ORDER-2020-76 : Authorizing a loan in the amount of $100,000 for costs of conducting a planning study and final design for repair or replace the Department of Public Works' Salt Shed.

Transcript (~1 h 22 min @ 40:04)

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

▶ 40:09 Speaker 7: Yep, I was having trouble unmuting for some reason. But here I am.

▶ 40:16 Speaker 1: So we can see your initials, there we are, perfect.

▶ 40:18 Speaker 7: Thank you. You can see me now? Okay. Okay.

▶ 40:26 Speaker 7: Okay, so I apologize for the late delivery on the memo that was sent out last night to the council. I had thought that some of this information was provided to you previously when the order was first sent in. So I just found out from Kristin yesterday I asked her, you know, what does the council have already and she sent me the information that was sent previously and I realized it was just this two-page memo from before so I'm sorry that we got the information out late but hopefully everybody had a chance to take a look so I'll just go through briefly what was submitted in that memo yesterday and if you think you have any questions I'm happy to answer them so as you can see from the pictures that went along with the memo we have a a salt shed that was built in the 1970s it is beyond its useful life it's a hazard in its present condition we've had roof metal roof panels blowing off we have trusses in the framing breaking routinely needing to be sistered up or replaced we have siding that is warped and damaged and corroding we have foundation supports that are not really even held together in their original configuration anymore so it's a building that's in desperate need of attention We've done enough band-aid repairs over the years. We can't do that anymore. Even during the windstorm we had a couple weeks ago, one of the doctors in the office building next door sent us a video of roof panels flapping up in the air that he thought was gonna we're gonna blow off the roof and then the next day we had to send somebody out to nail down some two-by-fours to hold those down for the moment so that's the condition that the salt shed is in right now the capital improvement planning committee identified this as a high priority item it was in priority group a which was the highest group and was considered an urgent need so Rick Stinson had gone to Weston Samson engineers they are one of several design firms who can do this type of work and And asked them for a cost estimate, and they came in and took a look at our existing salt shed, measured it up, looked at the site. And they gave us a planning level construction cost estimate. Of 1.331Million. And then Rick had added on to that some additional contingency for things like soil conditions. We really don't know what we might find. We suspect that what we might find is not good. um at the city yard given all the historical uses on that site so um so he had bumped that up to the 1.45 million that you see before you um the first step in this process is to procure the services of a design engineer who would perform the final design plans and specifications so that we could then put the project out to bid to get a construction contractor the um one thing that wasn't done in the process to date is to do a full analysis of the types of salt sheds that are out there what we think makes the most sense for melrose for its longevity its uh cost benefit for you know its materials of construction there are a lot of decisions that would be made up front the cost estimate that's been obtained is based on what the town of raynham had done that weston samson had designed based on actual bid prices i did find in just looking around online a range of different types of projects for other massachusetts communities um ranging from about 700 000 to about 2.3 million so i would consider the 1.5 four or five million for this particular project to be the outside cost estimate and once we procure the services of a design engineer and then get through the final design we would obtain a bid ready construction cost estimate from the design engineer which would be a much more detailed cost estimate based on the actual materials of construction and and plans and for the particular job and that would be a much better number much more refined number than what we're working with now but Patrick can speak to this more Patrick de la Rousseau but we the number that we have right now allows us to move forward to procure those design services to get the project underway we would really like to see this built before next winter if at all possible and but before any actual borrowing took place the number would be refined to to reflect the actual construction costs

▶ 45:44 Speaker 5: and again if i may interject here kindly um in that vein counselors in the event that the project's cost comes in at let's say 1.3 million rather than 1 million 450 we would seek the council's authority to rescind the higher number and borrow the lower number only it's something that um we've done historically when those situations occur we will seek to rescind that so just because the authorization is 1 million 450 does not mean that you're committed i.e if the project comes in less to spending that money that is not the case you also would have the option or the city with the council is the option to consider using any um you know any funds that were applicable here that you didn't need for the salt shed for a like purpose for the same duration of time so that option is also open um given the nature of this project though that's probably not going to happen i think um everything i've been made aware of is that this um is going to be a

▶ 47:03 Christopher Cinella: quite a large undertaking uh first uh in queue we have uh council chamber tozy questions yes thank

▶ 47:09 John N. Tramontozzi: you thank you uh mr chairman and uh thank you uh for being here and mr delgado input as well um i um you know as the council representative on the capital improvement committee i recall uh this coming up for discussion. I think, if my memory is correct, I think I was the lone dissenter. I did not think that this was very high on at least my list, but it was high on others. So that's why I went into the high category. I'm still of the same mindset, especially in these times where we're practically into a depression now in finding the resources to support the city. is this going to be an appropriate use I know I know it's a bond but is this going to be appropriate appropriate use of spending if you look at any possibility of not a band-aid type of repairs but a more major just repair of the building that would maybe I I've had a suggestion by a contractor who said maybe 200 to 300,000 would fix the the trusses and whatever necessary work is there is any possibility of that occurring uh i think the issue with the building is that

▶ 48:25 Speaker 7: every element of the building has problems um if you look at the pictures the the trusses have problems the siding and the sheathing underneath the siding has problems the roofing has major problems the sheathing underneath the roofing most likely has major problems as well because the metal roofing has peeled up so many times that it's definitely been exposed to the elements over the years even if you look at the pictures of the inside of the salt shed um the walls are completely corroded so i'm i'm just not sure other than maybe the foundation i'm not really sure what

▶ 49:08 John N. Tramontozzi: is salvageable in that building all right let me let me propose another suggestion this is a building that houses the salt used in the streets correct yes all right and um this is my proposal knock the thing down just take it down to the foundation and use tops in um commercial tires to hold it down that you can see it in chelsea and you see it in other towns as well it may not be as aesthetically appealing to the site but i think it might be something that we can do for at least for the time being for the next couple years until we get a better handle on

▶ 49:51 Speaker 7: the city finances that's my suggestion so i don't think that meets mass dep requirements for storm water runoff so i'm not really certain i was having this discussion earlier with some folks i'm not certain how chelsea gets away with that per se but especially where we are immediately adjacent to a water resource area um i have no idea how how a community can have something that's that exposed even with tarps on it that's that exposed that has run off of salt-laden water into an adjacent water body i don't think that would ever pass muster with mastine i think the public

