An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) to DPW-Admin/Engineering Department (#401) in the amount of $710,000 for design and permitting of Ell Pond Park.

Transcript (~1 h 30 min @ 22:03)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 21:45 Kimberly Vandiver: our meeting tonight. I'll note we also will have two public hearings, one at 7:45 and one at, I believe, 8:00, that we'll get to. So tonight, we'll be hearing the department budget presentations for the Department of Public Works, as well as for information technology, planning and community development, and inspection services, as well as some related orders. So we'll start with some DPW related topics, I believe, beginning with ID number 2026-1175.

▶ 22:32 Kimberly Vandiver: Would you read the order, please?

▶ 22:34 Speaker 3: Yes. An appropriation from free cash account 01-324001 to DPW admin engineering department number 401 in the amount of $710,000 for design and permitting of L Pond Park.

▶ 22:51 Kimberly Vandiver: Great. And so I believe we have DPW director Elena Proakis-Ellis with us tonight, as well as

▶ 22:58 Speaker 4: the mayor and

▶ 23:01 Kimberly Vandiver: Parks Commission? We can just use everyone. Yeah. Wonderful.

▶ 23:11 Jen Grigoraitis: Good evening, Madam Chair and councilors. So joining me tonight is Jim Donahue, who is one of the volunteer members of our Park Commission, currently serving as its chair, Elena Proakis-Ellis, our DPW director, and Brandon Kunkel from Weston & Sampson, who is the consultant that was procured many years ago to design the feasibility study. They have a very Fancy and technical presentation. But before we get to that, just to do some framing, because I think as was mentioned in public comment, this is a project that has been in the public domain since 2020, when the city, funded through free cash, engaged in a feasibility study. So that is the first step for something like this, is to actually identify what could be feasible before we even move into design. This is about the L Pond Park and the surrounding field. So just that is a 19.1 acre active and passive recreational facility that surrounds L Pond. It's the largest recreational parcels of land in the city. Part of it is used by the Melrose Public Schools, most especially the middle school and high school, which are right across the street, during the school day for education, including physical education and some science classes. It is also used during after school hours, weekends, and as late as we can keep the lights on, by both high school athletes, recreational programming, and youth sports. The purview of the park is under the Park Commission. It also contains our veterans memorial at the Knoll, as well as our dog park, our Lyons tennis courts, our Monk Little League, our skate park, the Cabbage Patch field that's in front of the middle school, the Crystal Street tennis courts, and a parking lot that's utilized by both high school students during the school day and then users of the park on all other times. So it's a significant parcel of land, and as has been mentioned in public comment, this project was ranked number one on the capital improvement plan this year. Thank you to Councilor Park for serving as the council liaison to that. And it's appeared on previous CIPs and some portions of repair to the fields have been attempted going as far back as 2007, but there has been no significant investment in these facilities since then. So it is obviously a big undertaking. It's a big parcel of land. It serves a lot of user groups. It would be a complex project from both a regulatory perspective, a permitting perspective, as well as just a user group perspective. It's something that I think should we move forward with, it would certainly happen in a phased approach for many reasons. And it's also going to require a lot of careful planning. That process will involve experts that we have procured. It will involve DPW. It will involve the Park Commission, which is a public body with regulatory authority, as well as the Conservation Commission, which is also a public regulatory body. That is before anything would ever come before this body with any type of funding request attached to it. So it's really about having spent six years in this phase, getting ready to maybe move into the next phase. I think six years is probably too long for some people. Some people would like it to be a little bit longer. It feels just about right for government that it's taken us six years to get here. So that's what this is about very broadly, and I'll turn it over to you to talk about the technical. Sure. Okay.

▶ 26:18 Speaker 3: So Adrian, if you can put the presentation up.

▶ 26:24 Speaker 3: Thank you. So this is just our welcome slide. You can go to the next. So we're going to run through the project history, the schedule and goals, 25% design, stormwater management, which we're doing a little bit of right now, the cost estimate, and then any questions that you might have. Next slide.

▶ 26:49 Speaker 3: So I know this has been mentioned several times now, but back in 2020, we started the feasibility study. We did a competitive process to select a consultant, and Weston & Sampson won that competitive process. We had a committee that actually still meets, consisting of representatives from the Park Commission, the Conservation Commission, various city departments, planning, parks, DPW, and we've had resident involvement as well. And so it was a really robust process. We had several public meetings, one public meeting in particular that I remember that was during COVID. I think we had more people on that call than I've ever had on a public meeting that was project specific. So we've heard a lot of feedback. And then in February 2025, we were awarded a $1 million EPA grant for stormwater improvements. That grant could only be spent on stormwater. So design, permitting, and construction of just the stormwater elements of the project. So we're advancing that right now. And in construction season 2027, we expect for those stormwater improvements to take place. I'll show you in a minute what those are. And then as part of that project, we needed to bring the whole park to 25% design so that we had adequate information to size the stormwater components. So that's all been done, and so right now, Weston & Sampson is at 25% design. And so the funding that we're requesting tonight is to go from 25% design to 90% design of the whole park, and then 100% design of whatever we decide the first phase is, bid ready plans of whatever that phase is. But we haven't come to any conclusions yet about that. During this extensive process of public input, we had different alternatives that we presented. Oh, sorry. Next slide.

▶ 28:48 Speaker 1: Thank you. You're welcome.

▶ 28:50 Speaker 3: Forgot to say next slide. So these were some of the takeaways from the public engagement. People use the fields, and they use the park for walking. The fields are in average condition. People were interested in accessibility and better drainage. The courts were also average condition, and people were, again, interested in accessibility and just general improvements. What is desired is better drainage of the fields, more seating, improved walking paths and trails, and improvements to the pond and the waterfront.

▶ 29:28 Speaker 3: Next slide. Okay, so here are, again, some of the results. The field drainage problems wereOne of the main reasons why folks weren't satisfied with the park. Other comments were about lighting, programming, court repair. And then

▶ 29:50 Speaker 3: the answer, are the existing recreational facilities meeting the needs of the organization or program in terms of availability and performance? About half of the folks said yes, and about half said no.

▶ 30:05 Speaker 3: Next slide. So, in addition to the field use, of the other elements of the park, the one that had the most interest from the public was improved paths and trails, and then after that was cleaning up the pond and the waterfront. And this whole presentation is in your packet and in the public packet, so if anyone wants to dig in more to the data, you can do that. Next slide. Oops. So, this was the preferred concept resulting from the feasibility study process. I'm not going to read all these little boxes all the way around, but the overall point that we're trying to make here is that this is a holistic look at the whole park. There are improvements proposed to the fields, the tennis courts, the wetland area that captures the water that comes across the parkway and makes it into the pond. So, improvements to water quality that enters the pond, which is mostly street drainage. Improvements to the knoll, an accessible path up the knoll to access all the memorials. A walking trail around the entire perimeter of the park. When the whole thing, the whole walking trail is complete, it's actually a .75 mile loop, which is pretty nice for jogging or even kids on bikes and things. The parkway has always had an issue where DCR couldn't put a bike lane on that portion of the parkway because of all the drop-off and pickup activity from the schools. And so there will be a multi-use path behind the fence along that whole side of the park so that people can walk, bike, off of the parkway and not have to be in the area where people are pulling over their cars and dropping off children. There is a little outdoor classroom area. The dog park remains. This preferred concept does show an adjustment of the shape of the parking. There were actually two alternatives, one which leaves the entrance as it is, and the other which splits it like this. I think at this point, we're leaning toward the one that leaves it as is, because otherwise we'd need another traffic light on the parkway, which I think we now have enough. Next slide.

