department for a co-

1:50:58signature. So I really can't tell you

1:51:00anything David about their research and

1:51:02whatnot because PF was not involved in

1:51:05any of that. Uh that was entirely with

1:51:07the engineering department. The

1:51:08engineering department will be the one

1:51:10who supports this project um and will be

1:51:14kind of the point person through the

1:51:16city on this project as that applicant

1:51:18moves through it.

1:51:22>> Helpful. John, thanks. David, did you

1:51:24have a follow-up?

1:51:24>> Yeah, I did. for comparison sake. How

1:51:27much did Henry Hansen cost?

1:51:31>> Uh I I want to say

1:51:34>> I remember because I remember thinking

1:51:35that was a really big number at the time

1:51:37too and that's also a very small parcel.

1:51:39>> Yes, I do want to say it was to be

1:51:43honest I would have to look that up. If

1:51:44you give me like five minutes I can look

1:51:45that up.

1:51:46>> Yeah, maybe come back to it.

1:51:48400 something was a number at one point

1:51:50for something that we voted on,

1:51:52>> but I yeah, I wasn't sure if that was

1:51:54included in construction and planning or

1:51:56just construction.

1:51:58>> I believe Henry Hansen was mainly

1:52:00construction. I know there are some ARPA

1:52:02funds and some CPA funds and um the

1:52:06thing with Henry Hansen is there's a lot

1:52:08of details to it. There's a huge

1:52:09retaining wall that has a lot of like

1:52:11embedded details. So that like

1:52:13definitely drove up the cost.

1:52:15But for my thinking, the first thing I

1:52:17thought was like, well, this is an awful

1:52:18lot of money. And then I was on my next

1:52:19thought was like, well, Henry Hans is a

1:52:20whole lot more money than I thought that

1:52:22could ever cost, too. So,

1:52:27>> could be interesting to see, John. I

1:52:28know it's it's several times larger, but

1:52:31it I'm confident the number you'll

1:52:33return is in seven digits.

1:52:35>> It was $810,000

1:52:37of CPA funds. If there were other funds

1:52:41that went into that project, I wouldn't

1:52:43have it. So,

1:52:46>> so I'd say probably about a million

1:52:48dollars.

1:52:49>> Yeah.

1:52:50>> How much did we spend on the two water

1:52:52fountains?

1:52:53>> Wasn't that half a million?

1:52:55>> That is actually coming a lot of that is

1:52:57going to be coming back to us. Those

1:52:59projects that and the the project the um

1:53:03>> Quincy Street

1:53:04>> Yeah. Quincy Street Park are both coming

1:53:07in under budget and we do anticipate

1:53:11probably later this year or next year

1:53:13funds being returned from those two

1:53:15projects.

1:53:16>> Cool. As well as the Ken Kelly project.

1:53:19>> Yeah,

1:53:20>> that's so these costs aren't out of

1:53:24[snorts] they're not out of the park

1:53:26compared to what we've been paying for

1:53:27other things over the last two or three

1:53:29years.

1:53:29>> Not not wild, but also I mean I don't

1:53:32want to put words in in John's mouth. I

1:53:34mean, the Kenny Park is a much more

1:53:37traversed corridor within the city than

1:53:40this spot. Uh, it is it is a way

1:53:43>> I was I was talking about Henry Henry

1:53:45Hansen. The little

1:53:46>> the little pocket park at the top of

1:53:48Partridge Street on Medford Street.

1:53:50>> Oh, my fault. I was thinking of a

1:53:51different little teeny piece.

1:53:53>> Ah, okay. That changes my calculus there

1:53:57a little bit. My fault. I was thinking

1:53:59of a different part.

1:54:00>> Um, okay. Michael, you want to weigh in?

