ORDER-2020-11 : Authorization to Execute Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement by and between the City of Melrose and Waste Management of Massachusetts

Transcript (~33 min @ 1:06:40)

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

▶ 1:06:24 Speaker 5: this is a roll call vote requiring eight alderman Bewtra yes alderman boys all yes alderman forbes yes alderman Letter garabedian yes alderman mcmaster yes alderman medeiros yes alderman mortimer yes alderman Tramontozzi yes alderman wright yes alderman Zwirko yes president lemmerman

▶ 1:06:48 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: yes the order passes moving along alderman Letter yes we now have order number two zero two zero dash one one authorization to execute solid waste facility operating agreement by and between the city of melrose and waste management of massachusetts i move that we remove this

▶ 1:07:03 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: from committee second we have a motion to remove order 2020-11 from the appropriations committee where it comes to us with a recommendation for passage made by alderman Letter garabedian seconded by alderman mortimer all in favor aye aye any opposed opposed the order is before you

▶ 1:07:19 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: uh motion for passage per the recommendation of the committee second we have a motion for passage

▶ 1:07:23 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: made by alderman Letter garabedian seconded by alderman mortimer on discussion alderman

▶ 1:07:33 Speaker 8: mazzarco um thank you madam president so i thought we had a good meeting the other night when we met

▶ 1:07:36 Michael P. Zwirko: on this order i learned a lot more at that meeting than i than i did with just the items that were attached to the order but i still have a ton of questions um seeing that we have the city solicitor here this evening uh may ask that we suspend the rules i moved to suspend the rules

▶ 1:07:57 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: so we could ask questions. Second. Second. Motion to suspend the rules made by Alderman Search, seconded by Alderman Lipper-Garabedian. So we may hear from City Solicitor Van Kampen who's with us this evening. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? You're under suspension. Good

▶ 1:08:10 Michael P. Zwirko: evening, Mr. Van Kampen. Good evening. Thank you for being here this evening. Thank you. Appreciate it. So my first question is, and apologies if it's not available, but there was a pretty good discussion around a statement of understanding, and I didn't know, or a memorandum of understanding with respect to um an agreement that we have given the relationship between the city and waste management over time is i would imagine given that we met pretty lengthy on thursday evening with one business day but two business days until we met that there's nothing there's not a document yet to show for but work is going on in that area uh yes so uh following

▶ 1:08:44 Speaker 9: last thursday's meeting i have had discussions with um mr nacella from waste management and gail lynch who i believe is the general counsel at waste management as recently as this morning i have the broad framework for that that what i would call a letter agreement that would be attached to any approved operating agreement and that would set forth the terms of the sort of operational usages that are that have been occurring historically on the site that's relating to snow storage on the site relating which is currently the least premises yard brush disposal things of that nature so all those areas that director shenna identified last thursday would be reflected in that letter agreement and my hope is to have it finalized as quickly as possible but i can represent to this body it would merely reflect all of the items that mr shena spoke spoke to last thursday and um following up again is the tonnage rates

▶ 1:09:49 Michael P. Zwirko: that were referenced in the contract um what do do we know what the what that facility's tonnage rate was historically over like let's say the past three uh five years so we know that waste

▶ 1:10:05 Speaker 9: management is permitted under their current permit for I believe 600 ton per day out of that facility I also believe they're not even close to hitting that limit today the hope is that at some point with with a expansion of their hours for example they would be able to hit that limit or come close to it and

▶ 1:10:30 Michael P. Zwirko: how do we come to determining the tonnage rates I don't know what market analysis was done to determine what yeah I mean that's a that's a very fair

▶ 1:10:36 Speaker 9: question and what I would represent this evening is that there's not a lot of data as far as this type of an operating agreement and the tonnage rates I would I would say that the rates that are reflected in the operating agreement that's before you including the one-time payment are all negotiated sums at the end of the day including the escalator clause that kicks in after the fourth year there really is not a lot of data out there in terms of operating agreements of solid waste transfer stations so as far as you know market analysis like you know i heard one of the speakers during public comment mentioning market analysis and you know that information not being totally complete it's not complete because quite frankly i don't think there's a lot of data out there for us to rely on hence the lengthy negotiation that that two administrations

