ORDER-2017-26 : Authorization of a Bond in the amount of $540,500 through the MWRA's Sewer System I/I Local Financial Assistance Program.

Transcript (~39 min @ 2:04:00)

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

▶ 2:04:08 Peter D. Mortimer: president Kahn has moved for a recess second by alderman Forbes all in favor All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Approved, we are in recess. Motion carries. Back in two minutes.

▶ 2:04:28 Peter D. Mortimer: Ladies and gentlemen, if we could please resume the Appropriations Committee.

▶ 2:04:35 Peter D. Mortimer: Get back to our last order of business for the night. It is the order 2017-26. authorization of a bond in the amount of 540,000 through the MWRA's Sewer System I&I Local Financial Assistance Program. Is there a motion to suspend the rules, please? So moved. Second. Alderman Forbes has made a motion to suspend the rules for this order, duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, we are under suspension. Your Honor, Mayor Dolan.

▶ 2:05:17 Speaker 6: Thank you.

▶ 2:05:18 Speaker 4: Thank you, sir.

▶ 2:05:20 Speaker 6: As if we haven't had enough fun, a little eye and eye to finish it up tonight. Yeah. I want to thank you for all the hard work tonight. It's a really big night for the city. So this evening we're presenting a bold initiative that I announced and have spoken to you about in my inaugural address. Tonight we seek authorization to support a $2 million inflow and infiltration project. Tonight, we begin the first year of an aggressive five year program that is the next phase in the city's 15 year long commitment to infrastructure improvement. By infrastructure, I mean parks and recreation, water flow, flooding mitigation, drainage, water quality, and fire safety and prevention. All of which have dramatically turned some of the failings of our community into great strengths. We have done it in a pragmatic manner, focusing first on quality of life, public safety, and then fiscal responsibility. And at the same time, we have addressed, in a less aggressive manner, inflow and infiltration over the last 15 years, using fully, each year, the MWRA's inflow and infiltration program to its maximum capacity.

▶ 2:06:43 Speaker 6: we had to prioritize in speaking to the financial responsibility piece of the challenges this city faced so we live in a new community in 2016 one in which people are not being brought out of their homes and boats raw sewage is no longer found on playgrounds we have the ability to properly put out a fire in every neighborhood in the city that wasn't always the case and children are no longer eating lunch in school buildings that hours before were flooded with contaminated water that's a victory for this community as a whole we have done this while properly managing our debt and clearly allowing taxpayers to see return on their substantial investment in terms of water and sewer either directly or indirectly in their neighborhoods on their sports fields and and their home values. This commitment to inflow and infiltration will directly attack the rising costs of SOAR. Under the ground where you walk and drive every day is a SOAR infrastructure, which in many areas, like all of our infrastructure, is cracked and is leaking. So this is how we're going to fix it. Over the course of the spring of 2016, the DPW engineering office and their consultants evaluated the entire city of Melrose you'll learn about that tonight with meters to not to allow us to analytically identify where inflow and infiltration is the highest tonight you'll see the results of that study where we'll prioritize as a result of that that review by our Department of Engineering we have taken the results of that evaluation and we have prioritized the most aggressive and efficient manner in which to fund and move forward with inflow and infiltration improvements that will promote the highest rate of return in the most immediate time frame if you fund this order the work will start immediately three which each phase Melrose's overall total sewer flow and daily peak flow will be reduced and that will benefit ratepayers so I now turn this over to our very capable city engineer and our director of public works who have spent a tremendous amount of time formulating this aggressive and beneficial plan for the citizens of melrose thank you thank you thank you mr shanna