▶ 50:27 John N. Tramontozzi: works um employees and the people there will find a way to make those that run off uh the less of a problem so it's it's my thought uh i'll let others members on the on the council consider but um i'm inclined not to uh vote uh in approval of this bond issue okay uh as an aside on that we are

▶ 50:48 Speaker 7: required by the by the end of june to submit our stormwater pollution prevention plan to meet our new nifty's permit um with the with the epa and the dep um that site we have two sites where we're required to submit these plans one is the city art and the other is the um garage at the cemetery and so we would need to um explain in that document to how we're meeting all the epa stormwater standards and i don't think it's at all feasible with an open salt salt storage

▶ 51:28 John N. Tramontozzi: keep the foundation in place in the tops on top of the foundation with it on top

▶ 51:35 Speaker 7: of the salt within the foundation all right thank you okay thank you

▶ 51:47 Mark Garipay: you're on mute I'm good now thanks Elena thanks thanks Patrick for being here thank you looking at the the report that was sent out this morning or that we saw this morning um the potential design of the salt shed was was submitted by the interim epw director would you uh would you say that this is your vision of the of the project or would you totally adopt a different scope um project um sampson and weston and sampson it looks like they were tasked to just come up with an estimate in kind replacing the same structure that be your vision of of what this this salt shed would uh look like i mean i think over the last 50 years things have changed um but i'm sure salt shed salt sheds designed the structure of the city yard

▶ 52:46 Speaker 7: I have a very open mind as to what the structure should look like. I did send in the memo at the end some information I had found at the town of Burlington and pulled together some pictures of different salt sheds. Those seem to be all fairly similar design and those are all Massachusetts communities. I'm also familiar with the prefab sort of canopy structures that I've seen used successfully by mass dot you see them on the side of the highway i i think that if it's good enough for them it might be good enough for us so i definitely think there's an opportunity here and that's where the design engineer comes into play is that we need to hire somebody who has done a range of different types of salt sheds who can show us what those options are and what they cost and what their lifetime is their lifespan and then we can make a more educated decision as to what should go on that site i'm definitely not bound to what uh weston samson had done in raynham as the um you know something that's already been selected i don't feel that way

▶ 53:57 Mark Garipay: at all uh yeah because doing some research over the last few days the mass mass dot the mass dot dcr and other state highway systems seem to be going with the galvanized steel structures um with tarps and it seems like they're more according to what i've read they're more economical and the life lifespan of them are pretty good i mean they're not going to get 50 years out of it i'm assuming but um today today i spoke with the deputy commissioner of operations at the dcr and um in that conversation um he told me the last four salt sheds that they built in one in revere one in brighton one in um cambridge and um the other one was in the heart by the beach and they're all going with uh movable multi-purpose sheds and not knowing how our city yard is um is going to transform maybe change over the next few years we've got a building next store to it that is in dire need of repair. I question whether $1.4 million or $1.45 million is the right use of money. Would it make more sense to really look hard at that option of a potential steel post beam tarp that may be removable if down the road the design of the changes that we can we have something that we can move to another other area in the city i really would like to see that option and it was it was um it was interesting to see um or listen to um that individual to uh talk about um the direction in which the dcr is going um

▶ 55:46 Mark Garipay: we um i also know i was on the dot um mass dot website and

▶ 56:00 Mark Garipay: And they have a, under their Mass Highway Salt Storage Practice, they have a program to assist municipalities with construction of salt sheds. And of the 351 communities in Massachusetts, 201 of the municipalities, it says right on the website, have used state funds for salt storage. I know Mr. Stinson is the one who prepared this and submitted it. Do you know if they ever looked at taking advantage of that program and that funding?

▶ 56:33 Speaker 7: So is that separate from Chapter 90 funding?

▶ 56:36 Mark Garipay: Yes, from my understanding it is. It's on this website under their salt storage practices. And I know also the DCR, they had asked the DCR and that's something that they've worked with them.

▶ 56:49 Speaker 7: Okay, I do know that a lot of communities take advantage of chapter 90 state funds to help fund their salt sheds i which we don't have the capacity to do because we have we're already over taxed on what we want to do with our chapter 90 funds um but i'm not aware of this other funding source so if you want to send information along

▶ 57:10 Mark Garipay: i'd be happy to take a look at it yeah it's right it's right on their website they'll be more than happy to but i think um not not knowing where we're going to be next year with the state and state programs I can see if there's an opportunity to take advantage of some

▶ 57:27 Mark Garipay: some design work or even funding with going back to if we if we have to remove the foundation or demolish the shed and remove the foundation sounds like we're gonna have to do something at least demolish the shed or take it down what

▶ 57:46 Mark Garipay: what's the concerns with the testing should we should we do an initial boring test on the soil before we if we start the project to really understand what we're getting ourselves into because my understanding is if we take down the foundation we now subject to new zoning laws but we close to the it's very close to the 50 tremolo property that that pose a problem and what what is the financial we don't know the financial but the financial impact would be would be extremely high if if there's some major cleanup there yeah so if we if we

▶ 58:21 Speaker 7: are proposing to pour a new foundation then soil borings would typically be part of the design phase so absolutely if we if the design consultant is ultimately recommending an option that involves a new foundation then we would definitely do new soil borings because of contamination also because of just peat and other soil conditions that being that close to a waterway you know we might encounter that we definitely need to be aware of we would absolutely try to do the project within existing zoning I don't think it's the type of project that we would want to go before the ZBA to try to get approval for you know any setback variances or anything so I believe the side yard is seven point five or ten feet I don't think it's anything too egregious so I think we should be able to meet the side yard setback requirement I could have that number wrong but you know it's not something that we shouldn't be able to meet but certainly if we do get into soil contamination issue we would have to think very hard about what we want to do about that because if we're removing soils and hauling them off-site then there are definitely requirements as to where we can haul those to and it can be costly to dispose of them if they're oil laden soils we did do some work right outside the city art and coming into the city are with a water service and a fire service in I believe 2016 we did encounter some skills use there that were we went through the whole process with DEP to have everything analyzed and certified and we did have to do groundwater monitoring at any sensitive receptors which was really across the street before you reach the park and we found that all of our groundwater sampling met all of their requirements so we didn't need to actually remove anything or remediate anything we just had to file some paperwork saying just acknowledging that there were soils on the site that had oil and that it was fairly contained so we we don't know what we would find there but given the past uses of that site it's always been a really industrial use of that site you I would imagine that we definitely have to be thinking along those lines.