▶ 1:11:32 Michael P. Zwirko: went through to get to where we are at this point and um the lengthy negotiation that you just referred to um it was just with one company there weren't other discussions of other companies about

▶ 1:11:42 Speaker 9: the use of the site right no well there couldn't have been because we're under a lease with one

▶ 1:11:46 Michael P. Zwirko: company today it expires in 26 months or so november of 2021 correct so we wouldn't have gone into negotiations with any other company until that lease had expired correct we wouldn't

▶ 1:12:05 Michael P. Zwirko: have been able to and um my last question regarding um the item of potentially hazardous materials do we have any idea as to what may be contained in that site we have no reason

▶ 1:12:14 Speaker 9: to believe or not believe that there are hazardous materials subsurface on that site that is all at this point speculation uh i have no indication whether from the health department or elsewhere that there are hazardous materials beneath the ground. As you would with any site that has been used for heavy industry for decades and generations, one can assume at some point in time before the various federal laws were implemented that certain activity occurred on those sites that would probably not be deemed clean today. But that is all speculation on anyone's part at this point.

▶ 1:12:54 Michael P. Zwirko: I appreciate the answers to these questions. THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD THIS EVENING. I STILL REMAIN OPPOSED TO ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. I THINK THAT THE CONTRACT ISN'T FAVORABLE FOR US AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THAT THE PROCESS WAS FOLSOME ENOUGH EITHER, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THIS EVENING.

▶ 1:13:13 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THANK YOU.

▶ 1:13:16 Francis X. Wright Jr.: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM SOMETHING WITH THE CITY SOLICITOR, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE agreement from the testimony of the night committee is that you're representing that the termination for convenience clause in the contract not only exists but would allow a new mayor to to terminate the contract at some point should they take the new man take a look at it and determine that there's a better use for the property or a better deal could be had correct I'm

▶ 1:13:51 Speaker 9: I'm sorry, Alderman, I didn't hear the first part of your comment, but yes, there is a termination for convenience clause in the proposed operating agreement, and any future administration could certainly make the decision to unilaterally withdraw from the operating agreement to go in another direction with this parcel. Obviously, as we mentioned during committee last week, there is an early termination payment that would be associated with that, and that is, as you know, that is standard for such provisions.

▶ 1:14:19 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay, and that would be a return of a percentage of prorated amount of the million dollar upfront

▶ 1:14:27 Speaker 9: payment?

▶ 1:14:28 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Correct. Okay. And the agreement that's in place now, that will expire not, for another what, two years?

▶ 1:14:36 Speaker 9: The lease agreement will expire on November 30th, 2021.

▶ 1:14:41 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay, and this new agreement will go into effect when?

▶ 1:14:44 Speaker 9: would go into effect immediately upon execution by the mayor, subject to your approval, and the lease currently in effect would terminate simultaneously with the execution of that operating agreement.

▶ 1:14:57 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay. So, arguably, but one will, and we're getting a better rate in the new deal than we are with the existing deal.

▶ 1:15:04 Speaker 9: Correct.

▶ 1:15:09 Francis X. Wright Jr.: And the new mayor can come in and terminate at any point, despite the fact that we've had a benefit of a better deal for whatever the period is between when this becomes effective and when the new mayor makes that decision if that decision were to be made correct the

▶ 1:15:23 Speaker 9: new mayor has a great deal of leverage over waste management to take the position even on you know sort of day one in office this was a bad deal and i'm pulling out and at the end of the day the city would be obligated to return a million dollars to wage waste management, which at that point wouldn't have even shown up in your free cash certification yet. So those funds would be readily available in the event the new mayor decided to do that.

▶ 1:15:51 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay. So at a minimum, at least for the first two years, whether you like this deal or not, for the first two years, we would have been, if we don't approve this tonight, we're committed for two years at a lower rate.

▶ 1:16:01 Speaker 9: Correct. I think we generate approximately $135,000 in lease payments on that site. This new deal would generate $175,000 minimum and in addition the $1 million one-time payment which if you annualize over the 10-year life of it, the first year would be $275,000.

▶ 1:16:21 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you.

▶ 1:16:23 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank you Madam President. Thank you. Further discussion.

