ORDER-2019-46 : An Order Creating an Education, Public Safety & Substance Abuse Prevention Stabilization Fund

Transcript (~44 min @ 2:41:20)

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

▶ 2:41:20 Michael P. Zwirko: still under suspension of the rules I would ask that the city auditor come before us at this time just to answer a few questions and I also just wanted to just an introductory note here and I'll move that this be included there was a for the alderman that are here this evening there was an email that was at your respective desks it was an email that was sent today from city solicitor to myself and the clerk of committees Kristen foot I asked that that be added to this order it that that email response is in direct relation to a question that was brought up by two aldermen the last time this order was before the Appropriations Committee I'll also add that there was a comment that was made in public comment about this this order I think it could be lost in terms the reason this is called a stabilization fund is because that is exactly what the Massachusetts Department of Revenue calls this fund it doesn't necessarily mean that the fund is set up to stabilize anything that's just the name of the fund so I'm using the litter excuse me the language provided from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue so I don't want people to get lost in the actual terms quite simply all this is trying to do this this order is taking the three percent excise off of adult use recreational marijuana which we have passed in order to collect and dedicate it to a specific fund called a stabilization fund so it segregates the monies received and can then be appropriated for the purposes of education public safety and substance abuse prevention before I get to my questions for the city auditor I just want to quickly just state some some facts so we will the city of Melrose have adult use recreational marijuana probably not in the calendar year of 2019 but likely soon thereafter as stated on May 6th when the mayor presented the budget she did indicate that their office has not budgeted in fiscal year 20 any amount for adult use recreational it's too much of an uncertainty which again speaks to the what I feel is the the positive necessity of creating this stabilization fund i will also add that i recently went on a tour of the garden remedies facility and in doing so i asked the staff some questions generally speaking and they were even hesitant to to give figures but they did based on one of their other businesses in another location since adult use has been legal and the doors have been open for sale they're making between forty and seventy thousand dollars a day when you add that math out although i believe that it will decrease over time as more and more facilities open and it becomes less of a

▶ 2:44:35 Michael P. Zwirko: prohibitive product but long story short if you were to use even the low end and say forty thousand dollars a day the three percent on that is twelve hundred dollars times 365 does equate to about four hundred and thirty eight thousand dollars per annum so that amount is something that certainly could be used I don't anticipate that it will be that high and I don't really want to give figures as to how how large that pool of monies could be because I do feel that over time we'll see it certainly decrease but setting that up mr. de la Rousseau since you're here before us if you could speak to the the Massachusetts Department of Revenue they were very deliberate in allowing for this fund to be created not to step into the shoes of the Department of Revenue but in the they don't freely allow us to create such funds often and and I think that if you could speak the

▶ 2:45:34 Speaker 2: deliberateness and also the rarity of such yeah yeah through the chair me a couple of things and it's true they they specifically carved out this stabilization fund if communities decided to adopt it for that purpose so they could they could identify a purpose within the community pardon me for which they could um set these these funds aside because as alderman cerco said we have yet to receive the revenues for this fund and allows us in the future to plan for the use of the funds. A couple of things that are particular to this fund. First of all, it is a carve-out, as indicated. Secondly, I think what it does, and again, for purposes of municipality, it does provide the ability to look at something over a three-year term and make a decision if, in fact, it's working the way you intend it to. If, in fact, the community decides to adopt this, there's an out. It's not forever. You may decide to adopt it for a three-year period, see what happens, see if it actually performs the way the community has anticipated it was going to perform. And if it does, you may decide to retain it. On the other end, if you decide that it's not performing, you may decide to disband. That option is up to the community.