▶ 32:33 Speaker 3: So, this is our schedule right now. We have the stormwater project advancing to the 100% design, and then we'll have the construction, as I mentioned, next summer of that. That will spend all the money from the EPA, all of the federal earmark. And then anything we do beyond that is city money, or we'd have to apply for other grants or earmarks or such. So, we're showing construction starting on this phase of the project in April of 2027. And right now, we are here. Actually, we were here in May when we put the presentation together. Now we're in June. But we're advancing the final design plans for those stormwater elements. Next slide. Next slide, thank you. So, this is the 25% design plan, so you'll see that we did maintain that entrance and exit at the same place. And this runs through all of those major improvements. So, the paths, the courts, the fields, the knoll, the accessible path. Oh, there's a boat ramp that the school is actually also interested in having better access to launch a boat on the pond. The outdoor classroom, the wetland improvements, and actually, there's also, I didn't mention before, these little fitness terraces that would be along the walking path.

▶ 33:55 Speaker 3: Next slide.

▶ 33:59 Speaker 3: This is just a different view, to be able to see the park from a little bit of a different angle.

▶ 34:06 Speaker 3: Next slide.

▶ 34:13 Speaker 3: So, we're envisioning an inclusive park with diverse programming, and I've said this a couple of times now, but the idea is to meet the needs of all the users of the park. This is not only a playing field project or only a water quality improvement project. It's a holistic look at the whole park to make it a real amenity for the whole community, where really if you want to do any sort of outdoor recreation or even just sit and look over the pond, there's something for everybody in this design. Next slide.

▶ 34:50 Speaker 3: This shows the walking paths. One critical part of this that I haven't called out yet is that where the wetland comes in on the right-hand side there, it does require a little bridge, a little boardwalk, over the channel that comes in. I think that's actually going to be a nice amenity, too. It's bringing people a little bit closer to the wetland, which once improved, will be not an eyesore like it is now and should be a nice area for wildlife and to see a little bit of nature. And then that connects it to the Crystal Street courts without being on the parkway, which I think is also a nice amenity. Next slide. So, here are just some conceptual drawings. This shows that at the top of the knoll with an accessible path, you could potentially have wheelchair access up to the top of the knoll, a nice vista of the parks down below.And access to the memorials as well. Next.

▶ 35:52 Speaker 3: And similarly, the multi-use path, we actually showed here the food co-op, since they would still continue to use that space as well. So Weston Sampson showed the food co-op on the right there. And you'll see the concept of a multi-use path, so wide enough for people to walk and cycle along that whole perimeter.

▶ 36:17 Speaker 3: This is the less exciting stuff. The pinkish lines are the stormwater pipes that would be installed now, and then the blue are rain garden depressed areas that would be installed now. So this is what EPA is paying for the construction of. The yellow and the two hatched lines are the wetland borders and the buffer zone. So those are not pipes, but everything else that's a line there, the colored line is a pipe, and then the depressed rain garden areas. And we've worked around all the other uses of the park, so they shouldn't interfere with any of the playing fields or anything else. Next.

▶ 37:02 Speaker 3: So this is what the full stormwater build-out would look like. We would have to have drainage regardless of what the type of field is, whether it's natural turf or artificial turf on any of these fields. They would have all new drainage underneath them because the real crux of the problem right now is drainage. The groundwater is so close to the surface at certain times of year, and the fields get very spongy. So the full build-out in this final design would account for drainage under all of those fields as well, including the cabbage patch across the street. Next slide.

▶ 37:37 Speaker 3: So for costs, the current project, as I mentioned, a million-dollar EPA grant, and then we have supplemental funding for the city's match. The cost estimate is 1.175 million, so that is fully funded. The design to bring the rest of the project to 90%, and then, like I said, bid ready documents for the next phase, which we're calling phase two, is $710,000. And then right now we have a cost estimate of 12.5 million to construct the entire project once the design is complete. But the exact costs will depend on exactly what we're designing, so that could change depending on the various elements of the project.

▶ 38:20 Speaker 5: Next.

▶ 38:23 Speaker 3: And I'm not going to go through this in detail, but this is in your packet, and you can see how the prices break out for that 12.5 million into the different elements of the field in very broad brush strokes.

▶ 38:39 Speaker 3: Next slide. So that's just the park again. We can leave that up there while we're answering questions in case that's helpful.

▶ 38:51 Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll just make a few comments. So, thank you for having us today. I know that there's been a lot of ground covered, and I just want to reiterate a few things. One is, and Elena, you might be covering this through questions. Following the design study that would be funded based on the appropriation before you guys today, there could be decisions for sequencing. It doesn't mean it's $12.5 million that would need to be expended right away. There could be a phasing. So from a financial perspective, I think you would think about it potentially in stages, and I think that would be a likely approach for how we would tackle the implementation. I think the other thing that I'd like to bring, and I've reflected this in a letter that I sent to you all a few weeks ago. Ultimately, while this is not the final decision, this is intended to move beyond concept towards the possibility of implementation. From the perspective of just the playing fields for a moment, one of the things that's pretty critical right now is continued access. When you look at the demand for the field, we're at a point right now where it's not just a matter of whether we're going to have a nice field or not have a nice field. It's a matter of whether everyone's going to be able to play. And going back a few years and prior to being in the Park Commission, I was on the board of Miller Rose Youth Soccer, and served as president for five years, including during COVID. One of the things that was abundantly clear through that process was the importance for our youngest members of our community, not just those who are excellent athletes, but all of them, to be able to have access to the experiences of succeeding, of failing, of interacting with others of their peers, and being active both for their physical as well as their mental health. And so one of the things that makes me passionate about this, is that we're at a point right now where if we are not able to improve the reliable access to safe fields, we're going to be starting to turn kids away. And so once again, oversimplifying it, it's not just a matter of whether we have nice fields or not nice fields, it's a matter of whether everyone can play. And I think that's one of the things at the core of this. If this is moved forward, there will be a very deliberative open process. I know there are lots of opinions as we think about what it would look like to improve all aspects of the Alpine Park. And we'll have a robust discussion in the public around that, and we'll look forward to that, but-I look forward to your decision tonight.

▶ 42:06 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 42:09 Kimberly Vandiver: Questions and comments from the council. I believe President Freeman was up first.

▶ 42:13 Bradley Freeman: Thank you very much, Councilor Vanderberg. And thank you all for coming tonight. I really like this project, I'm going to say that at the onset. Aside from the fields, which I'm a huge supporter of, I think the educational component is wonderful. I know Winthrop Elementary School was down at L Pond two days ago for a field trip, and I think these things like the walking bridge and the dock would only enhance those educational opportunities for the elementary school, as well as the middle school and high school that's right there. I also love the walking path. I think so many families go to Wakefield for an opportunity to walk in a safe loop, and if we can have some of those families stay here and experience Melrose, particularly while there's games going on, I just think it'd be a huge added addition for our city. I just want to talk one thing, and I had the privilege of serving with Jim on the Parks Commission for a while, and I think one thing we struggle with in Melrose, and I say this as someone who played football, and value our programs, we have a history of having some programs get priority access to fields and other programs struggling to get access. And I think it's becoming more and more of an equity access in Melrose. As we're trying to develop some new programs like field hockey and lacrosse, they're struggling to get field time. I think this project would address it, and short of this project, I think we need to have some hard conversations how we schedule fields and how we prioritize games versus practices. But I do think this would move us in the right direction and allow all those sports to thrive, and to Jim's point, allow as many youth and also high school athletes to compete as possible. So Jim, could you just talk a little bit about the equity issues that you hear about on the Parks Commission?

▶ 43:39 Speaker 2: Yeah. To your point, I think, without going through all of the examples, I think the most stark example is field hockey, where we've got the exciting development of a new and growing program with a lot of interest from our kids in elementary school up through high school, as well as engaged parents who are looking to support its development, and they're struggling for fields. And when I talk about the challenges, essentially, we've got more demand than we have supply, and it hinders the ability to further develop those programs and give the kids the opportunities to participate in what are really healthy outlets for their physical as well as other aspects of their development.

▶ 44:39 Bradley Freeman: Yeah. I think when I look at this project, one thing I like is the fact that our high school athletes would theoretically all be able to play games at the high school instead of having to go over to Pine Banks where you're not drawing the same support from fans and friends. That's right. One quick question in terms of if this passes tonight and the design reaches 90% completion, and you look at the $12.5 million price tag, that's obviously a big number. Does this open us up for other funding opportunities, either state, federal, or philanthropic?