▶ 1:00:58 Mark Garipay: Do you think that the number that Mr. Stenson included in the additional monies, is that enough to cover it? I mean, the bid was 1.3 and he came in at 1.45. Is that enough to cover the removal of all that soil?

▶ 1:01:17 Speaker 7: I think it's enough to cover it if we're faced with the same conditions that we found out front of the city yard. If we find something more hazardous, something different than just petroleum products, or something that had traveled further for some reason, then I'm really not sure. I mean, that's when you get into a lot of uncertainties, but the soil borings would identify that up front so we would know what we're dealing with. And if it was a situation where reusing the existing foundation could mitigate and avoid those costs I'm sure that during the design phase we would be taking that into consideration and not doing anything that disturbed those soils so

▶ 1:02:00 Mark Garipay: that we could just leave them in place with with that building the current building built in the night in the 1970s if we were to have to put down the foundation down foundation would we run into any um issues with the deep uh environmental protection being that close to el pond now with with the rules and laws that we would have to um

▶ 1:02:21 Speaker 7: the distance changed it would be a hundred foot buffer zone from the pond and i think we're probably beyond that um and then a hundred even even the bomb the um what about the the

▶ 1:02:34 Speaker 7: creek there that comes through by the point yeah so i was just saying it's 100 feet from the inlet as well um because that would count as probably a perennial stream but the um the covered portion of it doesn't count as a jurisdictional area so it's it would be across the street where the stream daylights into the inlet of the pond that would probably be our closest point um and if we were within 100 feet we would just have to file a notice of intent with the conservation commission we would still be able to do the work there no disturbed zone is only 25 feet where it is a pre-existing use and it's not a um it's not a vegetated site it's a paved you know asphalt uh area i don't think there would be any concerns there with the concom but

▶ 1:03:25 Mark Garipay: we might have to go before them just to to get a permit okay um you feel um you feel that the building right now is is safe to be used is it then repeat enough that people can get in and out of it or do you think it's something that

▶ 1:03:45 Speaker 7: needs to be down very very soon I I felt unsafe being in that building even taken taking pictures and I think given the operation of trucks in and out of that building and the potential for something to hit one of those supports the picture on the second last page of pictures that I sent that shows the sonotube with the the building support that is offset from the from the bolts that's supposed to be holding it in place and then you see the the framing member that's supposed to connect into that support is not attached at all you see two screws or nails that are just not attached to anything that is immediately at the entrance to the building and all it would take is a loader or you know a dump truck that salt is being loaded into backing into that support and as soon as that goes off that support there that whole section of the building could come down there are so many things in that building that are in that that state and then on top of that the safety of both the adjacent properties and the people being in the yard when that when that roofing comes flying off those are giant metal sheets it's I personally think it's a it's a disaster waiting to happen and that we need to address it as

▶ 1:05:13 Mark Garipay: quickly as possible so to Council of Trian Matosi's point what would be the cost just to demo demo that so we can make sure that everyone everyone's around this safe and that doesn't happen I mean is that be the cost of them just

▶ 1:05:31 Speaker 7: demo I think question Samson had demo as a line item in the it was 25,000 yeah

▶ 1:05:39 Mark Garipay: just wondering if we I don't know if we would would that be the same or is that 25,000 based on the scope of the whole project you know or is that if you had

▶ 1:05:51 Speaker 7: someone else just come in and demo it for demo and disposal it does seem a little low I know when we demoed the building at Kimball Court when we put in the new parking lot that was maybe if I remember correctly maybe a $15,000 project and you never know with buildings built in the 70s if there's going to be something that requires special disposal it could be some you mastic that was used under the roof sheathing that has asbestos in it or you just don't know what you're gonna find with demo and disposal so I think that's a little on the low side but you know probably for under 50,000 we could get it out of there but then you know can we put up something that that is compliant with modern regulations in the interim before we build something I'm not

▶ 1:06:45 Mark Garipay: certain I personally conceptually struggle with the idea that has to approve and authorization in this case 1 1.4 5 million for a soft shit that we're going to be bought that we're going to be bonding and that's not the actual actual amount it's it's like giving my son 500 bucks and sending the dicks and say bring me back to change you know and and um it's just a totally different world than from what i'm used to working in uh to be pretty honest with you and i and i conceptually struggle struggle

▶ 1:07:25 Christopher Cinella: with that um what what just a reminder we're way past the five minute rule yeah just um

▶ 1:07:30 Mark Garipay: one book question uh and then i can get back um i understand the um um

▶ 1:07:40 Mark Garipay: I understand we have an appropriation here that we're looking to do, and it may not come up to 1.45. Why couldn't we just appropriate what we think the dollar amount is for the design phase of this and go back and do the construction? At least that way we'll know what we're dealing with beforehand. We'll know more of an accurate count. We will know what your vision is of what you think the building should look like. But if we, if we appropriate and change, maybe change the appropriation to the dollar amount for the design phase, you can go out and get a contractor and then come back, at least we'll have more information on what we're really looking for, whether it's whether it's a temporary shed, whether you think the permanent way, a permanent wood trussle shed is the way to go. That would be, that's kind of how I would like to see, I'd like to take baby steps on But the way it is now, I will not support this rule.

▶ 1:08:42 Speaker 7: Patrick, do you have any thoughts about a vote to approve the design funding post?