▶ 2:47:09 Speaker 2: But I will say, from the position of budget pressure, one of the things that we constantly find, it's not just in Melrose, is there's always concerns from, whether it's Standard & Poor's or Moody's, whoever, that communities are under intense pressure on the operating budget to provide the needs and services that could actually exceed what they're used to seeing for cost or initiatives that come up that they simply can't afford um we've seen oftentimes um many years before we look at simple initiatives that we just don't have the ability to afford in the budget i think you saw that tonight you know ten thousand dollars a lot of money to us fifteen twenty thousand a lot of money to us um so in some some ways um it would show it would take some pressure off and stand and applause they they like to see stabilization funds for the just for that purpose they are taking some stress off the regular operating budget the same stream of revenue that funds everything else and then some so in that sense you would be able to provide some budget relief however the opposite is that the decision would have to be made by the community as the purposes for which this fund is being established and obviously the expenditure would have to come again through the executive office to this board and the decision would have to be made if in fact that is something that the board chooses to fund or not so in in over and those are in general terms so if i get any specific questions again i'll do the best i can to address it this evening

▶ 2:48:53 Michael P. Zwirko: if not i'll do what i can to get you an answer thank you for that so i i also um there's there's a bill that's pending right now at the legislature to use two percent of an excise on alcohol sales and dedicate those to substance abuse prevention efforts so these there is not necessarily a trend but there is a need in the municipal level for some sort of fixed funding or an additional revenue source to address some of these unforeseen costs that have ballooned certainly in light of obviously the the opiate crisis fentanyl crisis and and additionally to tackle some of these the issues with the municipalities dealing with the new legal product which hasn't previously been legal and the reason that the carve-out is for those three areas in my order is because one only needed to attend May 1st program at the high school called weeding through the myths to understand how prevalent the vaping issue is at our high schools in addition to there's they don't have the staffing to really enforce this problem furthermore guidance counselors are being taken out of their role to check it to work as hall monitors to try to enforce issues with the vaping at the high schools you have equipment whether it be turnout gear for the police excuse me the fire department or SCBA repairs that needs to be addressed the police I mean countless items I think there was a couple of years back here that this board voluntarily funded Narcan to be used because the police department actually ran out segregating these funds that are directly related to the issues concerned with this new legal product I think makes prudent sense I think it's it's appreciative of the Department of Revenue to allow for this to occur other municipalities have done it I carved this order out from the city of Springfield they made this fund available specifically to address the neighborhoods that are impacted by the new retail facilities within their community and to do for beautification efforts here in in Melrose knowing the fiscal pressures that we've experienced over time I felt that addressing not only substance abuse prevention but also police and fire as well as education was the target of where these monies should be directed should we collect any any amount so I brought this order before us in order to at least allow the ability to forecast to use some data over three years this once opened if opened has to remain in place for three years but it then can be removed over time you could alter what it's dedicated to you could reduce some of them you could expand but I think taking it out of the general fund being able to account for it separately while this product is in its infancy while we see the market evolve is probably the the wisest thing to do then we can appropriate knowing at the end of the fiscal year how much money is in the stabilization account and what it could be used for it would it would I would presume and I would ask mr. DeLaRusso to answer this question that it would help the budgetary process knowing that there was $300,000 in the stabilization fund when you're drafting the general budget for let's say the fire department would you say that

▶ 2:52:33 Speaker 2: that's that's true mr. Delver so the the nature of which the purposes for which the fund is established would would make that decision that'd be who this understood so obviously the if there is stress and if the fund would cover that area with the stress that would be obviously be

▶ 2:52:55 Michael P. Zwirko: helpful and we've seen recent repair bills that we've appropriated through free cash if they were for fire apparatus it certainly could be used there with that I've spoken enough I appreciate the city auditor to be here to answer questions I will leave it to well let me move to add the the letter from the city solicitor to this order so I'll make that motion now but then I will finish with my my comments and questions second you have a motion to

▶ 2:53:22 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: add the email from mr. van Kampen sent today to the order seconded by alderman all in favor aye he opposed okay we will add that to the order in the public record um and alderman

▶ 2:53:46 Francis X. Wright Jr.: wright thank you um i appreciate the order and i appreciate the intent of the order um i guess i would ask that the auditor um do we have any way of estimating what the revenue will be from the sale of marijuana recreational marijuana in the city of Malrose at this time I do