▶ 45:06 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes, I think it does. I think right now we are at a standstill. One of the biggest challenges is that the Noel Memorial is not ADA compliant, and so for us to go, even in this current federal administration, even for us to go after additional federal funding, that would be a hindrance. So until we have a design and are able to say how we're going to commit to doing some of those things, I think we're really limited. Our experience thus far is that even in what feels like a very contentious federal administration, we are continuing to have some success with earmarks. Catherine Clark was able to just secure us money for Memorial Hall. But they are not interested in concepts, and they are not interested in funding designs. They are interested in paying to put shovels in ground. So we need to have a design, we need to have permits, we need to have a holistic approach so that we can then figure out if there are pieces that we can use federal money to leverage. I think state money is certainly a possibility around some of the climate resiliency work. That's a harder sell within the federal government right now, but again, I think we have to have-- Nobody wants to pay for a design. They want to be able to come and cut a ribbon and say, "Look what we helped you do." And I think that's why we ask you all to fund the less glamorous but important part.

▶ 46:19 Bradley Freeman: Wonderful. Just one last comment before I move on. I do think, looking at the engineer now, if there's an ability in this project to insert a small little playground, I think a lot of parents with multiple children who are playing sports and want to play to entertain their little kids would really appreciate that so they can actually watch their kids play sports. Noted. Thank you all very much.

▶ 46:38 Kimberly Vandiver: Councilor Karim Chehdi is up next. Oh, hey, I wasn't expecting. I figured everybody raised their hand already. After that, we'll have Councilor Williams to get-- You're on deck, Councilor Williams.

▶ 46:46 Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate

▶ 46:49 Manjula Karamcheti: the time, energy, and efforts that have gone into this for so long. So I am generally in support of saying yes to the funding of going into the design phase, but I think this is a situation for me where it's a yes, and I do have a ton of concerns. One of the things that if we're really going to talk about equity and access, I think we really need to talk about it and what that means in terms of a process for design and whose voices are heard, whose voices have been ignored in the past. And I say that related to, again, what sports have access. We have an entire track program, which are some of the most diverse students in our district, who have to figure out ways to get to Pine Banks. So, if we're really talking about equity and access, I want to talk about it in terms of who's prioritized and who gets to use the fields. And regarding whose voices are heard, a small example is we have a playground in Ward 1 that's being put in, and folks were asked sort of what design they likedIt was general consensus across the board. There was one design that everybody wanted, and the rec department chose another design. And so, just in terms of if we're saying we're going to have a design process and voices are going to be heard, and people are going to be involved, I feel like I want some assurances that that's going to be the case. I think there are voices in our community that are often heard, and a lot of voices that aren't. So I guess I would love to hear a little more about what folks are thinking about in terms of an accessible and inclusive process. Because it does seem like the design that

▶ 48:49 Speaker 6: is in this feasibility study is pretty

▶ 48:50 Manjula Karamcheti: specific, and it's pretty detailed. So, what are really the opportunities for change and for people to say what they want?

▶ 49:02 Speaker 3: So I think I can take that one. The feasibility study phase was the phase during which the major elements of the project were decided. So, at this point, we had over 400 responses to the survey. We advertised it through every channel we could possibly find, and it was also during COVID. That's when we had that meeting that had, I believe, between 80 and 100 participants on that virtual meeting. We had information posted online for months and months and gathered a lot of feedback. So, we've already done the phase where we're talking about the big holistic decisions. Is there going to be a track? I share your interest in having a track, but that's not part of this project. We've already gone through that phase of the decision-making. So the decisions at this time are more, what are we sizing the fields for? Which sports? Field hockey is a great question. If we're looking at, is a field hockey field, I think it's the same as a regulation soccer field, but maybe it's a little different. I remember from my high school days. We already looked at the cabbage patch. Could that be striped? Is it big enough to put a regulation soccer field? Those are the types of decisions that we'd be making at this point on the fields, is the striping, the sizing. A playground, we might be able to fit a playground. Honestly, we have that little park up on Crystal Street. Maybe that's a good place to put a little play structure if we can fit one. So small changes like that we have room for, but the process has already gone beyond any major changes to the project.

▶ 50:47 Speaker 4: So like- If I can- Oh, go ahead, sorry.

▶ 50:49 Speaker 2: Just really quickly. Yeah, of course. So I guess, I think one or two other things, one may be less obvious and one very obvious, I think one we talked through, was the first one being sequencing. Are we doing it all at once? Are we doing it in phases? If we're doing it in phases, what's done first? What's done second, et cetera, in addition to what Elaine already commented on. The other one that's obvious, based upon comments and perspectives, is going to be the type of surface, whether it's an artificial or a natural surface. I think that's obviously going to be a big part of the question. I know that one of the gentlemen, I think it was the first gentleman who spoke in public comment, I thought his comments made a lot of sense. I think part of that process is going to be understanding what it is that the needs of the field are, what are the criteria that's going to be used in terms of reaching a decision about what type of a surface to implement, and then which of the different options would provide different levels of access. I think one of the things that he asked about is having the user groups come forward and demonstrate with data what are the demands for the field, and how would those demands be met under different types of surfaces. That'll be part of the conversation. And obviously, it's going to be a robust conversation. I know that there are strong opinions about it from many perspectives. And so, I think we will be among those that will-- I think, a significant portion of this is going to be directed through the Park Commission. In my role in that, I would look to have an inclusive process and look to have it data-driven and so I think that's going to be the process.

▶ 52:59 Manjula Karamcheti: Just a couple other comments/questions. I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't-- So, it

▶ 53:07 Speaker 6: sounds like it's less design, but

▶ 53:11 Manjula Karamcheti: more choices about the design. Correct. Just to be very clear about that. What is in the feasibility study is the outline of the plan. Yes. And then there will be decisions made regarding what's in the plan, but for instance, pickleball's a big thing in our community. I know there's been a petition for pickleball in some of the tennis courts in that area, but there's also been petitions against pickleball in that area. But I didn't see pickleball in the plan, so that's not an option.

▶ 53:50 Speaker 3: We're moving forward with striping one set of tennis courts for pickleball. That's happening this year. Okay. Yeah. So that will already be in-- It's not shown here because it's something that will have predated the plan.

▶ 54:02 Manjula Karamcheti: Got it. Okay, that's super helpful. But again, just to name more for transparencyThe thing is designed,

▶ 54:12 Jen Grigoraitis: and then what we're appropriating money for is the details of that design and the choices within, and that kind of thing. Yes, and I think for us as-- I have no experience in this world. Like yes, the feasibility versus design is lost, I think, for the technical thing. The crux of the problem is that these fields flood and weather. And so that is what is rendering them unusable, but that is what is exacerbating the wear and tear on them, so figuring out the drainage and therefore the associated permitting requirements. So the Conservation Commission is going to have to also have its own public process to review and approve whatever is under consideration because they also have jurisdiction because we're so close to wetlands. So I think there's going to be lots of public conversations. I know you all know this because of the roles you're in. We hear a lot of things from the public. We can very rarely deliver for everyone always, so there may be preferences for things that are then not going to be allowable by the Con Com or not going to be feasible, or we're going to also have to weigh the economics of. I think one of the big questions is, as you look at different types of surfaces, what is short-term investment versus maintenance versus long-term wear and tear and replacement for those of you that were on, I think maybe it might have been just me and Councilor Jamaleddine, I can't remember. We did have to replace the turf at Fred Green. That was-- And Councilor Williams- We were all there. ... that was $600,000. So, there's a lot of information and data, including public opinion and preference that we need to take in, that they will be synthesized by two public bodies to then come up with a recommendation that we would then have to both sequence and recommend funding to you all. Yeah. So I will just make my final comment, and it is a question as well in that, again, how detailed the feasibility study is. Turf is clearly identified as a recommendation within the feasibility study. And in a variety of roles that I've played in my life as a school administrator, I oversaw the concussion protocol within the high school and the post-hospitalization program for students who had concussions and injuries in athletics. Just want us to think very critically about the choices we make regarding turf. And personally, my daughter was the one who tore her ACL on the

▶ 56:38 Manjula Karamcheti: turf on Fred Green. So I have strong opinions, and I know a lot of people do- ... on both sides, but I just really hope that we spend a lot of time and energy and are really thoughtful about what we choose.