1:54:04>> Thank you if you don't mind. Um, first,

1:54:07Robera, if there's any way to get some

1:54:09visibility into those funds that might

1:54:11coming back, that might help me a little

1:54:13bit with uh our next month's um

1:54:16discussion because that one's going to

1:54:17be hard. Uh with regards to this

1:54:20application though, I I think um

1:54:25first I want to say that the study does

1:54:27not commit us to that bigger expense,

1:54:31right? That that's really important

1:54:32thing to identify. Second, we don't know

1:54:34that that's what that dollar amount is

1:54:36going to be. And then third, as David

1:54:37brought up, I do think it's not wildly

1:54:40out of budget from other projects that

1:54:41we've approved. So I think from a

1:54:43context perspective, I still think that

1:54:44there's still some fundamental good into

1:54:46going about this study because it's only

1:54:4945K. And I think I want to emphasize

1:54:51that one more time because I think the

1:54:53concern that the city is providing that

1:54:56this is somehow subtracting from its

1:54:58ability to do other outdoor space

1:55:00projects is a little bit misleading

1:55:02because those are in the order of

1:55:04millions compared to a $45,000 ask. And

1:55:06so I don't personally think that by

1:55:08approving this project it will detract

1:55:10from us being able to approve or deny

1:55:13the other projects or or suggest that

1:55:16they be postponed. So I for one really

1:55:19want to signal to the community that we

1:55:21want more community-led projects. I

1:55:23don't want all of our projects to be

1:55:25coming from the city. I want and I say

1:55:28that outside of open space. I mean, in

1:55:30general, like we we have a really

1:55:32healthy pipeline of historic

1:55:34preservation coming from the community.

1:55:36I'd like some city-led projects as well.

1:55:38I think the reverse is the case in open

1:55:40space. I want community engagement. I

1:55:42want community to try to run these

1:55:43things. I love Mary Joe's suggestion of

1:55:45trying to find ways to uh lever the

1:55:48dollars from CPC, put skin in the game,

1:55:51as you put it. Um, so I would signal

1:55:53that to the applicant as well that when

1:55:55they come back for the full chunk,

1:55:57hopefully they've got some more funding

1:55:58around it. But I, as one member, am like

1:56:01wholeheartedly supportive of this

1:56:02because I want to send this into the

1:56:03community that we want to support this

1:56:04kind of stuff.

1:56:06>> Thanks, Michael.

1:56:08>> Uh, Mary Joe,

1:56:10>> super quick. Um, and and just echoing a

1:56:12little bit of what Michael just said.

1:56:14Um, we could treat this example as an

1:56:18experiment in that uh it it is the study

1:56:24that could help a neighborhood to uh

1:56:28dream big. Uh but maybe were we kind of

1:56:31jumping to conclusions

1:56:33that and once the design exists they

1:56:36would want the entire thing funded

1:56:37through CPA maybe maybe that's never

1:56:40going to be um an outcome but there's

1:56:43value in the study so that a

1:56:45neighborhood could um start to um take a

1:56:50little bit into their own hands maybe

1:56:52with a bit of CPA later as

1:56:55>> thanks very Joe

1:56:58Um my uh go ahead David

1:57:01>> I'm sorry ju to build on also Michael

1:57:03well both Michael and Mary Joe's points

1:57:05I'm wondering whether we can somehow

1:57:08send the signal that because we would

1:57:10like this to be an experiment because we

1:57:11would like this to be replicable that

1:57:14part of their study specifically be

1:57:16geared toward can they do this less

1:57:18expensively than their initial estimate

1:57:20and in order to make it more replicable

1:57:22around the city and that they are the

1:57:24then they are the the test they are the

1:57:26test puppy. Yeah.

1:57:29Uh just speak for myself. I'm really for

1:57:31this. I think the I think Michael Mary

1:57:34Joe, I really agree with you that uh the

1:57:37$45,000 to study this. I understand we

1:57:41want studies to lead to action and if

1:57:43and if the actual bricks and mortar

1:57:44don't you know come to pass, then you

1:57:47know that's not an ideal result for us.

1:57:48I absolutely think there's there's that

1:57:50think that there is value in asking them

1:57:52to poke at this budget. They've included

1:57:55a contingency of 30% which is out of

1:57:57policy for us anyways. So what they come

1:58:00in the door with would need to shrink or

1:58:03at least we need to see market effort to

1:58:07shrink it down. Um but I love that this

1:58:10has come from the community. I love the

1:58:13idea of it being rep replicable whether

1:58:15it is or not. I'm I agree with the

1:58:17experimentation piece. I want to see

1:58:19activation like this all over the city

1:58:21if we can do it or if people are

1:58:23interested in doing it. Let's say that.

1:58:25So, um I'm I'm in favor of uh of this

1:58:30proposal specifically and with some of

1:58:33the caveats that David you just

1:58:34mentioned. I I would I would throw that

1:58:36in there.

1:58:42Any other comments,

1:58:44debate questions? This is good. I

1:58:46appreciate the the dialogue. This is

1:58:48part of why I wanted to talk about this

1:58:49one tonight. I thought it was

1:58:50interesting.