▶ 2:54:12 Francis X. Wright Jr.: not okay and we have any way of estimating what the services would cost us under a stabilization under the goals of the service a stabilization fund that's being proposed as far as well it's set up for particular purposes and And, and I don't, I'm trying to figure out what those costs will be. And I, I assume they'll be based on what the income is. And perhaps be supplemented by the general fund. But I guess my, my point really is, I think that we, the goal I think is, is certainly admirable. But I think fiscally, it would be more responsible of us to wait to see what the revenue will be. I'm concerned that the services that may be required which are the goal of this order really won't be self-evident to us for several years and I think at that point at some point down the road a year or two three years down the road it might be worthwhile to revisit this but at this point without knowing what what revenue is going to be and yet committing all that revenue whether that's a lot of money or a little money um away from the general fund to to again admirable purposes but as you indicated uh mr delarusso uh you know ten or twenty thousand dollars is a lot of money to the city of melrose And we have other bills to pay, and there are often grants that provide the services that this stabilization fund may be intended to cover that we could look to. And if we can go to a grant and not have this money dedicated away from the general fund, there was a lot of talk about this money going to the general fund and helping to supplement the city. but now to dedicate it for something else without knowing exactly what we're talking about how much revenue what the costs are what what services we might need I think we're putting the car a little bit ahead of the horse I understand the concern about vaping certainly we've seen a lot in the news about vaping and the impact that's having on our youth but I've also seen other municipalities address this in a much more aggressive manner they've addressed not only the age at which kids can buy vaping products but also the location and I think you know maybe we can look at other ways to to address vaping in the city of Melrose and not just the effects of it but the the

▶ 2:57:06 Francis X. Wright Jr.: ability to obtain it so again intent is admirable I'm just concerned that we're getting out ahead of ourselves we're dedicating a source of revenue without knowing what that revenue is going to be and we're a community that fiscally has lived on the Raiders razor's edge for a number of years and I'm concerned that by removing this money from the general fund and purposes for which we may need

▶ 2:57:43 Francis X. Wright Jr.: it um we will um be at some point in the future not be able to meet our our needs as opposed to our wants which these are admirable wants thank you ottoman chairman tozy thank you madam chair

▶ 2:57:54 John N. Tramontozzi: um when this uh when this order first came before proposed order came before the board um

▶ 2:58:02 John N. Tramontozzi: from a couple months back, I expressed reservations about it. I don't think this specific stabilization fund is appropriate for the same reasons that Alderman Wright have mentioned. The funds should go to the general fund. If we want to fund some cause, we can do so out of the general funds. and right mentioned there are grant money available to handle some of these issues that

▶ 2:58:41 John N. Tramontozzi: that we may be faced with so my reservations about this have continued you know despite the fact that the city solicitors expressed an opinion that we can we could valid validly legally establish the stabilization fund it doesn't mean we have to and i don't think it'd be appropriate to do so at this time so i i would not be voting in favor of it um at this time thank you alderman

▶ 2:59:08 Shawn M. MacMaster: mcmaster thank you madam chair i'm inclined to support uh this order that's been brought before us by alderman Zwirko originally you may recall that i was opposed to it and my opposition was not based on the spirit of the order but it was based on wanting to be consistent with my other votes relative to marijuana but the reality is we are going to be bringing this revenue into the city in the form of an excise tax through the department of revenue and we need to do something with the money and to me i think it is important for us as a board through voting to support this um to really mandate that money be set aside for costs associated with the social impact costs of legalized marijuana and whether that's in the form of substance abuse prevention whether that's in the form of police training for trends that may arise as a result of what we're seeing this guarantees that there is money that is earmarked for those purposes as well as more purposes and it ensures that this becomes part of our policy making in the city and that it's prioritized um i you know i think we're not going to be able to forecast what the costs are um we're not going to be able to forecast what the the revenue will be i still think the revenue is a as a red herring i don't think it's going to be as much as people anticipate but we are going to be bringing in revenue we need to do something with it and i think the prudent thing to do is to put it towards the costs that as i said will be associated with legalized marijuana i mean the very fact that there will be more marijuana in our community poses a risk for diversion into the hands of youth so to me that calls for additional efforts to raise awareness with young people children and teens and to try to affirmatively take some steps to prevent the misuse and abuse of substances so again i'm in support of this i want to thank alderman's worko for filing it and i'm hopeful that others may be in support of it as well thank