▶ 2:09:12 Speaker 4: thank you i'm going to keep my comments brief as the project team sets up their presentation just to reiterate what the mayor clearly articulated the dpw has consistently done I and I improvements since 2003 on and in a few minutes the project team will summarize some of the projects that have that have taken place and some of the investment that we together the board and this administration have made what's different this time is in the approach of how we're identifying the project that's the difference this time around in the past we've targeted areas that have coincided with other projects we were working with we're working on improving the force main and diverting flow from the Melrose towers so we worked in the Upham Street pump station sewer shed to reduce flows from I&I there we work in I we were working in Ward 2 to handle flooding issues there we invested in I&I there this time we're targeting areas where I&I is the highest and I feel confident that the analysis that the city engineer and her project team have taken will lead us there so that we are investing in areas where we will get the highest return in reduced flows so with us tonight our city engineer will be joining us and John Potts from Western and Sampson they've prepared a brief presentation again to review and to kind of refocus a little on what I and I is how the problem is evident in Melrose this approach that we've taking we've taken and why we're looking to request authorization for this bond and how it's all going to tie in moving forward next year and in the

▶ 2:11:10 Speaker 4: years to come Thank You mr. Shana advanced just good

▶ 2:11:23 Speaker 9: evening mrs. Paracas good evening yes my name is John Potts I'm project manager with Weston and Sampson engineers thank you for your time tonight welcome sir we're going to talk about what we want to propose is the sewer rehabilitation program for Melrose like John said over the next five years so basically the

▶ 2:11:43 Speaker 9: first thing we want to look at what this presentation is going to entail is basically the who's the wise the what's and the where's of what infiltration is how it impacts the city system and what we want to do to start removing it from the system so as simply for those who don't know what infiltration and inflow is infiltration is basically clear water that's getting into your pipes through the ground through defects through cracks in the pipe holes in the pipe leaks in the manholes and inflow is basically clear water that gets in through storm water through a roof leader through someone's sump pump that's pumping in through their basement into the sewer system and it's all this clear water that's taking up capacity in your pipes that should be being taken

▶ 2:12:30 Speaker 9: with the wastewater and what this shows the picture at the bottom is basically a leak at a joint with water just pouring in taking up filling the pipe with this clear water and when they measure infiltration and flow or II the typical way to measure it is they'll measure it as the the entry rate or it's in gallons minute how many gallons a minute are coming in and when they analyze it they'll call it between the ranges between a quarter of a gallon per minute up to five gallons a minute and even higher just to put it in a general perspective in one month a one gallon per minute leak will fill almost 300 000 20 ounce water bottles in one month in one month a five gallon leak will fill over 12 average size swimming pools in that month and this is what ongoing infiltration in iowa is in the

▶ 2:13:24 Speaker 9: the system right now we looked at the MWAs estimates going back from 2001 through 2015 and what this graph shows is the blue at the bottom of the graph is Melrose's wastewater the red that's adds to on top of the blue is the infiltration that's estimated in the system for the last 15 years and the green on top of that is inflow that is in the system so basically the city pays at the top point of all these bar graphs another way to look at it is the blue on a straight graph the blue is your wastewater the red line is the infiltration and inflow in the system combined and then the yellow line is what the total flow is in the system and that's what MWRA is basically charging

▶ 2:14:16 Speaker 9: the city is based on that yellow line. We compared Melrose's to the other 42 communities in the NWRA and when you look at the flow in million gallons a day in infiltration Melrose's is the number 17th ranked city or town and infiltration their 15th and inflow and when you look at the combined II therefore they fall 18th out of the 42 communities for infiltration and inflow another way

▶ 2:14:45 Speaker 9: to look at it is what's called GPDI M which is the gallons per day per inch mile and what that does is it looks takes the system and it's basically the size of the community and it takes the size of your pipes and your linear footage of pipes and then you divide the gallons per day by that and you get your your GPDIM. And when we looked at Melrose from 2011 to 2015, overall Melrose falls in the top five for the last five years as a defender with I-I. In infiltration, like in 2014, they were the number one ranked infiltration source based on the size of the system. So

▶ 2:15:28 Speaker 9: there's numerous advantages to doing an I-I removal program. Obviously, you'll increase your pipe capacities the pump stations will improve there will be fewer surcharging fewer flooding opportunities and you'll ultimately start to reduce your operation and maintenance costs and lower the wastewater treatment and transportation costs to mwra so historically over the years