▶ 56:51 Speaker 3: I do want to make one comment on that. So the feasibility study did conclude with-- The turf was what we were talking about at the end of the feasibility study. We've now carried it forward to the 25% design as part of this EPA grant. And in the 25% design, so we're much farther along than we were at the conclusion of the feasibility study. But in this 25% design, Weston & Sampson designed everything for the most conservative approach from the drainage perspective. So the way the drainage has presently been designed and the way the whole 25% design is working can accommodate either natural or artificial turf. So I would say from my perspective, that decision is very much up in the air and is very much going to be a community discussion.

▶ 57:37 Speaker 2: Thank you. Can I just make one other comment? And I know we've used the term design, and based on your questions, it seemed a understandable confusion about what that means and what the decision on it. Would I be accurate if I were to describe this design as primarily an engineering design, as opposed to the design of what is going to be included in terms of what types of fields and what types of-

▶ 58:07 Speaker 6: I think the best way to look at it is, in general, the programming of the overall park has sort of been framed up and settled within the actual engineering and design, putting things together and how they're built. There's still a tremendous amount of opportunity to make changes or updates or nuances specific to how we actually build this thing, and obviously, stormwater is a great example, where we are taking a conservative approach to stormwater so that we don't limit the decisions in the future, depending on how this thing does ultimately get built. Is it being phased? Is it being all done at once? Are certain fields being taken offline for a certain period of time, and then that has to shift somewhere else? So we're trying to leave as many options open, knowing that there's still a lot of decisions to be made. But the reason we're having to make some of these decisions now is that the requirements of the grant that the city had for the stormwater has to be spent by January 2028. So that'll be here before we know it, unfortunately. In general, I expect the actual design and engineering process of the park itself to go from 25% to basically shelf-ready 90% level, depending on how we ultimately phase it. It's going to take somewhere between 18 to 24 months minimally. That's mostly permitting time with the state agencies and local agencies. So there's still a lot of time ahead of us. Ultimately, you're probably looking at '29, 2030 groundbreaking- ... if this was to go forward as a single-phase project.

▶ 59:59 Manjula Karamcheti: Great. Well, like I said, I am in support, and I have a lot of concerns.

▶ 1:00:05 Speaker 4: Thank you for your time.

▶ 1:00:07 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. Thank you, Councilor Karim Cheedy. And up next, we have Councilor Williams, followed by Councilor Finocchiaro

▶ 1:00:12 Ryan Williams: Thank you. I'm going to double down a little bit on Councilor Karamcheti, and not repeat her initial point, which is that I love a lot about this. I would say 90% of it. I love the walking paths. I love the wetlands restoration. I love it deeply. I think it's a fantastic premise. I think that it's moving in the right direction, with an exception, which is turf. I think that I want to see it personally move forward, but I can't vote for it without a guarantee that there won't be synthetic turf in this design. And the reason for this is that I've been on this council for a number of years, and I have often kicked the can down the road on decision-making and said, "This isn't the time. It's not the time to debate the third fire station. It's not the time to debate the salt shed. It's not the time to debate these things. Let's get this to the next phase, and then we can have a good faith conversation about what comes next." And I hear you all talking about the good faith conversation. But it's not enough for me, because I worry that the six years that came before this will turn into six years after this. And just like the people who were in the working group are almost all gone, except you, there's two people left. It's like Rob and Elena are left. Everybody else is gone from the city. I just don't have a lot of faith that we're going to carry this through, and I want to tell you, I want to make comments about some of the reasons that I don't have a lot of faith. So Elena, you mentioned that there was a survey with 400 and some residents. This is true. This was the 2020 survey, and in that survey, drainage was named the number one priority at 49%, walking paths were similarly named very high, and synthetic turf was only named a priority by 5% of respondents. 50 some percent said that they had adequate access to fields. Now, I don't think that this survey is the gold standard, right? But it disappeared. It didn't appear in the Weston & Sampson report. Instead, there was a 2022 follow-up survey that just said, "Here's the design we've chosen. What's your favorite part? Is it turf? Is it natural grass? Is it all these other things?" And about 44% of people said turf, 34% of people said natural grass, and that had around 260 respondents. So that split might be 10 or 15 people. So when we're talking about the public engagement, the 2020 survey results are entirely missing from the conversation, from the agenda packet, from the Elpon design, and the design itself sort of starts by saying, "The city wants synthetic turf, and here's how we're going to get there." And so, the design at 25%, that to me is 25% of three synthetic turf fields. The drainage pits that we drilled to test for water issues, to me that was a test to see if we could get turf. All of these things that we have worked towards to get this moving have been predicated on the assumption that we're going to go with turf, and we've heard some arguments and I think we need to shore up some of the information that we're throwing around in here. I don't think that anybody has seen a single permit cancellation record. I don't think anybody has seen a number put to the number of kids who aren't able to play sports because they have natural grass. I have gone through two kids, K through three and four for soccer, a daughter who played field hockey in fifth grade, and a daughter who plays track right now. They have a couple of practices canceled every year at Elpon because of really wet weather. And my daughter's track practice was canceled today because of the eighth grade graduation. It had nothing to do with field availability. I understand that we have limited field space. I don't think any community has unlimited field space, and I personally think that unless we can really demonstrate that there is a serious equity argument here, that we're sort of just throwing the word around without the evidence to back it up. I think that equity is a super hard conversation, as my colleague mentioned. I think it means a lot to a lot of people, and I think just asserting that having a permanent plastic field would mean more girls play sports is not enough for me. I don't see the proof. But what I do see is that there's a lot of studies on injuries with turf, and we've got three councilors in the room, sort of, who have had kids injured with turf. I've got probably four studies here. The one I'm going to cite is the "British Journal of Sports Medicine" from 2007 that found double the rate of soft tissue injuries on 1,000 hours of artificial turf versus grass. I also have one from the "American Journal of Sports Medicine" that did a peer review of 53 studies that found consistently higher rates, in some cases three times higher rates, of foot and ankle injuries on artificial turf. Interestingly enough, the "British Journal of Sports Medicine" study actually called out that a lot of the studies or some of the studies that support turf as being non-injurious are funded by the petrochemical industry and the turf industry. We know that there is a serious heat issue. We know that turf gets up to 170 or 200 degrees. We know that it potentially contains environmental toxins. We also know that people lie about their recycling. They say they'll recycle plastic, and then it goes on a cargo ship and disappears to Africa where it gets burned, or maybe it goes to Saugus and gets burned. And so I think that for me personally, we have a couple of potential pros. I need to know a lot more about the plastic grass is the reason why we can't have more girls' hours in sports because we're not making new fields. We're presumably just adding more hours to the existing fields, and my own personal experience is that we're probably adding six to eight hours a year. This is just on my personal experience. I'm sure it's higher because of other kids. Does this result in more children playing sports, more girls playing sports, more low-income people playing sports? Or does it just result in the same people who are currently permitted to play sports having fewer cancellations and less of a scheduling problem? SoI've said a lot, and I apologize. I'm not trying to grandstand, and I hope you all know this is a conversation I want to have in earnest because I really like this, and it would be great to see this come to fruition. But I have very little faith that if we move this forward, that it will not reappear in 18 months as a fully synthetic turf project with a great justification attached to it for why a small group of people had to make that choice. So I can't vote yes on this. With that, I have some ideas. I want to hear from my colleagues and other people and hear what they have to say. And that's all I have to say for right now. Thank you.

▶ 1:07:10 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you, Councilor Williams. Next we have Councilor Finocchiaro, who will be followed by Councilor Cal.