▶ 1:16:25 Speaker 5: Alderman Bewtra.

▶ 1:16:28 Manisha Bewtra: Of course we're in between DPW directors so this may be more of a question for DPW and you don't have the answer if we could please get that information I I know we don't know the extent of potential contamination but I'm curious about what types of precautions are taken with regards to the DPW activities particularly composting that happens on the site and if you have a fear aware of

▶ 1:16:56 Speaker 9: that I can I can have someone from DPW provide something in writing to the board um i could represent to you that knowing mr schenner as well as i know him at any federal and state environmental regulations and laws that are applicable to composting and other such uses at the site we would have strictly complied with but i can certainly have someone from dpw if that's your wish provide something in writing along those lines yes that would be good thank you thank you

▶ 1:17:30 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: you any further discussion thank you I just wanted to confirm that in addition to the MOU that you're working to prepare the as you said a letter agreement there is also you're also planning to refine the draft operating agreement that we have in front of us with respect to the payment in lieu of taxes I believe you are on the record as suggesting that in fact we will continue to collect property taxes on this correct just with the intervening

▶ 1:17:53 Speaker 9: holiday weekend alderman I wasn't able to finalize that work with waste management's tax counsel but I can represent that what the provision that's in the agreement this evening could potentially be struck and I anticipate it will be given the I think it's 59 to be of the general laws the taxation statutes but the provision will be struck and we would be taxing waste management at full value rather than the payment in lieu of taxes which is

▶ 1:18:27 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: referred to in the agreement this evening okay so this is coming just into my mind now I haven't really prepared this question but I'm wondering if we're suggesting that this is an operating agreement and not a lease so in other words it's our property why would waste management be paying property taxes on

▶ 1:18:45 Speaker 9: it because we would impose that obligation on them as part of the as

▶ 1:18:49 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: part of the agreement okay so in other words they're a tenant and sometimes a landlord would suggest that the tenant is responsible for the property taxes the only

▶ 1:18:55 Speaker 9: difference i want to just highlight here is that waste management under an operating agreement wouldn't be considered a tenant right i do recognize that they would be considered the operator of a solid waste facility that the city of melrose owns which is what we would do through the operating agreement and our relationship with waste management is we would pass on the taxing component if you will of the real estate to them they would be obligated

▶ 1:19:26 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: to pay that are you familiar with any other municipality that has an operating agreement like this that essentially is identifying a contractor to manage a solid waste facility on the behalf of the municipality the the one example I

▶ 1:19:40 Speaker 9: can share with you this evening that I'm aware of is in Middleborough and it is a a it's not a transfer station it's a landfill that waste management operates for the town of middleborough and the the same sort of tax implications apply there as well it's town owned but managed under an agreement by waste management they pay taxes at full value on

▶ 1:20:10 Speaker 1: that that real estate okay um i think that's all that i have right now thank you thank you

▶ 1:20:16 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman mortimer thank you very much madam president i appreciate alderman Wright analysis and he points out very aptly what a sweet deal this is

▶ 1:20:35 Peter D. Mortimer: for melrose on one hand we have a good deal that when we have a new mayor in 70 days after they get settled 90 days possibly that isn't going to get better But this thing has been hammered out through two administrations for a couple of years.

▶ 1:20:51 Peter D. Mortimer: This is the end of the road, and it's a good road. It's a good road for Melrose, it's a good deal. It's a good deal for waste management, and it's a win-win situation. And that's what we have on one hand, a good deal for Melrose that we can walk away from. If we want, we have that cancellation for convenience clause in the contract, as was aptly pointed out. If the new mayor, whoever that mayor may be, doesn't like it, looks around, they can change it, but it's there. So it's a good deal for Melrose on one hand. On the other hand, waste management has been saying for some time that they need to make a deal. Because if they can't make a deal, they have to look elsewhere. So we have a good deal for us that is right there. And we'll slip through our fingers if we don't close on this.