▶ 3:01:45 Monica C. Medeiros: you madam chair thank you alderman Medeiros thank you um yes i was previously in support of this i remain in support of this i think for some of the very reasons that both alderman twerko and alderman mcmaster elaborated on tonight in particular i mean this is this is new revenue coming into the city from a new source that we don't know that much about yet not just as a city but or a state or even the country and when we do know what we do know is that historically we've had sometimes a hard time funding some things like Narcan some things like the substance abuse prevention coordinator which we used to have a grant for and we no longer have things like sometimes training that we that are new mandates that come up and I think this could certainly provide us an avenue to make sure that that there is some revenue for those things but that being said this is is this is a pretty broad category and you know we don't know what the revenue will be it may be a lot it may not be as much but it is new and it's something that we is not yet stable but these are broad categories of public safety and education and substance abuse prevention so I mean certainly there's things like and sorry another thing that sometimes we haven't always had funding for is to go out and and do the checks at the different establishments that serve liquor you know so these are these are all issues where I think you could see these funds being a very good match for but you know if we brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars and found that there was you know millions of dollars in this account after the course of a year or two there's no doubt in my mind that we couldn't find you know something under the car the categories of education or you know even if it wasn't all substance abuse prevention I'm sure that we could find things under the categories of education or public safety that we could fund from from this this account and again it is something that we could change in three years so I definitely I would be supportive of creating this at this time thank you president Lemmerman thank you just a

▶ 3:04:10 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: couple of questions for you mr. Leroso can you describe any other carve-outs that we have from any other sources or going anywhere else in the city right

▶ 3:04:21 Speaker 2: now any of the cover the only the cover that we have in relation to stabilization funds we have for example the special revenue fund is the stabilization from the school department special education and that's ideally a combo and for that purpose we have the contract stabilization fund which is is designed to address union, non-union contracts as well as regular staff funding agreements and that nature. We have the Suits and Claims Stabilization Fund, which is considered a CAVO specifically for suits and claims. We have the Capital Stabilization Fund. Again, we have a CAVO for capital. Hopefully, we can put funds in that to address capital needs to the community and so we have a number in that sense that a condo specific for those purposes and you know they serve their purpose we see it every time we come up for a contract for police a fire or the like that we have to seek to the contract stabilization fund to help address it because on a regular basis we can't typically you couldn't do that so those those times and those funds for those specific purposes I consider those condo because they're dedicated just for

▶ 3:05:55 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: a specific purpose okay and um are they they set up in the same way that technically you could vote every three years to continue them are they they're

▶ 3:06:05 Speaker 2: set up in a different way again through the chair I would have to confirm that on the other funds but my my expectation is that this is a standard stabilization fund and like the others that i mentioned earlier there there's no um end date perhaps we don't close the fund at the end of the year the money in the fund the stabilization fund the city stabilization fund the big one that we have um that's for example that that just stays year after year unless there's a request to be drawn down on it there's no expiration date saying on the end of June 30th they have to close these funds up that doesn't happen I'll confirm it with the funds but that would be my expectation I don't know why they would

▶ 3:06:45 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: deviate but I could I'll find that out thank you and with this one with the opportunity to revisit it in three years is that something that a vote would be