1:58:52>> I would agree with it. I think it's it's

1:58:54one of the rare cases where the

1:58:56community is starting. I totally get the

1:58:58project the aspect of what the big

1:59:00picture would be, but I think um showing

1:59:03we support this sort of initiative in

1:59:05the neighborhoods is good. And knowing

1:59:09that there might be a budget issue could

1:59:11also inform how they go about their

1:59:13study too. like we need options or we

1:59:15need, you know, shopping list of options

1:59:18for them.

1:59:25Robera, I see you drafted some potential

1:59:27language in there. I personally would be

1:59:29interested in in even putting a finer

1:59:32point on the request, which would be to

1:59:35see, you know, to um before considering

1:59:38any other applications

1:59:41regarding this matter, we would want to

1:59:43see uh you know, analysis of why or why

1:59:48not could the dollar per square foot uh

1:59:51measure be brought down versus what came

1:59:53in the door this time. Um if they can't

1:59:56bring the cost down, fine. Tell us tell

1:59:58us why. But I would love just again one

2:00:02person that would be what I'm interested

2:00:04in.

2:00:08Anybody

2:00:09have issues or or thoughts on that.

2:00:20>> Makes sense to me.

2:00:22>> Like the as it's as it's written, it's

2:00:24speaking about like in general, how can

2:00:26cost be brought down? But I would like

2:00:27to see this specific cost brought down

2:00:30as as proposed the 715.

2:00:36And if it can't be brought down, make us

2:00:38understand why

2:00:50a lower cost maybe at a lower cost than

2:00:53proposed in this application or

2:00:55something like that. I think that would

2:00:57be great. Sorry, Robert. I know this is

2:00:58hard. We're dictating on the fly here.

2:01:04>> I like that in that this is sort of like

2:01:06a pattern.

2:01:08>> Yeah.

2:01:13I don't know if there's a way to say

2:01:15that they are creating a prototype

2:01:24[snorts]

2:01:35>> or this and similar projects.

2:01:38Yeah, I think that's great for similar

2:01:39part.

2:01:42>> Okay.

2:01:44because that might get them really

2:01:45jazzed that they're create they're

2:01:47making the wheel.

2:01:47>> Yeah.

2:01:48>> Yeah. Or or it might make them think

2:01:50that's not their problem. But we'll see.

2:01:53>> Well, then we'll find out they're not as

2:01:55community-minded as they sounded.

2:01:57>> They're [laughter] very they're very

2:01:58small community-minded.

2:02:00>> Indeed.

2:02:02>> Um

2:02:03>> All right. Any other

2:02:04>> one is um in it says between the CPC and

2:02:09Puff um and it should be

2:02:11>> right. And also I think PF needs to be

2:02:14added to the list of collaborators.

2:02:17>> Yes.

2:02:18>> Thank you for catching that.

2:02:20>> Thank you.

2:02:24>> Should we compel them to work with PA if

2:02:26PA is saying they don't want to do it?

2:02:29>> Yeah. I'm

2:02:31>> um so

2:02:33in the pa I I would include PIF because

2:02:35in the past PA has taken the position

2:02:37that they should be involved in any

2:02:40projects that entail outdoor spaces.

2:02:44Um so if if if PA would decline to be a

2:02:49part of this project that would break

2:02:51from that precedent but I would take

2:02:53your

2:02:55>> we don't want to decline from this. The

2:02:57thing is that these projects do require

2:03:00staff time. Um, and we have our staff

2:03:03allocated for our projects over the next

2:03:06few years. So giving a project manager

2:03:09in the public space and urban forestry

2:03:11this project would take away from one of

2:03:13our projects that we're actively trying

2:03:15to work on. and thus we don't support

2:03:18this project and don't have the

2:03:19bandwidth to

2:03:22>> so I don't think we should impose a

2:03:23condition that will hamstring them

2:03:26>> we would like to be included but the way

2:03:29this is written I think it's giving the

2:03:31engineering division the project

2:03:32management responsibility with including

2:03:35P at the table

2:03:36>> okay

2:03:38engineering is the A

2:03:40>> y

2:03:41>> okay

2:03:42>> so John you're okay with this language

2:03:44>> uh

2:03:48I mean, we

2:03:49>> other people supporting the language.

2:03:51>> The vote is the vote, but I want to make

2:03:53sure, John, you're you're we're speak

2:03:56now. Uh speak now, John, if you want

2:03:59this language changed.