▶ 1:08:54 Speaker 5: I guess a couple things. One is conceptually, it's not like you're appropriating $1,450,000 or authorizing that limit. We typically work with the premise that we are going to go out and seek the best price obviously for the project. We also know we have, internally we have to set limitations and so therefore we know the limitation on this project value would be that $1.4 million. It provides us a sense of scope and also I think what we try to do at all times, I think been very successful with it. We do not want to come back to the council looking for additional funds. One of the things that is concerning is the imminent issues relative to the actual shed. It appears that the risk to public safety is far greater than perhaps anyone wants it. I am NOT an engineer I can't apply more than that I would suggest that if the council wishes to do something different that perhaps we were given an opportunity to reconvene and we consider what proposal or suggestions we would make in that vein but I don't think we can do it and I know I can't do it off the cuff tonight and just make a recommendation to do you know certain dollar threshold or whatever the case may be. I mean this is a significant issue and that's why I don't want to discount it. It ranked top priority in the capital improvement program. We're talking about a building that is 50 years old. At some point, at some point regardless of what option is chosen, action in my opinion, in my opinion, has got to be taken or basically put building off limits i don't know what else i could add to that but that's my general comments

▶ 1:11:07 Leila Migliorelli: did you have a question yes thank you chairman sanella thank you um elena um just have a question about do you have a sense of whether any parts of this project either the design or potentially the construction um would be impacted by the situation that we're going on now like are there delays in um you know engineering firms doing this design work just any kind of those impacts on the

▶ 1:11:31 Speaker 7: planning for the project that you anticipate so fortunately uh engineering firms are have already been very well set up for remote work so most of the engineering firms that i know and that we work with have pretty much continued along seamlessly um and are just conducting all their meetings from home and um you know they were set up for that to begin with i think they have a lot of people who work remotely already even before this um in terms of construction i could see if we were um you know ordering some sort of prefab structure i'm not sure if there would be delays on lead times i don't know if there are delays on lead times on certain structural members for you know custom ordered beams or the like um in a structure like this because it is all very um you know it's it's very specific because you don't have structural supports in the center because you need the whole filled with salt so there could be some custom orders on certain structural members but I would think that those types of companies are still continuing on I know that the larger construction industries at least in Massachusetts other than Boston who maybe is still getting away with a bit of a construction moratorium the governor's order has required that construction continue so I would imagine there's still a lot of projects going on which would mean that that those manufacturers are still manufacturing

▶ 1:13:08 Leila Migliorelli: those parts thank you um you've spoken a bit about the public safety impacts of keeping the building the way it is. What about environmental impacts? Also, I took a look at, thank you, Councilor Garipay for pointing out the Mass Highway Department site. And it seems like on there that it says storage under a roof is part of the, you know, components of an environmentally friendly salt storage facility. So I wonder if you could talk a little bit more in detail about the status of the building now, impacts on the environment, what delaying the project might be or if we made different changes to it like the carp suggestion that counselor

▶ 1:13:50 Speaker 7: Tramontozzi had if you walk us through that so i don't believe there are any major environmental concerns with the building as it is now um my recollection and i'll look at the pictures too i believe the foundation walls come up high enough that there really wouldn't be um it's a little hard to tell but um i don't believe that there would be any runoff even if there were roof leaks and there was water coming into the building i don't think there'd be anything substantial running off to the exterior of the building um it is something to consider when we look at the design of a future building whether we want to have an overhead door to ensure that there isn't any material potentially traveling out of the building um i would say that the environmental impacts of any runoff that would be coming from the little bit of water that could get in then getting out probably pales in comparison to the impact of putting salt down on the roads that runs off to the sides of the road so um i don't really have any concerns there i think my concerns are more safety related and just you know this is a building that is just so far beyond its useful life if you had if you had something that looked like any one component of this building on your own property i i don't think

▶ 1:15:23 Leila Migliorelli: you would be still looking at it today thank you um i just have one question for patrick um i know that you know while i can appreciate that this is and thank you elena you know appreciate that this is obviously like a critical problem you know project um i think that given the situation we're in and um we have to just we have to be extremely mindful of our um expenditures and appropriations um during this fiscal crisis um could you just sort of explain uh patrick to the public um just kind of walk through the the impact of um this bond on our overall city budget how it's how it will impact how it will not impact it um just to kind of walk through for the benefit of the public um that you know what this would look like on our budget i'd be happy to um first and foremost

▶ 1:16:07 Speaker 5: the impact for this shed would not occur until fiscal year 22 and to the extent it'd be an amount of approximately 46 000 at that time as we'd be doing temporary borrowing um having said that i want to um back up a little bit on the debt program itself and i'm not sure how many people are that familiar with it but we have a 30-year debt program in place already it controls the amount of expenditures of debt service every year which means it identifies and limits the amount that we can have on our operating budget dedicated to debt service so that that amount cannot exceed five percent in every in any given year so that 95 of our operating budget is dedicated to city and school services and the remaining five percent um or less is dedicated toward investments in the community such as this project here that is by design and the project carries its itself right out to the full 30 years and at no time does the um limit of five percent is ever exceeded and it hasn't been um since we myself and our flavor and uh peter frazier from first southwest at that time put this program in place so i don't want anyone to think for one moment that by voting this we're putting at risk um the city's budget or or uh revenue expense components that's not the case whatsoever um in fact next year's debt the fiscal 21 coming up is already almost 220 000 less than fiscal 20's debt so the year that we're seeing this turmoil in the economy which we've seen before 2008 9 10 we've been there we've done that does not rise to the occasion that all of a sudden we have to stop investing in the community that's not the case at all we specifically have designed the program so that doesn't happen so that we can continue to make these kinds of investments particularly where you know there's public safety concerns and the like with these um that we're able to do that and i've said it before you always want to be able to address those types of needs as they surface and not be limited. Because we've already set up a limitation as to how much debt service we can absorb in any given year, we've already taken that into account. In fact, 78% of our debt is paid off within 10 years, 78%. So we're way ahead the curve on that and we've um so there should be no reason on a financing base why this will not fit into the model because it fits perfectly and i have no reservation whatsoever of improving this project um given the economics that we see ahead of us because by design we've insulated ourselves and we have not um overextended and some communities have but we have not

▶ 1:19:35 Leila Migliorelli: thank you no further questions can i chime in

▶ 1:19:49 Speaker 8: hi this is art flavon can i chime in sure yes yeah thanks patrick that was great um on the debt side the 2022 hit the way it looks now i mean that's it would be 47 000 in 2022 we probably wouldn't borrow it till may 2021 which will cut that in half so that that amount goes down to like 20 23 000 and whatever um and then the first real hit isn't until 2023 after we bond it and these are conservative numbers that year will be 83 375. we're looking at existing debt in 2022 of being almost 450 000 less than we have today um i think this is a big project um i don't nobody's asked the question what's the consequence of not having the salt shed what happens when we don't have any salt and we're in the middle of the winter and we're not able to deal with that we can certainly afford it it's in the cip it's been voted by a number of department heads and the cip committee that this is an important project this is a long-term solution to a problem that exists right now today and it's quite frankly dangerous thank you thank

▶ 1:21:22 Speaker 5: Thank you, Art.