▶ 1:07:17 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. Thank you all for being here and for this fabulous presentation. This actually is amazing to me. I grew up here, went to the old middle school that used to get flooded. We'd have fish in the cafeteria. People would be kayaking down the Fellsway. So, I know, I think Mayor Dolan did some stormwater drainage thing with Elk Pond years ago. The fields there have always been soppy wet, and unplayable. I think they've gotten a little bit better over the years. This is sort of, I feel like the centerpiece, other than downtown of Melrose. There's so many fields, it's near the schools, gets a lot of use, and I definitely would like to continue investing in this space. First and foremost, so drainage is an important thing for me. And so if you can convince me that whether we put turf, although I'm not a fan of turf, or grass, and I would prefer grass, I'm just going to put that on record only because of... Well, for many reasons, but also where it's located. Okay. We are near this beautiful pond, and I am at tracks pretty much six months out of the year, and the smell off of the field, there's a huge difference between a grass field and a turf field. But I'm not going to get into that right now. But, I need to know that that drainage is going to fix everything that's going on there because there is, and I know you agree with this, there is an equity issue here. And it's more about not necessarily missing times, it's more about the quality of the field that I'm playing on. Like, "Oh, I get to play over here, but they're over there on that awesome," again, not awesome turf field . But it's new, right? And it's not soppy and there's not divots and that's an equity issue for me. So whether they're young kids playing or adults or field hockey, I think we need to have awesome fields over there that the kids feel proud playing on, and that we feel proud having people come to watch our kids or adults play. But the other part is the financial part. And, I'm more concerned about we appropriate the $710,000 and are we waiting 10 years to do this? Do we have to get the 12 and a half or whatever it is million to start? You might have already said this, so forgive me. Can we start smaller and do the drainage part? I'm very excited about the veterans' area and having it ADA accessible. That's really important to me because I look at that and when I go up to those memorials, especially the, I forget the name of it, the golden, at the top of the knoll, that makes me sad that it's a challenge to get people up there. So, even if we started with that, so if you could just talk a little bit about the financial piece, because we are here to appropriate a dollar amount. We can talk about turf and all that, which is, like I said, important to many of us, but I just want to know what are we getting, when, how much? Can we start small? So...

▶ 1:10:48 Speaker 4: You want to? I don't know. I- No, I have some- I can talk about the money. You can talk about the- Okay. Yeah.

▶ 1:10:52 Speaker 3: So, first of all, I want to emphasize again that this is not a artificial turf project. Mm-hmm . It may have started that way from a prior administration and a prior DPW and a prior Parks commission, and I think when the feasibility study began in 2019, when that request for proposals came out when Weston & Sampson was hired, that may have been the emphasis. Mm-hmm. But through the public process and through the involvement of a lot of new faces, as Ryan mentioned- Mm-hmm this has become a holistic project to beautify this park, to make it available to all sorts of passive recreation. We heard the community loud and clear that the community was not solely interested in artificial turf playing fields, or just even in playing fields at all. That's very much not what we heard. I don't think we knew what to expect when we went into that big public process in 2020, but we heard loud and clear there is a large group of the population that just wants to enjoy the pond, that just wants to walk, that wants to play tennis. Mm. There are all these interests and the original emphasis on just turf and playability of the fields became just one small component of the project. And then building on that, there was a lot of opposition to the idea of artificial turf in our public process. As Councilor Williams mentioned, probably only half of the people who were involved in the public meeting were in favor of artificial, and the other half were very opposed to artificial turf. SoI don't think any of us up here right now have any foregone conclusion that anything is going to be artificial turf. And I keep going back to something that Brandon's predecessor, who is now retired, Gene Bollinger, who was the project manager for this project in the initial feasibility study, he said to me, "I've designed natural turf fields in areas with poor drainage and artificial turf fields in areas with poor drainage, and we can design a field that will perform better than what you have now, much better than what you have now, in either condition. The community just has to decide which direction you want to go." So, yeah. So I rely on the experts that we work with, and I've had that in my head for the last five years since he said it, that there shouldn't be an assumption that it has to be plastic in order for it to have more uptime and better drainage and better surface and not have divots and not have kids twisting their ankles and dirt on a hot day and dust bowls on a hot day because the grass isn't growing and all that. A lot of these things can be solved with just a better designed field. I'll say a quick thing about the money, and then I know the mayor has comments about the money. We've seen it, another project that we're going to talk about a little later is the Lebanon Street tip project, where I have tried to just bleed money in in dribs and drabs, and all that we've seen is that the design gets more and more expensive the more we segment what we're doing. So this $710,000, I would strongly encourage us to move forward with the design of the whole project, not only because of what the mayor has said about funding opportunities, that outside funding agencies love to see shovel-ready projects, and this can't be a shovel-ready project if it's piecemeal. And then secondly, for permitting, we've worked it so that we could permit the little bit of stormwater that we're doing with the grant, but at a certain point, permitting agencies will not let you segment a project. Mm-hmm. So we can't permit it piecemeal. At a certain point, we have to go forward with the permitting of the remainder of the project. Mm-hmm. And for instance, you can't permit if you're trying to do a better draining field, let's say, and you try to permit that separate than the wetland restoration and some of the other environmental improvements, you might have agencies that aren't willing to permit the field without seeing that you're also improving the environmental aspects of the project. So I feel like the plan as a whole is very permittable, but as soon as you start picking off individual pieces- Mm-hmm ... permitting agencies and even the public, if the public wants walking paths and they're asked to vote on funding for just a playing field, that might not get support because it's not including the elements that cover all the interests.

▶ 1:15:33 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. That makes sense. I'm sorry, you were going to-

▶ 1:15:35 Jen Grigoraitis: No, I think on the funding aspect, we would certainly not be looking for $12 million in one fell swoop. That would be pretty unprecedented in this community. We typically have about $5 million in free cash a year. So I think as we move through the public process, it would certainly be thinking about how would you phase this. Some of it would have to be determined by where do we think we can leverage outside funding, and that may prioritize certain parts over another. This is a huge project, and this is likely going to go on if it were to move forward beyond any of our life in public service. And so I'm trying to recognize that we can continue to keep it sitting on a shelf, which I think there's a lot of great examples of that happening in this city, and we all know there are consequences for that. Or do we try to continue to move forward, make things better, give people an opportunity? I don't think that we can go back to conceptually what does this look like. That costs time and money. But I think thinking about how do we move forward now, I do feel like three of the people who would be involved in making these decisions who are sitting here before you now, I have no predetermined commitment to what the field surface look like. I also can't tell you that it gets to be grass because that's not my decision. We have two regulatory bodies that have to weigh in, and I want to respect their authority and their process. So I think it's trying to take what we know is a deteriorating, well-used facility and try to make it better and recognize that hopefully we carry the ball a little bit further along. Look at me with the sports metaphors. And then it gets picked up by whoever is also here for us, but I think we can look at the public safety buildings. We can look at some of the states of our current school buildings. There are capital needs that we have to make incremental decisions about so that we can eventually get to a more permanent, better solution.

▶ 1:17:19 Cal Finocchiaro: That makes a lot of sense. I think if I just was airing what Counselor Williams said, I think for us, or at least for me, I want to see this move forward too, but sometimes it's hard to appropriate money when you don't know what the ultimate, what it's going to end up as. Yep. And so if I can just circle back here. So say we appropriate this amount tonight, and then the design would be finalized, and then we come back to get the funding for the fields to be done? Or-

▶ 1:17:53 Jen Grigoraitis: First it would go through- To get approved? ... so the approval of any final design recommendations would have to go through, I think it's first Conservation Commission and then Park Commission. Maybe depends.

▶ 1:18:04 Speaker 3: I don't know if there's really a prescribed- Okay ... order, but like regulatory wise, but we were intending to kick off this process with a presentation to the Park Commission- Yep. Mm-hmm ... as the first phase, but without any vote taken, just informational and public forum. And then I don't know what phase we would go to Con Com.