▶ 2:15:53 Speaker 9: melrose has been ongoing has been proactive and working on things back in 2003 i believe when we started this the Lebanon Street job we worked on in 2006 the Upham Street pump station tributary was worked on and they've done Alpon drainage improvements in the ward two Fellsway pump station tributary so the city has been proactive over the years and just because the rankings that I showed in the previous slides it's not an indication of how the system is being operated it's just basically a testament on the age of the system as the system gets continuously older the more problems come up and so again in 2003 the Lebanon Street in 2005 there was an II project another one in 2007 and 9 and then this past year we focused up near the pump the Upham Street pump station so since about 2003 we've the city has spent over seven and a half million dollars through the MWRA program and other funding sources on the system what this shows is Laurel Street up in what's called sub area 22 the city has all been divided into various sub areas for our analysis and this is cracks and holes in the pipe basically where infiltration can come in and these were pre rehabilitation photos this in 2014 2015 where we looked at this area afterwards what we installed was a basically a manhole the manhole liner that lent the entire length of the pipe and helps to seal up the cracks secure the joints so now you have one continuous liner from the manhole to manholes to eliminate the sources of

▶ 2:17:33 Speaker 9: infiltration coming in and then another problem that you have in the sewers is heavy roots and these are all pictures taken from melrose sewers up in the 21 22 area up near the upland street pump station and those get removed as well but either cut out or chemically treated so at this point i'd like to turn over to elena and she'll finish the presentation okay thank you john

▶ 2:17:56 Speaker 5: So I'm going to go over what we've just been doing with the 2016 flow monitoring program. I've mentioned it at a couple of previous meetings, so hopefully it won't be too repetitive from what we've discussed before, but we now have a lot more data than we had the first time that I presented this information. So we conducted flow metering over a 10-week period, and we installed 29 flow meters. It was supposed to be 30, but one of the locations we weren't able to put the meter in. And they gather data every 15 minutes for the whole 10-week period. And the purpose is to gather data on not just I&I, but you get the flows going, the entire flow going through the pipe, so wastewater plus infiltration plus inflow.

▶ 2:18:44 Speaker 5: For each subarea, the meters gathered the data of the gallons per day, and then we calculated from the GIS mapping the total length of sewers, the total inch miles of sewers to do that other calculation that John mentioned, and then the peak infiltration and the peak inflow for each of the individual subareas.

▶ 2:19:09 Speaker 5: results based on infiltration so DEP has a threshold that they consider anything above this threshold to be cost-effectively able to be removed and that's 4,000 gallons per day per inch diameter mile so the city as a whole was over the 4,000 it was roughly 6600 GPD IM the maximum infiltration we saw in any of the sub areas was 16,000 which is really excessive I mean it's four times what DEP calls excessive so that's higher that's amongst the highest I've ever seen doing I&I analysis and then the minimum was 600 which is what more in line with what you really ideally want to see so over 70% of the city's metered sub areas ended up in that excessive category and this slide shows

▶ 2:20:05 Speaker 5: all the sub areas it's a little hard to see but it shows all the sub areas ranked in order for those who might have seen the data we present did this draft presentation at the Water and Sewer Committee meeting and we did refine the data further since that meeting so I know Mary Beth and Scott at a minimum both had that information so the sub area rankings have changed a little bit from that table based on further data analysis and scrubbing the data a little bit and determining which data was really usable and you know with with electronic equipment there's sometimes some data that's not usable so that's where we are this shows the sub areas that were over that were included in that the 4,000 gallons per day is where the line was drawn on the table and the pink areas are all the areas that fell above the line in the infiltration table and then moving on to inflow so just to reiterate infiltration is when the groundwater comes up and seeps into the pipes through cracks and leaks and separated joints whereas inflow is rainfall induced so it's either water that gets in right when it's raining or it's water that gets in through sump pumps or roof leaders or connections between the drainage system and the sewer system that shouldn't be there which sometimes does happen so the peak inflow was 18 million gallons per day and that's system-wide the max peak