▶ 1:21:25 Speaker 6: Councilor Thomas.

▶ 1:21:27 Cory Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Treasurer DelaRusso and to Mr. Flavin for being here and providing insight in the financial impact on things. And I wanted to thank Director Proacus Ellis from the DPW for being here and being so informative. The salt shed design that we've got that was a $1.4 million estimate, that is for one specific design, as you said earlier tonight. have the opportunity through the rfq process uh to get at least three bids on this project so we can see different types of options styles uh different pricing options um the as you noted in the report and and i did some homework on myself uh today um the cost between seven hundred thousand dollars i think that was a wareham uh salt shed down the cape and then the two million plus was in needham um again you know these are varying styles you know hopefully we can come in somewhere in the middle of these costs um as you said earlier mass highway and the department of transportation have canopy styles that you might see on the side of the road on the mass bike we can actually or you can actually gear the request for quote based on the specifics of the design you want to see we're not beholden to that one style and design for the 1.4 million dollar option um and hopefully you know the difference once we get we get the specific specifications on the design that melrose wants hopefully uh we can get a better cost um and better you know effective pricing options for this uh i did have a question about the memo that we received last night uh is that gonna be posted on the dpw website uh so the melrose community can see the actual amount of decay and damage to the current salt shed hi it was it was posted on iqm2

▶ 1:23:10 Speaker 7: so as part of the meeting materials it is available to anyone from the public who'd like to see it um if you think it would be beneficial to post it somewhere else on the website i'm sure

▶ 1:23:26 Cory Thomas: we can find a place for it yeah and just you know looking at the pictures you know it's telling you know obviously this does need to be replaced and seeing you know it was one of the highest classification um capital capital improvement print and um that speaks to being replaced as well um i did have to ask though if this is kept in appropriations for another week or two so we can process the data we're receiving tonight uh will the city still be uh will the city still have time to schedule replacement in the calendar year for 2020 i think we're cutting it very close as it is

▶ 1:23:54 Speaker 7: um i would like to as soon as we get authorization i would like to solicit the request for qualifications from a design from the design firms so that we can pick somebody do that evaluation of of the um different types of salt sheds pick what we want get it designed get it out to bid it's all the the idea of doing this prior to next winter is already extremely tight um but so i would i would love to have some decision tonight so that we just know what our marches marching orders are and we

▶ 1:24:33 Cory Thomas: can move forward all right and so you are keeping all options open for the rfq process um you know whether whether it's a canopy design that like you know mass dot prefers away from this specific design from the consulting firm that gave the 1.4 million yeah so just to just to clarify the

▶ 1:24:48 Speaker 7: The order is that first we put out an RFQ for a designer and in that RFQ we request as the first task that the designer provide an evaluation of different types of salt sheds once they see our site. We pick the designer that we like the best. We're still not locked into a particular type of salt shed at that point. locked into who we think brings the best ideas to the project um i've in my mind the best ideas are both someone who's done this before and someone who is willing to look at the wide array array of styles because um i had mentioned in a conversation with you earlier today i worked on a project at a wastewater treatment plant where they needed enclosed an enclosure for a very sophisticated set of equipment and they were able to do one of these prefab canopies it's been at least 10 years i've been out to that site in my prior job multiple times and that was a terrific solution on that site and something you could absolutely use also as a canopy for a salt shed so i just think there are options out there that that need to be explored um and we need a designer to actually tell us what is the cost difference and what is the difference in useful life um so that we know the full picture and that's something that we don't we don't have the knowledge in-house um so that would be the first step is bringing on a designer who has that array of knowledge and then having them help us decide what is the best solution and then they design that solution then they put it out that specific solution out to bid

▶ 1:26:37 Cory Thomas: for contractors okay and and just the last thing just to reiterate um we're not spending 1.4 million dollars right now you know this bond will not start until the ribbon is cut after construction we'll know the exact final costs before the bond is put into place

▶ 1:26:56 Speaker 9: Correct. Which could be well under 1.4. All right, thank you very much. You're welcome.

▶ 1:27:09 Shawn M. MacMaster: McMaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Ms. Baraka-Salas. Welcome to the virtual chamber for the first time as DPW Director. Thank you. Also would like to acknowledge you for the very comprehensive memo that you provided. That type of memo I think is a model memo. It's what should should be expected and it's the type of information that allows us to properly vet requests when they come before us. So I want to thank you for that and the effort you put into it and for always being so prepared when you come before us.

▶ 1:27:46 Speaker 7: Thank you.

▶ 1:27:47 Shawn M. MacMaster: The one question I had relative to the memo is it talks about the need. I think you've made a compelling case for why we need to do something. And I think a compelling case for replacing it as opposed to repairing it. What I think I'm conflicted over is related to what Councilman Garipay had inquired about, and that is what may be some other options. And I know you mentioned that the building itself has various problems. It's in disrepair. and I'm moved by the public safety concern as it relates to the people who live close by and certainly to our employees. I just can't help but wonder if we might be moving, and I'm also sensitive to the timing here, like you said, these projects take time from start to finish, from planning to putting a shovel in the ground. But if it would be prudent for us to perhaps have an engineer evaluate, an independent engineer, evaluate some of the potential other options. And then, you know, I think Mr. De La Russa referenced, there were an additional date, there'd be some more information. We could have options and weigh the pros and cons of those options, and then be able to compare this request on its merits with other options in front of us so I just I I can't help but think that maybe a more prudent at this time funding an evaluation to have some additional information and that's just that's just a thought but I'm conflicted that the the one question I have is for mr. de la rousseau and that question is about free cash. And Mr. De La Rosa, you're always so eloquent in your explanation of when we use free cash and you always make it clear that it's for one-time uses. And it would seem to me that this may be an appropriate use for free cash, perhaps were it not for the uncertainty right now that we face in this economic climate. And I'm just wondering, is there any reason are other reasons why we may not be looking to fund a project like this at this time with free cash.