▶ 1:18:27 Speaker 6: Well, ultimately we wouldTry it. We're going to bring the entire park design to it. Usually, it's around 80%, 70 to 80% complete design. We have to prove to the Conservation Commission, to all the other agencies, the state. There's a chance we may have to go to federal because it's a great pond. But anyway, we have to prove that the design is going to work. There's reports, there's drawings, there's specifications. So that's about 80%. Then from there, once we get buy-in and permits from all the various agencies, there will be final plan changes. They're going to all have their comments, their piece of the pie, in order to get the project to move forward. From there, we can then decide, all right, this is what we have funding for, this is what we want to get funding for. And then from there, we would finalize that into 100% bid-ready plan. So we're going to bring the entire park to 90% design, and then through conversations, through permitting, we'll work with Elena and her team and the commission to say, "This is what we want to build in phase one or phase two," just so I'm clear. Phase one is the stormwater piece that we're designing now. Phase two is the next piece. So, that's typically how we imagine this is going to work.

▶ 1:20:03 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. But then ultimately, for funding purposes, that's where we would come in? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, all right. I don't want to chew up the microphone anymore, so I don't know who's next. Thank you.

▶ 1:20:16 Elizabeth Kowal: Thank you, Councilor Finocchiaro. So up next on deck, we have Councilors Cole, Chen, Obremski, and then if nobody else would like to speak for the first time, we will go to Councilor Williams for the second time. So, Councilor Cal. Thank you. So I share a lot of the concerns that have been raised both by Councilor Williams and Councilor Finocchiaro. I'm struggling with this one. I love most of the design. I am very strongly anti-turf for many of the reasons that Councilor Williams mentioned. I also think I equate it to a snow cone. I think having a snow cone in the middle of the city with this beautiful pond that everybody can use for what ultimately is a small group of people on turf is just not okay. So I understand that's not what we're here for tonight, but I share a lot of this concern. I share a lot of the skepticism that-- and I hear you all tonight, and I want so badly to believe you that there is going to be this public forum. And Elena spent a lot of time talking to me about it, and she's been so patient and kind to me about it. But I'm skeptical about it, having lived through some of the other decisions that sort of got rammed through. So I'm skeptical about it. I'm having trouble. I hear you on we've got to do this whole thing because it involves permitting, and I believe you on all of that. But it's really hard for me, and possibly that's part because I'm new to have that leap of faith to turn over this. This is the largest money in free cash that we're giving out, and I'm struggling with the leap of faith that without a plan in place to follow up, that this money is not just going to disappear into the atmosphere, that we won't be able to get federal funding, that we won't be able to get more free cash or town money to do this. And so I'm just struggling with that, and I'm listening and I'm hearing, and I am a user of this and the idea of a walking path, the idea of the... I love the bridge, the wetlands. I love all of it. I love it. It'll be such a gem and such a great thing for this town, but I do have these reservations. And so I think what I would-- I guess my ultimate question is aside from two things. One is, I hear you about it starts to cost more if we do it piecemeal in terms of design, and that we may not get some permits. If we don't do X, we don't get a permit for Y. I hear that. But I am also hearing things like the feds like to see shovel-ready projects in order to give out grants. And so, I think there are a couple things that you can, and again, maybe it's not feasible. There does seem to be a way that we could use this money to get some of the designs for the veterans' soul to me is very important to make that ADA compliant, and I think there is federal money for that. I think you said that. I think there is federal money possibly available, for example, the walking path. And so what I'm just trying to rattle around in this brain of mine is, why don't we take that 710 and earmark it towards things that we know there's a very good chance that we can get federal funding for, and that way we've got a design and we have an end result, as opposed to what we're now saying is these things may kick out six, seven, eight, nine, 10 years, where we could deliver something maybe faster if we did that. So that's one question I have. The second one is, if we don't get federal funding for this, or let's say it's 12 million and we get six of that, where is the other six going to come from? Anyway, thank you for hearing me out as I sort of try to figure this out in my head.

▶ 1:24:10 Speaker 3: You want to take the first one? No, you can go ahead. You can go ahead with the second one.

▶ 1:24:14 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay. So I think on the funding, first of all, any funding request comes before this body for approval. So some of what I'm talking about is purely speculative, but obviously we as a community have gotten to a point after many years where we are not using free cash to backfill budgets. So that was a long-standing practice we were using. Many of you were here when we voted to spend 50% of our free cash to backfill existing school budgets. So thanks to the override, we have remedied that. This is why you're not seeing a lot of personnel additions in the city budget, is to try to ensure that we're being conservative, we're being frugal, that we're managing money so that we continue forward. SoMost of what we're asking for free cash this year is being driven by the CIP, as you all know. I know that's been part of your conversation. So to have this as the top-rated project, that's why we're asking for this. And then the hope would be that the pieces of this project, as we figured out both what is feasible, where we can get other money, what are the priority needs of the community, how are we serving people who have been left behind in terms of the use of this park, that would then be where we would make free cash requests for you. It's certainly going to take multiple years. This is not going to be-- And I think that we would want to do that. But I'm also recognizing that, again, this is going to be long, and the longer we wait, nothing gets cheaper. And we're continuing to spend money just to keep the fields from further deteriorating. And I do, just to echo Councilor Finocchiaro point of view, it is about the lack of the quality of the surface and the fact that basically we have our largest piece of open space is really just playing fields, because we haven't been able to activate the other things around it. So we have Mount Hood. I think some people go up there, but I think when people really think about open space in Melrose, this is what they think about. And right now, it's largely a dog park, a parking lot for high school students, a memorial that people can't get to if they're not physically able to, and playing fields.

▶ 1:26:14 Speaker 3: And I don't want to be repetitive on the segmenting of the project, but the permitting agencies need to see the whole project in order to permit it. And as Brandon mentioned, the permitting phase would happen roughly at 80% design. So you have to bring the whole project to 80% design, which out of 710,000, that gets us to 90%, maybe it's 600,000 that gets us to 80% in permits. So given that we can't segment the project, unless we truly don't plan on doing parts of the project, right? That's the other alternative is we say, "We're just never going to do X, Y, and Z." I don't even know what elements you'd take out, though, because I think there are people in the community who love all the individual components. And so I'm not sure what you decide at the outset that you're just going to leave behind. So I just think it's prudent to proceed with the entire design, the entire permitting, and then that's the point at which when you have the 90% design, when you can decide what do we want to construct. And if you can go back, Adrienne, one slide. I think it is the cost estimate piece. Yeah. So we've broken it up so that these different elements have different costs. These are the construction costs. So let's say you decide you want to do just the trails on both sides. You're looking at 3-point something million. If you want to make sure you have the wetland bridge connection, another 580,000, the wetland rehab, another 600,000. So, you can pick off pieces to do, but you have to have designed and permitted the whole park, or the elements aren't designed to accommodate the other elements that are part of the project, unless, like I said, you're going to just leave them behind right from the get-go, decide to downsize the project, and then move forward with that. Mm-hmm. So from an engineering perspective, this is my strong recommendation to move forward with the whole project and not try to pick it apart.

▶ 1:28:18 Elizabeth Kowal: And who will decide, and forgive me if you've said this, there's just been a lot go-- Who will decide what the next phase is? So phase one, I understand, storm work. Got it. Who decides phase two?

▶ 1:28:31 Speaker 3: So a combination of the city council, because you have to vote on any funding, whether it's to accept a grant or to accept a loan or to fund outright with free cash or something. That's all council and the Park Commission has jurisdiction over the land itself, so they will have to have voted. I would assume the Park Commission would vote what to bring to the council, unless there's an obvious choice of, "We got funding for X and Y and not for the rest of it." Sure. Then that kind of makes the decision for us. But I think the Park Commission would be heavily involved in the decision making of what to bring forward, and then the council ultimately would be in control of the funding. Thank you. And also the Con Com, I just want to mention. Right. The Con Com, obviously that all comes before. That comes during this initial permitting phase. But during the feasibility study, in a lot of our committee meetings, there was a lot of time spent talking about Con Com approval, and there was a real concern by certain folks in the working group that Con Com wasn't going to approve the project. So this process, this $710,000, gets us over that hurdle, too, of regardless of what field type we're talking about, a decision will have to be made at some point before Con Com takes a vote. But then at that point, their vote has a three-year timeline of approval for a permit. And then anything we want to do after that from the components of the plan, we can act on with that Con Com order of conditions. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 1:30:12 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay, thank you. And up next, we have Councilor Chen.