2:04:00>> But but but Ryan, what I'm concerned

2:04:02about is us putting something in there

2:04:03which then, you know, John, no

2:04:06disrespect.

2:04:07>> I understand,

2:04:09>> you know, kind of ties up because they

2:04:11won't allocate staff to do it.

2:04:16Um,

2:04:18pretty much what John said they were

2:04:20going to do.

2:04:21>> I think as as John described earlier

2:04:23that they'd like to be at the table. Um,

2:04:26so this this language puts them at the

2:04:28table.

2:04:31>> Well, it puts them in joint

2:04:32responsibility

2:04:35>> the way it's written.

2:04:36>> Yeah. I I just I'm

2:04:38>> and other city departments that have

2:04:41joint responsibility over the streets.

2:04:43So,

2:04:48>> so if you delete pace off from that, are

2:04:50they still captured in that other city

2:04:52department?

2:04:52>> In other city departments?

2:04:55>> I think so.

2:05:01>> I don't know, Roberto, is that is that

2:05:03fair?

2:05:04Um

2:05:07I I

2:05:09>> I mean they they I just mean they are

2:05:12part of they they are in that qualified

2:05:14statement, right? And other city

2:05:15departments have joint responsibility

2:05:16over the streets.

2:05:19I

2:05:19>> mean PS doesn't really um

2:05:24uh have responsibility over the streets.

2:05:26They have responsibility over the parks.

2:05:29So the streets and outdoor spaces

2:05:32>> and outdoor spaces actually that would

2:05:34encompass peacef.

2:05:38>> Good good call.

2:05:40>> God, right? This group writes

2:05:44u by proxy better than any other group

2:05:47I've worked with in a long [laughter]

2:05:48time.

2:05:51>> All right.

2:05:56Any other questions or comments about

2:05:57this as drafted? Anybody

2:06:02want to make a motion for this?

2:06:05>> So moved.

2:06:09>> Michael, is there a second?

2:06:11>> I'll second.

2:06:13>> All right. Thanks, David.

2:06:14>> All right.

2:06:15>> Uh, Robera, please call the

2:06:17>> Eric.

2:06:18>> Yes.

2:06:19>> Mary Joe,

2:06:20>> yes.

2:06:21>> John,

2:06:22>> no.

2:06:24>> Michael,

2:06:25>> hi.

2:06:26>> David,

2:06:27>> yes.

2:06:28Carlos,

2:06:30>> yes.

2:06:31>> Rona,

2:06:32>> yes.

2:06:33>> Joe,

2:06:34>> yes.

2:06:36>> And Ryan,

2:06:37>> yes.

2:06:39>> Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for

2:06:41the the spirited conversation. I

2:06:43appreciate it.

2:06:44>> Um, okay. I know we were trying to wrap

2:06:48up early, uh, and I failed, but I think

2:06:51that was too interesting and good that

2:06:52we good good that we got through it. Um,

2:06:55Roberta, do you want to speak briefly to

2:06:58admin

2:07:00>> terms, etc.?

2:07:02>> So, um, let me just, uh, pull up the, so

2:07:07the CPC membership update, I put on the

2:07:10agenda, just because I wanted to mention

2:07:12the fact, and I did put this in the

2:07:13meeting packet, you can review it later,

2:07:16um, a a table showing all of the member

2:07:19terms. We actually don't anticipate

2:07:21having any turnover for quite some time

2:07:23now that we have a full committee. Um

2:07:26unless anyone elects to step down um we

2:07:31we expect to have all of you for for a

2:07:34few more years. But we do have officer

2:07:37elections coming up because we've

2:07:39changed our application cycle so that we

2:07:43may possibly

2:07:45finish the FY27

2:07:47business

2:07:49next month um in October. We may take

2:07:54November and December off if we succeed

2:07:57in getting through all of the decisions

2:07:59in October. So that means if we do that

2:08:02we may need to uh hold our officer

2:08:05elections in October. So I wanted to

2:08:09give to give you a chance to plant in

2:08:11your minds the question of whether you

2:08:14would like to volunteer for the role of

2:08:18the chair of the CPC

2:08:22for the calendar year 2020 2027

2:08:27um or the vice chair position right now.

2:08:30Ryan and Eric have been doing a great

2:08:32job and there is no limit to the vice

2:08:35chair, but the chair is elected

2:08:39uh for a maximum of two terms. So, we

2:08:42would be able to have Ryan continue if

2:08:45you'd like to um run again for chair.