▶ 1:30:21 Speaker 5: If I may, to the Chair of the Council, that's a great question, Counselor. Great question. I did prepare a memo that I believe is in your possession. It's dated on March 5th of 2020. And it talks about Phase 1 and Phase 2 capital project funding considerations. I'm not sure if you have it in front of you, but I'll go through the rationale as to why the decision was made to bond this versus using free cash. Because it's a topic that comes up often. And I just want to begin with the fact that typically, due to the issuance cost for a bond and what's involved in bonding, we look not to bond anything less than a million dollars. Typically, that's the threshold. If it's less than a million, then we typically use our free cash or other available funds to address it. You wouldn't, for example, bond, if you look at my memo in front of you, if you look under phase one, it's called projects, pays, you go financing. And that always is a preferred way of doing financing. And you see some of the items would be the central fire station headquarters for $100,000. City hall generator design, $105,000. And it goes on and on. Frontline fire apparatus for the pumper. $519,000. School security, $300,000, etc. Those items would not be, we would not be able to fund those items that are not large capital items as this is, this building, this structure, because we would have absorbed all the free cash in this one particular item, this project, and these other needs would not have been able to be met counselor number one number two we've always looked to match the duration uh the note with the longevity um of the building this building we're hoping will last 25 to 30 years um that typically cries out for bonding um and that's That fits into that category for us. It's a long-term investment. It's going to be utilized and the benefits will be realized year after year after year down the road, but it is not something we would entertain for free cash. It's part of the capital program. We do have, as you can see, a number of items in capital in nature, but we also have a host of items that are capital but don't come anywhere near that cost so we don't ever want to be unable for example to do public safety vehicles police vehicles fire vehicles library elevator for example that's another right and those were 50,000 a capital item and typically capital is 25 000 and over is how we qualify it so i mean we take in context the big picture and this salt shed is one of many many many projects it happens because of its nature to provide for um bonding in our model and it can be satisfied um quite readily and where again those other items would not be we would not entertain bonding them but there's still needs that we have to have so it's a sense of um balancing so we can do both we want to do page ago financing these items that i've indicated on page one of my memorandum and then obviously page two the longer term which we just did the ladder truck for example um so it's an excellent question um and it's one that it's really um it comes down to what is the best practice and that always has been the

▶ 1:34:34 Shawn M. MacMaster: best practice thank you mr. de la Rousseau thank you mr. chair yeah just a

▶ 1:34:37 Christopher Cinella: brief moment Kristen do we have a just a recording check right now one hour 34

▶ 1:34:43 Speaker 1: minutes recording is working we're fine thank you

▶ 1:34:52 Jack Eccles: thank you chairman so um councillor Thomas asked my question mostly but I would like to just provide one point of clarity um about the tight timeline given the public safety issue um so given if we waited in committee for a report on the potential state financing for maybe a week or two but not much longer given the tight timeline can you kind of talk to us about like what you would like to see is the last time to get this approved for it to be done for next winter because personally given the public safety threat it seems like there should be a

▶ 1:35:37 Speaker 7: solution before next winter so i personally think we're already eating into the time that allows us to get this done by next winter um and and also if we were to go out for to procure a design engineer to just do an evaluation and to not do final design and then we had to then procure somebody to do the final design after that that adds about two months to the to the project because you'd have to go through that whole advertisement and procurement and selection process again so at the very least I feel that we need to be in a position to jump right into procuring a team that's going to evaluate and then design whatever we pick all at once in order to have a design complete by sometime in the fall to put that out to bid for construction and and have the construction start in the fall in advance of the winter season I don't think there's any time to lose and I'm not just saying that to to try to move things forward I really think we're already having worked in an engineering design firm for nine years we are extremely tight for anyone to design this and get it out to bid in time for construction to occur thank you so what

▶ 1:37:00 Jack Eccles: I'm what I'm hearing essentially is passage as is tonight or next week the

▶ 1:37:15 Speaker 7: latest is the last that would make I guess the the semantics their passage of design funding absolutely for sure ASAP passage as is is my preference for sure because I think you know while it is an upper limit number I do think that the the council should feel confidence in the in the DPW and the engineering team within the DPW to to make a good decision to make sound decisions budget wise and to select a salt shed that makes the most sense for the city and you know I hope we're we're a little more responsible than Johnny going down to Dick's with $500 to concert gara pays analogy you know we're not going to spend $4.99 because dad gave us $500 we're gonna spend what makes the most economical sense for the city um so you know i i would hope that there's a certain level of trust there and so i would prefer to just have the upper limit approved and then with the knowledge that we hope to come back with a lower number and um and that would be our goal thank you thank you

▶ 1:38:44 Maya Jamaleddine: um good evening thank you so much for coming and for the really well detailed information that and report that you provided to us um we really appreciate that um um you we i think everyone agree how much is the critical at this point to uh replace this shed um however from now till the time that we we they're you know they're able to deliver the new shed uh we have we have the the current shed open any kind of precautions or preparation to for safety hazard so the great

▶ 1:39:26 Speaker 7: thing is that we don't need to use it right now so we really don't have any reason for anyone to be inside of it um salt is there for next winter we shouldn't need to use any salt between now and next winter. So the interior concerns with, you know, any sort of collapse or falling structural members or anything should be not a concern for worker safety. The exterior issues, the repair that we did on the roof the other day, which was just a real band-aid, was putting two by fours along the edge of the roof, all along that side of the salt shed where it was peeling up during the windstorm and just nailing those down to hold down the metal roof sheathing or excuse me the sheets. So I think we've addressed the immediate concerns for the moment but it's it's next winter when we have to start using that salt again that the safety concerns

▶ 1:40:30 Maya Jamaleddine: start to present themselves again is the shed not accessible and no one can um access it so

▶ 1:40:41 Speaker 7: safety hazard it is accessible to anyone working within the city yard it's within our locked gates so it's not accessible you know no one from the public could wander in there um but it is someplace where the um the employees could go and we certainly could you know put up a jersey barrier or some caution tape or something just to discourage any employees from being in there they really don't have any reason presently to be in there thank you thank you let's do it

▶ 1:41:17 Robb Stewart: thank you mr chairman and uh thank you mr de la russo and ms farrakasalas uh for being here tonight i appreciate uh your input um just just a couple of questions about um the bid that you got from wesson and sampson um the uh how much salt uh does rain use versus melrose is it comparative

▶ 1:41:47 Speaker 7: in terms of size so i'm not certain in terms of the actual salt usage but i do know that the the size of that shed was comparable. That's why they selected that one to give us the cost estimate for it. I might be able to tell you real quick. I think they had dimensions in their cost estimate. And I think we have dimensions.