▶ 2:21:43 Speaker 5: inflow in one of the sub areas was for mgd and the minimum was 0.33 so dep has a different metric than for inflow than they do for infiltration for the infiltration we had the 4 000 gallons per day per idm for inflow it's whatever comprises 80 of the storm flow that's making it into the sewer during a storm that's considered excessive so this line is drawn at that 80 threshold so you see about half of the city falls above it and about half falls below so using the

▶ 2:22:20 Speaker 5: top areas in both of the tables infiltration and inflow Weston Sampson made a collective ranking where we looked at what are the worst areas for both because ideally if we're going to go into an area and spend a lot of money doing further investigations to find where the problems are we want to tackle both infiltration and info at the same time so we wanted to hit the areas where we get the best bang for our buck for both infiltration and inflow so these are the five top ranked areas that we're going to be targeting first and I made a

▶ 2:22:55 Speaker 5: graph of this is the flow metering data for just a one month period for those top five areas and I did this just to illustrate what this this real in-depth data gives us so the light blue spikes are rainfall events and so every day you see flow in each sub area you see flow go up and down that's people you're using the shower in the morning and then going to sleep at night and the flow drops down if none of this was infiltration or inflow those peaks would go down practically to nothing every night so these areas that are considered high infiltration and inflow you see that none of them come down to zero overnight in fact the orange one that's at the top comes down to 400,000 gallons per day roughly at night and that's just from one sub area so that's a lot of water getting in and then on the inflow end so that's the infiltration end on

▶ 2:23:54 Speaker 5: the inflow end can we go back one when you see a spike and you see the flow shoot up what you see in all five of these areas mostly in the top area that's inflow so that's a huge increase the minute it rains the flow starts coming in and so sometimes that could be just one source or it could be just a handful of sources or it could be some pumps in 500 people's basements so some work needs to be done to figure out what the sources are and then on the next slide these were just the five lowest areas and I just plotted them for comparison purposes and you can see that the wastewater and the scale is different so here we're at less than 50,000 gallons per day all of them are going down roughly to 25,000 gallons or less at nighttime and that's typical I mean people do still use water at night but it's a lot less and it it should look like this in a well-run non-leaky system so what we're proposing to do is

▶ 2:24:57 Speaker 5: to use DEP's sewer system evaluation study approach called SSCS it's actually required by DEP they're now for a new regulation new state regulation they're requiring systems to submit what they're doing using their approach every year starting in 2017 so we'll be ready for that when it comes and we'll be doing particular investigations ideally in the spring when the groundwater is the highest and rains the highest to find where the actual sources are within these sub areas so we'll only be looking in the five areas that we've selected and we'll be doing these different methodologies of trying to find where the where the water is coming in and then following that we'll analyze more data from those those investigations and then we'll be designing the actual rehab and then bidding and awarding and overseeing the actual rehab construction