2:08:50But we um I think I would invite you

2:08:54Ryan if you're thinking of not repeating

2:08:56as chair to identify another committee

2:09:00member or additional other committee

2:09:02members who might be willing to take on

2:09:06the role as chair. So, I think that's

2:09:08that's in your court to discern. And

2:09:11anybody who would be interested in being

2:09:14chair, um, please feel free to put your

2:09:17name in the hat um, next month.

2:09:20>> Just a correction, I have served two

2:09:22terms. So,

2:09:24>> this is the end. This is the end for me.

2:09:27>> How did that happen?

2:09:28>> Sorry, I I my I I I didn't catch that.

2:09:33Um, so we uh we we do need to have

2:09:38another chair serve. So, um I will work

2:09:41with uh with Ryan to identify someone

2:09:46who might be willing to take on the role

2:09:48um of of serving as chair. We have the

2:09:52option if we don't end up having the

2:09:54election if we don't have end up having

2:09:56the time for an election next month, we

2:09:58could just hold a meeting in November.

2:10:01Um, but I wanted to bring this up now so

2:10:04that we can be prepared to have that

2:10:06conversation um when it comes up.

2:10:11>> Cool. Thanks, Robera. Any questions?

2:10:13Anybody?

2:10:14>> So, a term is one year or

2:10:16>> Yeah,

2:10:17>> term is one year.

2:10:19>> No limit on Yeah, I'm sorry.

2:10:22>> So, that's been two years with Ryan.

2:10:23Wow.

2:10:25Time flies.

2:10:28So,

2:10:29>> you could stage a coup and try and

2:10:31continue.

2:10:32>> Oh, me?

2:10:34>> Yeah. [laughter]

2:10:36>> Occupy the zoom.

2:10:38>> I respect the constitution of the CPA,

2:10:40guys. Don't don't I would do no such

2:10:42thing.

2:10:44>> Um, okay.

2:10:46>> And I also would bring to your attention

2:10:48the outreach schedule. I did put on the

2:10:51calendar the um

2:10:56the Davis Square Farmers Market. I have

2:11:00pinned down a date which is October 7.

2:11:03That's a Wednesday afternoon. I'll be

2:11:06there the whole afternoon. It's I think

2:11:0812 to 6. So I'll just do it. And so Rona

2:11:12said that you would come. Um although

2:11:15that was before I put a date down. So,

2:11:18let me know if that changes and you if

2:11:21you're able to help, you don't have to

2:11:23be there for the whole time. Uh, but

2:11:25give me a heads up what time you think

2:11:27you can come. And we also have TU's

2:11:30community day coming up on December 4.

2:11:34That's a Sunday, 11 to 2. And I will be

2:11:39out of town, so I will not be here for

2:11:41Monster Mash this year. So unless

2:11:45at least two committee members wanted to

2:11:48take the mantle and run with that event,

2:11:51um I think we'll have to um withdraw

2:11:53from that event for this year.

2:11:56>> Is there a date for Monster Mesh yet?

2:11:59>> Yes, it's October 19.

2:12:03>> Okay.

2:12:06>> So I'll work with you if um if you'd

2:12:08like to take that on, but I will not be

2:12:11there to support it.

2:12:13Thanks, Robera. Please be in touch,

2:12:15folks, uh, if you're able to help.

2:12:18Um, okay. Any last matters here before

2:12:22we break?

2:12:25All right. Can I have a motion to

2:12:26adjurnn, please?

2:12:29You move

2:12:32>> in a second.

2:12:33>> Second.

2:12:34>> All right. Roberto, please call the RO.

2:12:36>> Rona,

2:12:37>> yes.

2:12:37>> John,

2:12:38>> yes.

2:12:39>> Ryan,

2:12:40>> yes. Joe,

2:12:42>> yes.

2:12:43>> David,

2:12:44>> yes.

2:12:44>> Carlos,

2:12:46>> yes.

2:12:47>> Eric,

2:12:48>> yes.

2:12:49>> Mary Joe,

2:12:50>> yes.

2:12:50>> And Michael,

2:12:51>> hi.

2:12:53>> All right. Thank you. Thanks for staying

2:12:55a little bit late, folks. Appreciate us

2:12:56getting through.

2:12:57>> Thank you. All right. You all

2:13:00>> good night.