▶ 1:42:08 Robb Stewart: Look at Rainham and it's a much larger town. So, but I know it may be more sparse in terms of roadway. So I didn't know if you looked into that.

▶ 1:42:15 Speaker 7: So that is a 50 by 72 structure. And I'm not sure I can access quickly enough here, but I did have a document that said the dimensions.

▶ 1:42:44 Speaker 7: Sorry, I should be able to find this pretty quickly.

▶ 1:42:48 Robb Stewart: Yeah, no worries. While you're doing that, this may be more of a question on policy. Have we ever considered outsourcing the salting? Is that an option?

▶ 1:43:02 Speaker 7: In terms of having somebody else store it we bring it in no somebody else salt for us oh somebody else salt for us um i don't know that that's really an option i mean we do have other contractors who salt for us but they still get their salt from our salt shed i don't know of any places where you can just go and buy salt on the fly during the storm i think you know have it stored somewhere we have an annual contract with two different salt vendors and we lock that pricing in and then we um and then we go and get

▶ 1:43:42 Robb Stewart: that salt as needed um sure and there's been a lot of talk about um environmental concerns about salt and and how it's over salt uh my personally i feel as though when salt trucks come by you know they they will throw salt over my two and a half to three foot hedge onto my onto my lawn um it's everywhere it covers not just the sidewalks but into the bushes it feels like we over salt um my question and relative to this is um are we salting too much are we considering environmental concerns and is the building too big for looking forward

▶ 1:44:22 Speaker 7: into the future so i know that we have moved to some different salt products that are a little bit more environmentally friendly and we can put down a little bit less of them because they they're supposed to be more efficient um but it's all in it's a very um detailed process of knowing how to calibrate the salt spreaders and knowing what just the right amount is to put down knowing how wide open to um to have the spreader on you know different size roads and everything and um there's definitely an art to it and i haven't been involved in the winter operations here in melrose in the past so i haven't really had a chance to dig into exactly how we're doing it um and i know there's actually also some great local training on knowing just how to calibrate the machinery so it's certainly something that we can look into you know whether there are ways to do it better um but that's not something that i've been um involved with here thus far in terms of dimensions we're looking at approximately 40 by 100 and the random one was uh 50 by 72 so that so the building that they were basing the costs on was a little bit bigger for us than it was

▶ 1:45:55 Robb Stewart: for RHNA. 36,000 versus 40,000. Okay. Yeah, but it really comes back to my question. Is there,

▶ 1:46:03 Speaker 7: are you actively trying to reduce salt? So we have been in the past. I know Peter Petrantonio has a program in place where he has certain goals that he tries to reach with with how much salt we're using or not using. And then that also ties back into our stormwater pollution permit with the EPA that we have to commit that we're doing certain actions to try to minimize our salt use. And each year he and I have discussed that because I'm the one doing the reporting for that permit. And he's always assured me that yes, we're following this protocol to try to minimize our salt usage. But again, I haven't been on the ground during the storm. Working on it from that angle, so I can't really speak to. There were doing a good job with it, but I think that we are based on my conversations with Peter.

▶ 1:47:01 Robb Stewart: Sure, sure. And then when it comes to salt delivery, is that something that we have a contractual relationship with the salt providers? so that if we get low on salt say in the january february time frame they can restock

▶ 1:47:16 Speaker 7: uh our uh our shed yes absolutely so so we have um for most of these types of supplies and services we do three-year contracts we do a one-year contract with two optional renewal years that lock in the same price for all three years um and so we've been using in on this one we we work with the consortium, we lock in a couple different vendors. So we have two different vendors who we have under contract. And when we run low, we restock, we look at our budget. We try to stock if we have a good price, especially if our contract is expiring the next year. We do try to stock up at the end of the winter to be sure that we're locking in the good price salt that we have so yeah we're always trying to maintain a stockpile in there

▶ 1:48:09 Robb Stewart: we don't we try not to let it get low sure and where i'm leading with this is uh are you considering changing the dimensions of the shed for all these factors so i'm not certain um the

▶ 1:48:16 Speaker 7: cost estimate that i saw was basically based on that random shed but then i saw a sketch that i didn't include because I don't know how much stock Weston and Sampson put into this in terms of how it relates to the cost but they had a shed that has a little bit of an L shape to it that they were potentially proposing I'm not sure that I see the benefit to that it was to do some additional equipment storage in the back I don't know that I think that's the most appropriate use of the shed I'm not sure from a from a circulation air circulation perspective how separate you can keep this adjacent space if you're going to store a truck in it because salt is a very corrosive material it creates a corrosive environment I'm not sure you'd want anything stored in a building that's contiguous with the salt shed so yeah when we when we go out for a design engineer we would be starting from scratch basically with the exact dimensions the exact shape the exact materials of construction we would be looking for a designer to evaluate all of those things sure well I do

▶ 1:49:39 Robb Stewart: appreciate all of the the candor and effort that you put into this in terms in terms of exposing what the details are. Through the chair, my concerns is that there feels like there's a lot of questions that are still unanswered. You know, there has not really been any, from what I've heard, due diligence on what it would take to repair versus, we know we need to repair it and that's fully excited. I completely understand that. And I think it's, you know, there's issues with it, but I don't think we've done due diligence in terms of understanding what that would take. We've just run some numbers around, but I haven't heard a definitive. We've looked at this. I also, in terms of the potential funding for this kind of work that could be beyond what we need to do, it could be something from the state, as well as the different options that we're looking at. I just, my concerns that I have with this is, it feels like there are still a number of questions. And the Wesson and Sampson bid, just based on some of the other information that's come through, it's a median, but I would hope that we're looking to try to maximize the spend that we're gonna be putting forth on something like this. So that's, let's say just another observation that I had is I'm not sure how confident that 1.4 million is from and I know you said that you're gonna go and look at this, but is there another estimate that we've seen or even, I know you're well involved and connected in a lot of the different public works areas. Does this feel right? Or is there, I'm asking because just I'm concerned that if we put this number out there,

▶ 1:52:04 Speaker 10: then it's kind of a standard.

▶ 1:52:10 Speaker 8: Can I speak to that? This is Art Flavin, the treasurer.