▶ 1:30:16 Jason Chen: I really appreciate the optimism and creativity in this and going big. There's something to be said. That's how any good thing gets done, right? People have imagination and they say, "We're going to do this." Councilor Kowal summarized a lot of my financial concerns, which you addressed in piecemealing. The worrier in me and the frugal person says, "I don't want to be sitting here two years from now with a 90% design of the whole thing with a pathway to only fund a third of it." Unless we take the long game and say, "This might take 15 years, but we're going to stick with it and we have a vision," then if that's the way we go, then I just have to be patient. Right?The practical part of me says, "Let's just build something as quickly as we can. Be realistic about what it is. Bring the most benefit to people." It seems like it's a walking path, the ADA knoll, and maybe one of the fields that doesn't waterlog, right? And if we're just realistic that if we can get that in the next five years, and it has a good chance, and we spend less on design now, and we just go, how would we think about that approach? I know where you stand on, "Hey, let's go big," and it's more efficient to design all of it and permitting is likely, but if we limited our imagination a little bit and just said, "We're just going to do this, and it'll be great. And we'll start here, and if in the future we can do more."

▶ 1:31:37 Jen Grigoraitis: Some of the conversation has been about voices that have or haven't been included, and when decisions get made that people feel like they weren't a part of. That, to me, feels like we would be deciding to eliminate things that we've told the community were part of the plan without having had that process. And I completely understand this is six years old, but it's also to go back and redo this then resets the clock to where we were. So, I think I would feel a little like to have 11 people make that decision, even though you're elected officials and represent the whole city, that feels like we would be kind of undercutting the process, however imperfect it may have been, about what is the vision that's been presented to the community. Because this has lived on a website for six years.

▶ 1:32:23 Speaker 3: I also think that design and permitting is not the place to cut funding. I think $710,000 for a $12.5 million estimated project, it seems like a lot of money because it's the biggest item for free cash for this year. But it's not, in the grand scheme of things, a ton of money to do the design and permitting for this type of project. And the benefit that you get from it is that then at that 90% phase, this 710,000 does include bringing whatever phase we decide to go with next to 100% bid-ready drawings. So, I want to emphasize that, too. So, this gets us a project that is shovel-ready, and that decision-making of cutting or paring back or phasing or looking at the long game of 15 years and actually coming up with a plan of how to phase and pay for the whole project, that's what happens after this phase or at the end of this phase of design. And I think it's all absolutely what we should be doing, but I think we should be funding the design and the permitting, and then we decide, is there anything that we don't really want to fund moving forward? Because then at least you've designed everything to accommodate all aspects of the project, and then you can pick which ones you're going to execute.

▶ 1:33:44 Speaker 2: Thank you.

▶ 1:33:46 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you, Councilor Chen. Up next, we have Councilor Brembsky.

▶ 1:33:52 Speaker 2: Thank you. Hearing a lot of good comments and a lot of good questions from my colleagues, and I just wanted to make a comment. I'm definitely in favor of this. I love the design. I love every aspect of it. And I really think that the thing that's holding some of my colleagues back is the idea of the artificial turf, and that's what I'm hearing. Someone referred to me as the quiet councilor the other day because I don't really talk all that much. But part of that is because I really do try to listen, and I try to listen when people talk and maybe part of my job as principal, I'm listening a lot. And in the context of this conversation, what I'm really hearing is that there has been no

▶ 1:34:49 Speaker 2: decision on the artificial turf, and that's what's being said. And also part of what I do is really trusting in individuals and trusting in processes. And when I say that, I say in terms of public trust. When people drop their kids off to me, they trust me every day. And that's an inherent trust. That trust isn't earned, it's sort of inherent, that I'm going to do right by their kids. And I try to apply that to these conversations up here. You're coming up here, and we have to put our trust in you, but we also have to put our trust in the process, and nothing's really happened for me to lose that trust, right? There's no reason why you still don't have my trust and why the process doesn't have my trust. So, I trust in the process. I trust that this is good faith. I do think it's a lot of money. It's nearly three quarters of a million dollars. But I think that in terms of what I'm seeing in the design, I would like to see this move forward, and I am in favor of it. Thank you.

▶ 1:36:09 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you, Councilor Brembsky. Did I miss anyone who wants to speak for the first time?

▶ 1:36:16 Speaker 4: Councilor Jamaleddine? Thank you.

▶ 1:36:19 Maya Jamaleddine: I actually raised my hand at the beginning, and then I said I want to listen to all my colleagues. And this is what I observed. I heard a lot of buzzwords that as politician, I learned that we use those buzzwords to either let something pass or let something not pass. So, I just wanted to be very mindful of what we're using and what goal are we trying to achieve. I do haveAnd this is something that sometimes I get blamed for, of. I have absolute trust in the administration and in the decision that they make. So this has nothing to do with the trust. But I have some concern about what I heard. Actually, let me back up a little bit. What I heard is very conflicting. I heard that there is no decision is made and that we are leaning more into grass. And then I heard from the mayor that, "I cannot promise you it's not going to be turf." So with that, it pulled me back, and it made me a little bit worried. Is that something that is going to leave a window that there is a chance that we're going to go with a turf? And if this is the case, I am concerned because every single time I send my kids to a game, I am concerned. I feel that I am harming them, and I don't want to be part of that. So if I do get a guarantee that there is no turf in that plan, I will 100% support it, regardless of the amount of money that we're going to spend, because I do believe that it is time to invest in this project and to support our kids as well in their sports and activities. But I want to make sure that when we're sending them to do that, we're not actually harming them on the other hand. I am 100% agree with you, Jim, about it's not about nice field or not nice field, it's about everybody able to play. But I also want everybody to be able to play for a longer time and not shorten their life. So that is my concern. 100% wanted to

▶ 1:39:05 Speaker 4: have it equitable,

▶ 1:39:08 Maya Jamaleddine: but want it to be healthy and be able to enjoy it for a longer life.

▶ 1:39:15 Maya Jamaleddine: That's my only question, and I hope to hear a clear and very aligned answer from both of you. From me and Alina? Yes.

▶ 1:39:27 Speaker 3: It's not up to me. Sorry. I mean, I think- I will make that clear.

▶ 1:39:29 Jen Grigoraitis: Yeah. And I don't mean to equivocate like a politician. I guess I will say, for those of you that know me well, I try not to throw my weight around. That's not normally how I govern, so I am not going to browbeat the Park Commission or the Con Com into a certain decision. So what I'm trying to say when I can't guarantee it is, it's not my call. There are two regulatory bodies that have to take votes to recommend something. I hope that they are very much tuning into this conversation. I think this is the first chance we've had to hear from all of you in the iteration of this council about what matters to you. Your values very much reflect mine on this issue, but it is not my decision alone. So I'm trying to be clear and honest about the fact that I don't get to decide what happens and what comes to you all. I think certainly if there was to be, I think having heard the feelings of this council, and if we were to be coming back to this iteration of this council for funding, I would be very hesitant to bring something that I know is not going to be successful based on what's being offered. I like to win, but also I want to see this project moving forward. But to Councilor Bremsky's point, there is a process. There are multiple bodies that get to weigh in on this. I know that that makes these decisions challenging because you all have to put some trust in other people, some of who you've appointed, some of who you haven't, but that we need to let them have their deliberations, their process, ask their questions, come to their determinations, and I want to be respectful of that, of their both expertise and the willingness that they have to serve in those roles. So that's why I'm not trying to hedge. I'm just trying to say, I can't make you a guarantee and I'm not going to do that because then that makes me not telling you the truth. Yeah. And I don't expect that you do that. Yeah. I'm used to you being very straightforward. However, even before when this started and you voted on it, you were among us.