▶ 1:21:58 Peter D. Mortimer: I like public process, but some things just happen when the city solicitor is negotiating things and there are conversations about it. We're constrained by the open meeting law. But there comes a point where we have to let the administration make a presentation to us. And there are many things that come up before us, and we get tons of emails, there's tons of input on social media. In fact, we have one tonight, the plastic straw, which is a great idea. And we got tons of input on that, all favorable, by the way. And there was tons of discussion on Facebook about that. But sometimes things happen, and there was time for people in the public to comment on this, this has been ongoing.

▶ 1:22:50 Peter D. Mortimer: And some things get covered more vigorously by the press, and others don't. But we're doing a good thing for the public here. This is a representative democracy.

▶ 1:23:08 Peter D. Mortimer: And I trust City Solicitor Van Kampen. I trust Mr. Della Russo. I trust Mr. Shenna. And I looked over this material myself as well. I happen to know the site.

▶ 1:23:22 Speaker 2: I've been there a hundred times.

▶ 1:23:26 Peter D. Mortimer: It's not suitable for anything else except for a waste management.

▶ 1:23:31 Speaker 2: It really isn't, it's half like the surface of the moon.

▶ 1:23:40 Peter D. Mortimer: And this is a good use, it serves everyone well.

▶ 1:23:47 Peter D. Mortimer: We can't have a two month discussion about this. And even if we don't, even if we pass it tonight, the new mayor, as one of the most important things said here tonight, by Alderman Wright, was the new mayor can cancel this, but waste management is locked in.

▶ 1:24:05 Speaker 2: It's a good deal, it's a good deal.

▶ 1:24:11 Peter D. Mortimer: And I haven't heard, I heard a few members of the public criticize it.

▶ 1:24:17 Speaker 2: But this was out there, this was on the patch, this was on Wicked Local.

▶ 1:24:21 Peter D. Mortimer: And a lot of times you put some issue on Wicked Local and the city blows up.

▶ 1:24:33 Peter D. Mortimer: Talk about we're going to have a marijuana party, marijuana for partying. I don't even like to call it recreational, but are we going to have a party store on Main Street for marijuana? The people went crazy on Facebook about that. There was opportunity for people to weigh in. People either know this is a good deal or they trust the administration that they've gotten us a good deal. And I've looked it over, and from what I see, it's a good deal.

▶ 1:25:04 Peter D. Mortimer: And not everything turns into a big hundreds of posts on Facebook and

▶ 1:25:09 Peter D. Mortimer: hundreds of emails to us, which sometimes is a good thing. We have had, if not a hundred, then dozens of emails supporting the plastic straw over these months. And that's a good thing. But sometimes, when we have contracts and you get into something that requires a deep legal analysis and a deep understanding of contract law that was so well delineated by Alderman Wright. And Alderman Lipper-Garabedian, when you look at contract law, sometimes it's not the type of thing that you're going to get a plethora of public participation. It's something that sometimes you have to leave it to the experts, Mr. Shenna, Mr. VanCampen and Mr. DellaRusso and the aldermen. And we have to look at it and make a decision. And then the trap door on the whole thing, even though it's a good deal, is we can get out of it anytime we want. We can get out of it in January, in December. The new mayor comes in in November. the new mayor can get out of it in november december january next june the new mayor can bail this is a good deal and we have the trapdoor if it turns out not to be a good deal for me this is this is easy to vote yes thank you thank you alderman medeiros thank you mr van campen um it

▶ 1:26:44 Monica C. Medeiros: was represented at the last meeting that this piece of land if if it was if the when the lease

▶ 1:26:55 Monica C. Medeiros: ends that exists currently that waste management has to return the land take take down the improvements to the land take down the buildings and return it to its the state it was in when they found it is that correct correct and it was represented that if somebody wanted to come in and put a transfer station there at that time when we've stopped operating as a transfer station that they would not be able to by current i believe current dep standards and i was wondering if we had any documentation to support that support to support the premise

▶ 1:27:41 Monica C. Medeiros: So what's changed in the law that would not allow that use today?