▶ 1:52:19 Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, there's a few things going on here. The 1.45 number, that's the high end. Of course, if it comes in low, we'll borrow less. We did that with those school modules. We come in, I forget what the numbers were, but it was over 5 million, came in 700,000 less, wound up bonding for 700,000 less when the project came to fruition. That's why we kind of go through our program of two years of banning the temporary interest to take advantage of the lower rates and or identify the ultimate cost that will give you time to do that. The other issue is that I'm seeing is the timing of this is that we'll have no salt shed next year And decision that you make, whenever you make it, there's a 10-day recession period that kicks it out even further. So whatever you decide today, we can't make or spend any money for 10 business days after this. I believe that's the number, but it's in the charter somewhere. So there's a delay on it so that if somebody wants to come back and contest it, they can. 1.45 to me is a wish number, but I mean, if that's what it is, that's what it is. But I believe Elena and DPW and rest of the city will work to find the best solution for the least amount of money. The bottom line is we need this thing for next winter. We need to move on it or we're not gonna get there. And myself and Patrick and Elena, will make sure it's the lowest cost we'll make sure it's handled the most responsibly what i have to say

▶ 1:54:12 Speaker 5: uh may may i have some input um to the chair it's patrick yes yes thank you i i think all the the um points are made are obviously all valid and sincere um one of the things that we struggle with at times in this community is that we need to know when to to stop stop sign up what i mean is that um if we you know ideally if it was a salvageable building and we could repair it no one in this i don't believe in the world would not agree to that or suggest that that be done However, we know that any money we put is putting good money after bad. It's just not, it's another Band-Aid and maybe more a costly Band-Aid. And I don't know what you get at the end of the day. You still have an issue that must be addressed and it must be addressed timely. And even though we may be able to shore it up here and there, that doesn't take care of the problem. It just kicks it down the road. and that's what's happened unfortunately i think my opinion with this um salt shed is because of the situation in the past we weren't able to address it properly now we can and to turn around and kick it down the road again i don't think we're doing a service to our investment program i just don't see it that's just my thought thank you you still get another question thank you

▶ 1:55:50 Christopher Cinella: mr. chairman excuse me for the first time councillor McNaught sorry yeah I

▶ 1:56:00 Jeff McNaught: just can everybody hear me okay yes okay so I just wanted to say I I do understand the critical nature and the seriousness of having to fix the salt shed and I'm struggling with with it a lot in which way to go with it and I do understand that time is of the essence but i'm also reminded of the fact that the shed is 50 years old um and i do feel that under a lot of pressure to say we move tonight or we have no salt shed next winter which i also understand is a could be a very real reality but i i do wonder um if there's another way to do this and uh as probably as you had mentioned if you could get design funding tonight um you know i know your ideal situation is that you get uh recommended full passage but if it was just design funding um if maybe that's a route that we should go i i mean it has to be fixed the salt should has to be fixed um do we need an entirely new one i don't know um do i trust the the experts and you and and dpw and the group that came out and and our financial experts online yes i do but i think we're in a very very nervous time period and um again i'm just reminded that the sheet is 50 years old um and that's not to say that it needed repairs all those 50 years but it does put that much more weight on the decision tonight um and i i just i i agree with um a lot of what most every counselor said that raised concerns and um i do think i think we need a little bit more time to think about the best approach

▶ 1:57:55 Mark Garipay: um yeah i um i think i'd like to make a motion to hold this in committee i'd like to um see if we can come back um you know next appropriation meeting whenever it is scheduled and um hopefully um mr perwick as always can have uh have maybe a idea on what the design phase class would be and we can appropriate that money but i would make a motion that we hold this in committee knowing that um that you know this this um this is a priority but my concerns were that not necessarily that we don't need a salt shed not necessarily that it's not safe we need to address that but i want to make sure that all options were vetted you know before we make this decision so i would i would make a motion that we hold this in

▶ 1:58:50 Speaker 7: committee thank you second council chanella could oh sorry seconded okay so a motion to

▶ 1:58:56 Christopher Cinella: holders in committee a counseling care pay seconded by councillor mcnaught um miss uh

▶ 1:59:05 Speaker 7: baraka house would you like to say something yes i'm sorry i just wanted to note that we do know what the design costs would be if that's uh mr Garipay uh indicated that you know when we could come back at a time when we know what design costs are but we do know it's in the range of

▶ 1:59:27 Christopher Cinella: probably 85 to 100 000. on discussion on the motion is there any discussion around this

▶ 1:59:39 Jack Eccles: I think that one of the most remarkable things that we heard tonight was was the urgency for for passing for next winter. So I'd like to just keep that timeline in mind and hopefully we'll be have enough information come next week or the week after. But I think that seems to be the goal in mind and i just kind of wanted to read please call her off counselor eccles yes

▶ 2:00:16 Speaker 1: so Garipay yes president Grigoraitis yes counselor Jamaleddine yes counselor mcmaster yes

▶ 2:00:24 Speaker 1: counselor mcnaught yes councilman yes counselor stewart yes counselor thomas no

▶ 2:00:31 Speaker 9: No.

▶ 2:00:32 Speaker 1: Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. And Chair Cinella?

▶ 2:00:37 Speaker 6: Yes.

▶ 2:00:38 Speaker 1: 10 yes, 1 no.

▶ 2:00:41 Speaker 6: Okay, thank you, Elena.

▶ 2:00:45 Speaker 7: Thank you. Can I just ask for one piece of clarification? Just when we come back to this at a later date, what you're hoping to have us provide in addition to what we have tonight so we can make sure we're getting that information.

▶ 2:01:12 Speaker 11: What was that, I'm sorry?

▶ 2:01:14 Speaker 7: Sorry, I was just hoping for clarification on what further information you'd like between now and the later meeting, just so we can make sure that we gather that information.

▶ 2:01:24 Mark Garipay: I'd like a good estimate on the design phase. So we can, I assume we're gonna have to adjust this appropriation for that dollar amount. So just something in writing with what you feel the design phase class will be. Okay. So we can vote on that.

▶ 2:01:41 Speaker 7: Great, thank you.

▶ 2:01:43 Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Elena.

▶ 2:01:46 Christopher Cinella: All right, moving on. Next order, 2020-77 and order.

▶ 2:01:52 Speaker 10: Point of order.

▶ 2:01:53 Robb Stewart: Yes, sir. I would just also like to respond to the chair too on this part. There was also discussion from council Garakai regarding the state funding potential. And it would be nice to know if, what options there are from that standpoint beyond chapter 90.