▶ 3:06:57 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: triggered in three years or I'm not sure if I'm asking you something that you have looked at or not and if not maybe you could let us know but would it vote automatically be triggered in three years that would come to us and we would have this analysis we would go through this process or unless otherwise requested by say an alderman or the administration a vote wouldn't happen and it would just keep going on its own inertia yeah again I'll confirm this

▶ 3:07:23 Speaker 2: through council but my expectation that you wouldn't see a red flag come up per se but I think if the board collectively decided this isn't operating the way we anticipated and once that 36 month period was up decided to take action to dissolve it um i don't think i think that legislation would allow you to do that i think that would be initiated by the

▶ 3:07:51 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: board okay um but i will confirm that with council thank you and i assume if if it were in three years or six years or however long closed for any reason that would just go back to the general fund

▶ 3:08:02 Speaker 2: whatever was was left yeah my expectation is generally they would close to the general fund there was some provision um yeah for other funds um in the past like some revolving funds that there may be an option to actually transfer some of that from one fund to another but i think that's a very limited opportunity i'm not sure that would apply here okay at all

▶ 3:08:25 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: um i agree with alderman master i think this scenario is unlikely but if we were to find ourselves in a situation where we had all kinds of extra money there's no way to pull it out of there

▶ 3:08:37 Speaker 2: and put it anywhere else right um other than through the um chair i other than the sense that the board i believe it may be an opportunity to change the purpose for the use of the fund and again that may be the way to have the funds attributed to a different purpose i'm originally designed that may be an opportunity you have because um uh with the legislation so we'll confirm that but you know what i mean if you yeah all of a sudden you want to add another purpose for it for example sure and as a as a fund and does that have to happen within the does that

▶ 3:09:16 Speaker 2: have to happen on the three-year christ oh within that period my guess is if you've set up for a b and c and you want to change it my i'm not sure if there's any expiration date on how often or if you know it can't change it more than once a year or something i have to check on that okay

▶ 3:09:30 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: thank you very much um i i spoke on this last time i i had similar concerns to those raised um tonight um by alderman wright and i you know they remain for me i i think the i i felt a little better by the vote every every three years but i do feel that if it's not automatically triggered i mean the reality is that things once they're set up and in place and implemented and moving they do tend to move on their own inertia and it could be difficult to to change that um i think that even if we don't find ourselves with lots of money um in it there are priorities there's a prioritization process that could be impeded by this um that there could be an emergency somewhere else even if we don't have a ton of money in this in this fund um that could be because i agree it could be used other places um within those three buckets but there could be some place outside those three buckets we just don't know yet we just don't know enough um about what we're looking at what our needs are going to be and that remains for me so um i i still have

▶ 3:10:39 Manisha Bewtra: concerns about this order thank you i um alderman any alderman which you see for the first time I just wanted to also state that I appreciate the intentions of this order I think I'm struggling with the categories a little bit and I I think substance abuse prevention as I mentioned in the last meeting feels very directly tied but I think aldermen's worker you mentioned the example from Springfield and that were that that was used towards beautification and although we're a very you know different community we have an order before us and legal and legislative that is sort of intending and getting at some of those economic development concerns so for me right now i'm i do appreciate i think the intentions of trying to create some more transparency around a new source of revenue for our community but also addressing substance abuse challenges within the community and education needs um substance abuse specific education needs but uh i share the concerns stated by alderman wright and president Lemmerman thank you

▶ 3:11:49 Monica C. Medeiros: alderman medeiros thank you i just want to um touch i think there's a little bit of confusion and and certainly we can have the legal counsel uh clarify this but i believe the three pers the sorry the three-year time frame is on the directing the revenue source into the stabilization fund I believe the funds would stay in the stabilization account until the you know mayor and Board of Aldermen voted to move them out but you know I the school budget this year alone for instance is thirty thirty three million dollars I want to say I've stopped my head and you know I find it hard to believe that you know we couldn't move money out if we got a lot of it but I believe the vote is very similar to the meals tax for instance or the hotel tax where you know the Board of Aldermen voted quite a long time ago to to put those in place and they had to be in place for three years and then after three years the board could could change it I do think there's you know Also the potential here, which I know Alderman Zwirko proposed ordinance says to direct 100% of the funds raised from this marijuana excise tax into this stabilization fund. but there is also the option to you know break that down to a percentage of say 25 percent into this fund um which may be something that this uh board may wish to do or alderman's work will