▶ 1:27:48 Speaker 9: I mean, I can't comment specifically this evening on what's changed in the various environmental laws and regulations in the, you know, preceding 25 years. I'm certainly happy to have Mr. Nacella speak to that if you'd like this evening, but I can understand why you'd want to hear that from me. I don't have any documentation per se other than 25 year history of what we've witnessed in Washington and Massachusetts as far as environmental regulations are concerned. Twenty-five years ago there was not an issue with plastic straws and obviously now we all have learned over history that there is a problem with them. So I can't really answer that, that I have any documents, but other than to say I suspect all of the laws have become much more rigid and tight with respect to environmental protections that have to be in place at these types of facilities since we're under

▶ 1:28:40 Monica C. Medeiros: suspension of the rules and I see that we have mr. Nocella here perhaps he would come up and may be able to speak to this possibly so determination of use

▶ 1:28:58 Speaker 8: obviously has to be submitted to the DEP the issue that would face on this property if that facility was taken down would be setback requirements now that are required between you know the next property the street there would be those issues and then you know obviously you'd have a construction period right so if you know if we had to remove the facility at the end of the lease um between permitting and construction you'd you know you'd look at probably a couple of years to do that so you'd be vacant for that period of time and then then you'd have to construct a facility to be presumably a lot more expensive because of not just setback in size requirements but also potentially the design of the building itself and those things evolve they change you know pretty regularly in terms of what the state requires when you construct a new facility so it's always difficult to say what it's going to be until you actually go through the permitting process and you get an order of conditions from the

▶ 1:30:12 Speaker 6: DEP that you have to meet. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. You know, I still

▶ 1:30:25 Monica C. Medeiros: generally, I feel, back for a minute, you know, it's, there's a lot of frustration here, and it feels like this is rushed, and we are trying to sort of jam this through, you know, coming back

▶ 1:30:38 Monica C. Medeiros: from Labor Day weekend, and it's frustrating, you know, from my perspective here, being on the board of aldermen that i think this is something that was in the works obviously we've heard from the mayor's office for about two years now and now you know we feel like we've got to make a decision now sitting here in this board of aldermen chamber i generally in my gut feel that

▶ 1:30:57 Monica C. Medeiros: this is a good deal as i think alderman Rita you know broke it down fairly well however there are some things that you know we have mentioned and been looking for that are not available today including the clear delineation of how much we're going to get in a payment of in lieu of taxes with this agreement and that memorandum of understanding or that letter agreement designating what what the agreement between the city of melrose and waste management is in order in terms of the use of you know composting and the site for those kinds of actions i would suggest

▶ 1:31:49 Monica C. Medeiros: that we may consider tabling this for two weeks until our next meeting just in order to get those things ironed out and have the board of all of them be able to see this letter agreement and have the exact numbers for the taxes and um and go from there so if there's uh will with the committee after everyone's had a chance for discussion i'd like to make that motion point

▶ 1:32:16 Peter D. Mortimer: point of order madam president we have a motion on the table um i'm happy to withdraw my motion

▶ 1:32:23 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: for to recommend if the second one we can consider that first since it seems like a more procedural step toward passage we would need the the seconder to also or to first

▶ 1:32:41 Peter D. Mortimer: withdraw mm-hmm I will not remove my second we have a motion on the floor for passage and I seconded that and I have spoken in favor of it and heard other people people speak in favor of it with good points so I think we need to take a a vote on this motion for passives this evening Madam Chair I would just I would

▶ 1:33:01 Speaker 9: also just represent to the board the full board that I believe Thursday evening the administration did recommend that we generate approximately thirty four thousand dollars in tax revenue from the from the parcels that are at question that I can represent in my discussion with the chief assessor is the amount of money we will tax waste management at or higher the letter agreement i referred to earlier will encompass all of the points operational issues that mr shena raised thursday evening i would just respectfully represent to the board of alderman that side letter agreement is not subject to this board's approval so mr shena certainly could or mayor inferno could certainly sign such an such an agreement such a letter agreement um i would just represent that to you this evening madam chair and i would ask this evening that this

▶ 1:33:57 Speaker 7: matter be acted on rather than further delayed thank you yes thank you if I