▶ 1:41:21 Maya Jamaleddine: It was very clear said in a way that put us to vote on this, that there is no way that this field will work with grass. It was different administration, and this was the argument. That this field will never be able to work and be useful with grass, and we have to use turf. And that's where I am torn. So if before we were told there is no way we can use it as a grass and keep it as a grass, it has to be turf, and now that I'm hearing different argument that there is a chance and that there is hope which is what I want to hear. But where do I go from here? Can I?

▶ 1:42:15 Speaker 2: Yeah. So I guess- Do the microphone. Yeah I guess I'll make a few comments. One, in the same way that any of us don't-- I am the chair of the Park Commission, and that is going to be one of the, I would say there are three regulatory bodies, this one being the third, that really need to weigh in. I think while obviously if you all don't approve funding for whatever is put forth, it does not move forward. So ultimately that is a last stop in terms of the process. I am also one vote on the Park Commission, and so for-If I were to make any representation here that it 100% would be grass, I would be disingenuous. I cannot make that promise because of the process as defined within our system of government in the City of Melrose, is that it goes through the Park Commission. I can tell you that I do not approach this with any passion for... I know what you're talking about when you're talking about how things were presented before. I was not part of that process. I don't think you've ever heard me say that for the one vote that I represent. What I'm passionate about is making sure that we're able to make the improvements to the L Pond Park. Based on my 10 years in youth soccer, I think a lot of it, I definitely come with a bent towards the opportunity for the youth to play. But obviously, I'm also very cognizant and very appreciative of all of the other aspects of the park for a variety of different members of our community who need to make the other resources in that facility accessible to others. I can commit to you that I will, for my part, I will be open-minded about this. I don't know. I heard people saying, without data, that it has to be a turf field. I could see a discussion if we do find, as we go through this process, and it'll be interesting in terms of the design study, in terms of the experiences of other communities who've implemented grass fields in similar settings, the reliability of it, and the ability to provide reliable access. I, like others here, I have a son who tore his ACL on turf. I have a daughter who broke her tib-fib on turf. So I have exposure to that as well. So I can't make a representation that it would be 100%, whether I wanted to or not, I cannot make that representation with honesty. And if I'm going to maintain your trust, I don't think that that statement would be worthy of trust.

▶ 1:45:20 Maya Jamaleddine: And I respect that, Jim. Thank you so much. I know how this is one of the difficult conversations that we're going to have and difficult decision. And what I learned throughout those years is that if we're going to make a decision, we're going to make a decision on a clear understanding and plan for it. And I'm struggling to be able to make that decision, and I have a lot of uncertainty.

▶ 1:45:52 Speaker 4: Are we going to have consequences

▶ 1:45:58 Maya Jamaleddine: with what I am seeing? Absolutely. If we don't pass it, we're going to have consequences. We saw that during the override, and I know we're going to have it if we don't pass this time. That's part of the process. Are the consequences that we're going to have more harmful than if we have turf? That's the real question. I would like to save our kids' health and life and all the great activities and time for them, rather than sending them for short time and then suffer with all the other health consequences. So this is the time where we have to think about

▶ 1:46:52 Kimberly Vandiver: where to invest and what decision to make in terms of our kids. My last question, and I promise I'm going to make it brief. If we can save-- If it's brief. Otherwise, we can also come back to your question. We will have to gavel out soon for a public hearing. Promise to make it- Okay, go ahead.

▶ 1:47:16 Maya Jamaleddine: So if we vote yes on it, would we have any kind of say after, or that's out of our hands in terms of the turf or grass?

▶ 1:47:30 Speaker 4: So

▶ 1:47:33 Jen Grigoraitis: to me, and I guess as the mayor, maybe that matters, I think what I'm asking you tonight is for your permission to fund the beginning of a formal public process. So I think, and I know we all feel it, I sat around that horseshoe with you six years ago, I think there is some preexisting history with this project. I think there's some preexisting assumptions from everyone about that has left some kind of bad faith. And I think when I came into office, there were candidly bigger challenges than this, and so we also knew that this was really complicated and messy, and people are really passionate about it and are engaged, which is great. That's what we want to see in government. Maybe not every Monday and Thursday night, but on most of them. So it felt but to not to-- I didn't want to continue to do what we've been doing, which is allowing there to be kind of a swirl of conversation and speculation and assumptions that's not happening in any formal way, and that's not happening in the framework of here's what it is that we're trying to do. I think that is where we lose people, where people feel like we're not being candid. So I think for me, this is asking you all to say, "Yes, we want to move into this process where we begin to have public discussions, hear from the community," because I think there's a lot of opinions, and we need to hear all of them. Yours are all very important, but I don't want to say that we're disengaging the public on what we know is a very passionate topic. Within the confines of the Park Commission, of the Con Com, of a reinvigorated design group that's really been dormant because there was nothing to talk about. And I know that requires investment by you all, but it also has us sort of walking with some guardrails and some expectations of what it is that we're trying to do. So I think if this were to be funded, I'm happy to commit to working with the Park Commission and the Con Com to sort of develop what a process is going to look like when there's going to be points for people to weigh in, how we're going to manage that over the two years where this is going to be happening. But that's really ultimately what I feel like I'm asking you all, is do you want to begin that public conversation or do we kind of want to stay where we are? Which is we have a lot of people saying, "What's happening with this project? I heard it's going to be turf. I heard it's going to be grass. I heard it's never going to get done." Or do we want to say, "We're actually moving along and here now public is where we want you to come and tell us what you think?" Okay. I'm sold. If you can commit

▶ 1:49:58 Maya Jamaleddine: that we will have informational sessions or orders where you guys come and- Yep ... inform us about, to improve our transparency and to pay back to our constituents in terms of inform them about how many did we survey, how many responded, what does that reflect, and what is the next step. Mm-hmm. Absolutely. Okay. And it's going to take a long time, so we're going to be doing it for a couple of years. Okay.

▶ 1:50:30 Speaker 3: If I could just add, too, that the design budget does include public process. That's part of what's budgeted in the design process. Yes. Thank you.

▶ 1:50:37 Kimberly Vandiver: Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Thank you everyone for your comments. We will come back to this discussion. We have two public hearings that we need to have first. So, I'll take a motion to recess. So moved. Sure. Second. Okay. Motion to recess- Sure ... Councilor Williams, seconded Councilor Finocchiaro. We do need to take a roll call.

▶ 1:50:56 Speaker 2: Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro?

▶ 1:50:58 Speaker 3: Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramsky?

▶ 1:51:05 Speaker 2: Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes.

▶ 1:51:11 Speaker 3: Chair Vanderberg? Yes. All in favor.

▶ 1:51:14 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. We are at recess, and we will now proceed to our public hearing.

▶ 1:51:23 Speaker 4: This discussion is supposed to be a night bike

▶ 1:51:26 Speaker 6: session.

▶ 1:51:27 Speaker 4: Right. I just need to know how much- 30 seconds to stretch?

▶ 1:51:31 Speaker 2: One, two, three, four, five. Just got one.

▶ 1:51:32 Speaker 4: Can we stretch or anything?

▶ 1:51:33 Speaker 2: Is that- Sure, I'll stretch. Yeah.

▶ 1:51:35 Speaker 4: It's okay. We've got five minutes, Brad.

▶ 1:51:37 Speaker 6: No, because we have to do both of them. Stretch. One to 7:45 and then eight to...

▶ 1:51:41 Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. Okay. Well

▶ 1:51:47 Speaker 6: Well then. Actually, I don't even

▶ 1:51:51 Speaker 4: see- ... this was supposed to be a night bike session.

▶ 1:51:54 Speaker 1: It should've been. No, I didn't. I didn't invite

▶ 1:52:04 Speaker 4: All right, can we head back in already? We got to head back in.