▶ 3:13:34 Francis X. Wright Jr.: maybe favor alderman wright thank you um we all recall you know there was a lot of uh disagreement

▶ 3:13:40 Francis X. Wright Jr.: as to the location and whether or not we should have a recreational marijuana shop in the city we we voted as a community to have one we've stated our position as to where it should be located and and that is where it will be located um but obviously it was a lot of interest citywide in this in this issue um so i would ask mr de la ruso um if we were to commit a hundred percent of the three percent local excise tax to this stabilization fund would any other revenue um from the sale of recreational marijuana be realized by the city with any other revenue

▶ 3:14:27 Francis X. Wright Jr.: is there any other i mean if the marijuana is being sold recreationally out on route 99 in melrose right and there's a three percent local excise tax that we've adopted and we're going to dedicate all of that three percent to a particular stabilization fund is there any other revenue coming in from the city from that particular sale that will end up in the general fund i'm not talking about like real estate taxes or water and sewer bills or anything like that i'm talking about is there any other source i think the answer is no i think yeah it's it's some people saw this when they voted for it as a way to raise revenue to allow us to for the city to pay its bills and we're always you know we did pass the override but we certainly didn't create a surplus of money we we created a situation where we're able to maintain uh i'm just concerned again that if that the community understand that if we dedicate all of this money to a to a great cause that without knowing how much revenue we're talking about and without knowing what the cost of the services that are intended to be provided are going to be that we that we've made a decision here today without being fully informed so i mean i i was thinking along the same lines as Alderman Medeiros which is if we were to pursue this in any way shape or form I think it should be closer to the 25% as opposed to the hundred percent but that's just my thoughts thank you thank you thank

▶ 3:16:22 Michael P. Zwirko: you thank you madam chair so I just wanted to address some of the questions and comments that came up since I introduced the order this evening first thing I would say is I'm absolutely open to any modifications that this board sees fit so I'm willing to work in a way that addresses or assuages any concerns that folks may have alderman Medeiros is correct that under the under the law you can't go below 25% of the dedicated funds but you can drop to that amount could be 50 could be 33 could be 62 whatever it just can't be 24 or 24.9 or anything below and you know just like we talked earlier about the benefit of the override freeing up about three-quarters of a million dollars in a free cash

▶ 3:17:24 Michael P. Zwirko: appropriation this also does that same budgetary maneuver in the sense that if you know that the funds are dedicated for a certain amount of services then you don't need to budget in the general fund for those services they're going to be used through this fund and everybody here is said the same theme they've just come out in a different area they've they're they're uncertain about the revenue they're uncertain about the demand they're uncertain about the amounts and that's why I think it's that's why that's why you would enact a pilot program and I think of this more of a as a pilot program this way with the monies being segregated you actually know what the revenue is that is coming in and you say to yourself all right well after three years we don't have to continue this pilot program and we should have three years or maybe two and a half years by the time actually adult use is sold in Melrose but the account will still be open for that period furthermore I mean if folks wanted to attach a trigger where this board has to vote whether or not to continue the stabilization fund three years from its creation I mean I'm happy in writing that into the order as well just to assure that we the Board of Aldermen soon-to-be City Council will have that vote so that this doesn't continue in perpetuity without folks you know if there's a turnover on the board three years from now and no one's here anymore so we could certainly do that and our clerk would be more than willing to record keep that date we could do that but I do think that this is work because of the uncertainty that's that's actually why I favor it I think the segregation allows us for better bookkeeping it allows us for better forecasting it allows us to understand what the revenues are I feel that the revenues are going to taper off quite frankly certainly in the next three years with the proliferation of retail sales especially in Greater Boston the power of the monopoly just isn't going to exist as much and therefore the revenues will decline and there's no shortness of need especially in these three areas so I'm you know I'm happy to to you know to modify this as folks see fit certainly I guess I favor a hundred percent because then you know it's better you know your amounts better but if folks feel more comfortable at 50 25 75 whatever that amount may be as long as we have some funds that I feel are dedicated to areas that are going to be impacted by this as a to offset those costs as well as to kind of prepare for this this new world that's approaching us very soon I'm happy to do so I do think that we have some outstanding questions for the city solicitor that have been raised tonight so I think it's it's probably a good time to retain this into committee again although I'm hesitant to do so just because I don't like it when things languish but we do have some really good questions and I think we've had some very good debate about the intent so I would ask that this be held in committee so we can get those answers from the city solicitor as well as folks think a little bit more creatively about some of the concerns they have and how this could ultimately be addressed and maybe this this pilot program could move forward so I'll move that we retain this order in committee