▶ 1:34:02 Monica C. Medeiros: still have the floor then you know again it's it's sort of frustrating that this is the way we've gone down this path but however I do think the two years as it was said last week I think the two years out now is a little bit too soon to be able to adequately begin the public process that we should have or what What should we do for the use of this site? I hope that the new administration begins right away to start that process, to look at this and to look at any kind of environmental impacts that are on the site. However, as Alderman Wright pointed out, this contract does allow an opt-out. I do have a question. If we were to receive this $1 million as payment, it's going to go through the free cash process and then be subject to appropriation certainly there was there was some discussion about you know what could be done with that money to make sure that it wasn't necessarily all spent so that we if we did want to opt out of this contract we could maybe put it in contract stabilization or someplace like that would it be then subject to a judgment for a collective bargaining to think that we've got money, if we put money aside from free cash for the purpose of making sure we have the ability to opt out of this contract later on, would that be, you know, if we went to the JLMC or if we had some reason to have some collective bargaining, you know, would we be in a weakened position because we had that money there?

▶ 1:35:42 Speaker 9: I don't believe so. As you know, we have a contract stabilization fund for that purpose that has a current balance in it. The question of where this payment would go is entirely subject to the discretion of the next mayor and the next Board of Aldermen as far as free cash is concerned. So I wouldn't be that concerned about that particular issue.

▶ 1:36:07 Monica C. Medeiros: So, you know, again, I think, you know, the burden, the burden of the hand is worth two in the bush. And we have this agreement before us that I think is overall more beneficial to the city than the potential of having a vacant, unused site at the end of two years. And so, therefore, I'm going to support this today. Thank you.

▶ 1:36:31 Speaker 7: Thank you. Alderman Forbes.

▶ 1:36:34 Scott M. Forbes: Thank you. I know a lot of my colleagues here are saying that this is a good deal, but my question is how can anybody determine if this is a good deal for Melrose when we haven't done anything to figure out what the alternative is? We've had plenty of time to assess this property. I think that the city took the direction of this is the way they wanted to go, but for me, and I know the collective bargaining process goes back and forth, but in our last meeting it was presented to us that the city admitting to waiting waste management out so they could get a better deal so in that aspect what that does to us is it shortens our window of opportunity to to sit down and make a well-informed decision so i'm of the mindset to measure twice and cut once i don't want to sign a deal only to give the money back two years later i wouldn't sign a an agreement for anything based on that premise alone so for me i i don't think that waiting another few months and if you think that that's the the scenario where they could walk away was it ever considered to signing a short-term deal with a two-year extension so we could sit down and actually make you know have a robust conversation and make a good informed decision not just for the property for the community as a whole when we when we started

▶ 1:37:45 Speaker 9: this process we contemplated a five-year deal which was the city's initial proposal to waste management which effectively would have amounted to a three-year deal that was our initial offer to waste management and we've met at ten years essentially but it's a fair point alderman Forbes in the final analysis you know our role as an administration was to negotiate what we felt was a was an agreement that is in the best interest of the city of Melrose and I'm confident to represent to you this evening that what's in front of you accomplishes that objective but we did start out at a lower term in the in the hope that five years maybe allows the city in the shorter term the ability to stop the public process that I know alderman Medeiros and others have talked about during these deliberations but in the final analysis the deal that's in front of you still in my view is in the best interest of the city yeah understood and I understand that you

▶ 1:38:42 Scott M. Forbes: have a role to play in those negotiations I completely understand and respect that but for me to be sitting here now and saying that we have to make this decision now I I I'm not gonna be in favor of this order tonight so I'm going to vote no I think that there are other alternatives that we could discuss that would be better than locking us into a long-term deal and after two years just handing back the money to me just doesn't seem like a good alternative for me so thank you any further discussion motion has been made

▶ 1:39:15 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: and seconded for passage of this order all in favor

▶ 1:39:21 Speaker 7: Any opposed opposed

▶ 1:39:25 Speaker 2: Do we have a voice vote?

▶ 1:39:34 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Voice vote we can we can ask for one

▶ 1:39:40 Speaker 5: Alderman Bewtra. Yes Yes, I'm in Forbes. No, I'm in the for Garabedian. Yes, I'm in McMaster. No

▶ 1:39:48 Speaker 10: No.

▶ 1:39:49 Speaker 5: Alderman Medeiros? Yes. Alderman Mortimer? Yes. Alderman Tramontozzi? No. Alderman Wright? Yes. Alderman Zwirko? No. Alderman Lemmerman? Yes. And President Lemmerman?