▶ 2:26:03 Speaker 5: component so they're depending on what we find there are a lot of different approaches to fixing systems we've put a range of $25 to $100 per foot and this is all assuming trenchless technologies so excavation and replacement would be more on the order of $200 a foot but that involves tearing up streets and a lot of disturbance and there's really not a reason to do that because the majority of infiltration and inflow issues can be fixed with a trenchless methodology so that's things like pipelining you can either go in and line a whole system and that's more like $100 a foot you can spot repair individual problems as you find them and that's more on the $25 a foot range so the approximation for the entire city to fix all the INI is 10 to 40 million depending on which approach is used but that's citywide and we're really just going to focus our program right now on those five areas so what we have available from MWRI now is 2.162 million it's divided into two phases which just means that we we can ask the authority for the first phase money right up front and then once they've distributed half of that they'll give us the next phase money um but that's more just sort of uh background details of what we'll be doing working with the mwra but what we have available to members right now is the full 2.162 million um and their program right now is 75 grant and 25 loan which is a terrific deal and you'll hear me say this over and over again but it's our money the mwra doesn't get funded in any manner other than the rate payers and the the member communities funding the authority and so when they have these loan and grant programs it's our money coming back to us and if we don't use it other communities are essentially using our money so i feel like it's it makes good sense to use everything we have available through this program and especially when we only have to pay back 25 of it at a zero percent interest rate so the 10-year payback um we're proposing to fund this uh with a level payment each year so it's fifty four thousand fifty dollars that we would owe um as the loan repayment each year effective starting in fiscal year eighteen um the current sewer debt is 572 000 and the debt proposed for next year is six hundred and five thousand and the reason why that's not adding the full 54 000 is that roughly 20 000 of debt is falling off the debt schedule in the sewer fund between this year and next year so we take advantage of that a little bit as well

▶ 2:28:53 Speaker 5: um i'm sorry could you just repeat that again sure so the current sewer debt this is only in the sewer enterprise fund is 572 000 the proposed debt for next year is 605 000 and the reason why it's not just 572 plus 54 000 of new debt is that some of our old borrowing is falling off the debt repayment schedule and that's a 20 000 or so differential and then actually in 2020 there's a hundred and seventeen thousand dollar debt payment that's gonna drop off the sewer um the sewer fund so that may be the next logical time to to have another big increase the 54 000 isn't much but to have another 117 000 becoming available to maintain the same sewer rate from a debt perspective we should probably take advantage of that so i performed a quick break-even analysis using the mwra's assessment methodology they gave us a detailed spreadsheet as to how they come up with our assessment and it's based on a combination of average daily flows and then peak month flows and then loads but our loads are pretty much just standard wastewater so that doesn't impact ours so much and I came up with if we remove 75,000 gallons per day then we gain our assessment goes down by roughly 54,000 so with just 75,000 gallons per day removed we break even and once we take that 75,000 gallons out it stays out so that so one time removal 75 000 makes the entire loan repayment break even for perspective the 2014 project removed 132 000 gallons per day and that wasn't even in our highest worst offending area so i'm hoping that by targeting the worst offending areas we can even hopefully beat that number by a little bit and actually be saving money over the long run and sub area 7 which we've said is the worst is estimated to have 370 000 gallons per day of infiltration so even if we can get half of that which is considered a reasonable target we'd be doing pretty well so this table just shows the

▶ 2:31:09 Speaker 5: the five top sub areas how many feet of pipe there is in each sub area and then the cost per foot using that range of the 25 to 100 per foot and the cost column shows the cost per project and then the cumulative cost is if we were to do one sub area time and go through the whole program so we're looking at 2.1 million cumulatively to use the less expensive but less thorough repair approach which may be appropriate in some areas but not others and then 8.6 million if we were to really hit all these areas and in line the whole system so that so the 2.162 that we're asking

▶ 2:31:52 Speaker 5: for tonight is really the beginning of the program, not intended to be the entire program. And why act now? Nearly 60% of our flow that we pay MWRA for is not wastewater, it's I&I. We've been between about 55 and 59% consistently for the last several years. And MWRA doesn't care whether it's extraneous flow or wastewater flow, either way, they have to pump it, they have to treat it at Deer Island. they need to spend money to to handle it so they need to charge us for it our wastewater system is only getting older and so the problems will only get worse and if our neighboring communities are moving at the same rate that we are then we're not going to be able to take advantage of the savings so we need to be more aggressive than the other mwi communities and while i and i can never completely be removed we can certainly help help control it and counter rate increases in the future.

▶ 2:33:00 Peter D. Mortimer: President Kahn, please.