▶ 3:20:44 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: second okay we have a motion to retain a committee maybe aldermen's work on seconded by Alderman Bewtra if you don't mind I haven't had a chance to speak on this and I don't have a firm position but I actually don't think we're languishing I think this is really productive conversation and I appreciate very much you bringing this proposal to our attention to give us the opportunity to think about you know a burgeoning area of revenue potentially for us and and sort of new landscape of law my quick review I did see that Springfield as you mentioned did set one of these up and they've set the rate at 33% and that is being directed to neighborhoods within a 1.5 mile radius of the dispensaries so they're sort of targeting the you know the money toward the places that are most likely to be impacted immediately by the dispensaries and looks like they further directed it to educational and recreational programming for youth and adults neighborhood business incentives infrastructure improvements and recreational community sites again close to that dispensary so it's just something interesting and then I'm not sure if this passed or not it looks like in January at least there was a proposal before Lowell to consider setting aside 25% so the minimum as you've mentioned of the revenue collected to go directly to municipal buildings and specifically school buildings from the revenues and that's a school district I know that is working on a new high school and we have some you know significant facilities demands so both of these communities I think have considered a stabilization fund and done it at less than a hundred percent so that's just something to take into account you know I see the rationale for segregating the money in so far as it's going to be a completely new revenue stream and it's sort of uncertain you know what we're looking at and it gives us an opportunity to perhaps really target our attention on it and research sort of or keep track in real time over what's happening I think we could do that even without a stabilization fund and so far as we have good data that demonstrates the different revenue streams that we have so we could be really intentional about while making sure we're managing that and overseeing it. I do think it's good for the municipality to be able to be very nimble year over year in terms of what the constituents really need and prioritize, and I can think of things that a new influx of revenue could allow us to do that's outside perhaps the purview of the stabilization fund. for example, significant improvements in our I&I issues to really maybe aggressively lower rates on water and sewer. So I don't know that I have a firm opinion on this at this point in time and I appreciate the opportunity for us to continue to review maybe any modifications you think about making Aldermen's Work Go and I appreciate everyone's thoughtfulness on this order tonight, especially as the hour gets a little later.

▶ 3:24:03 Speaker 1: So we have a motion, any further questions?

▶ 3:24:05 Michael P. Zwirko: Sorry, and I'll make this very quick. So there was another comment that you reminded me of something, Madam Chair. I believe if there were other revenues that we could attain from recreational marijuana, it would be in the community host agreement, and I do not know, so I will add that to the list of questions to follow up with the city solicitor on. I think certain community host agreements actually do get, using the parlance of our times, a rake of total sales, and I don't know if we have one in ours. So, but there could be potential revenue streams that was brought up by another alderman, so I just wanted to raise that. I'll request that information as well. Excellent.

▶ 3:24:41 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: All right, a motion has been made and duly seconded to hold this order in committee. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we will do that. And I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.