▶ 2:33:02 Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm glad we're attacking this issue and trying to find the source of the problem. This is by far and large the biggest single problem with water and sewer. This is why we have problems with water and sewer rates. We're a built out community with an old system. This is the easiest vote we could ever make. We've all had hours and hours and hours of discussions about this issue. We need to get the I&I out of our system. We need to support this. We can kick this around for three hours, but I'm in favor of this order. I hope to be around long enough and live long enough to see some impact on our water rates as a result of these I&I programs. And I understand it sometimes seems counterintuitive to the public that we're trying to spend money to save money. But we have to do this, and I move to recommend this order, and I'm going to support it.

▶ 2:34:06 Peter D. Mortimer: President Kahn has made a motion to recommend this order for passage. Said motion was duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. On further discussion, we have first in queue Alderman Lemmerman, followed by Alderman Zwirko, and I see Alderman Medeiros.

▶ 2:34:22 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for this presentation. Just one question on the financing, and I'm sorry if I missed this or misunderstood this. Is it a requirement to get the grant that we fund the balance through the loan?

▶ 2:34:37 Speaker 5: Yes. It is? Yeah, you have to take the full amount, and then you get the 75, 25 percent.

▶ 2:34:43 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: So in order to get that 75 percent of the cost of the project, we have to borrow the other 25 percent, right?

▶ 2:34:49 Speaker 4: It's a percentage of whatever you borrow.

▶ 2:34:51 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Absolutely.

▶ 2:34:52 Speaker 5: Yeah, so we could borrow any amount up to that $2.162 million in a week.

▶ 2:34:57 Speaker 3: Insidious nature of the MWRA at work.

▶ 2:35:00 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:35:02 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Levin. Alderman Suarco, please.

▶ 2:35:05 Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:35:09 Michael P. Zwirko: I want to build off the question and comment that was just raised. So, that 25%, that's interest free. I don't know any other way to explain it other than there's no cost in addition to the payment itself. So it's a pretty good deal, doesn't generally happen quite often.

▶ 2:35:30 Speaker 9: And I also, correct me if I'm wrong, you are representative for the advisory board? Yes. You are?

▶ 2:35:35 Michael P. Zwirko: Okay, I thought so. I noticed also that, and it ties into this program too, but there's currently some grants that they've advertised, and I think it has to do with lead piping. So if you could just kind of keep your eye on the offerings from the MWRA, it might not applicable to us i mean i follow what they wait what they publish so i wanted to bring it up tonight but you know just keep your eye on things like that in the event that we can benefit from them because as you said this is our money and a lot of times they offer some great deals not only in the form of grants but also interest-free loans so um you know we're directly benefiting from that also i just wanted to make a comment um what you stated earlier we did see this before in the spring um and at the time i know we had just started the program so it's kind of nice even in a short period of time to see that we're you know attacking this immediately so it's it's it's greatly appreciated and um you know i think this this board always appreciates some nice graphs so um it's really all that i had i i don't really have too much to say but it's nice to see that um we're taking our the biggest pain points first so thank you very much mr chairman thank you waldemar oh sorry just one other please we did receive correspondence uh today forwarded from the clerk i would like to see that that correspondence be attached to this order

▶ 2:36:51 Peter D. Mortimer: upon passage thank you very good thank you sir alderman Medeiros thank you yes

▶ 2:36:54 Monica C. Medeiros: I have to say I'm pleased to see that we're going to do this I think it's obviously obvious that it's needed you don't want to be in the lots of lists we like to be at the top of but it's not not the list with the MWRA in terms of influence infiltration so whatever we can do to improve that it's obvious it's hard to see exactly what's underneath the ground and you know I I understand that Melrose is actually one of the oldest sewer systems public sewer systems in in the state so we do have quite a lot of aging pipes and those beautiful trees that spread those roots in there this what we're voting on today we've talked about spending we've talked about spending 2.1 million dollars what we're voting on today is to bond not 2.1 million dollars but to bond five hundred and forty thousand five hundred dollars so that would be our share of the that

▶ 2:38:00 Speaker 5: cost with the zero right that's the 25% I just want to make that clear because I

▶ 2:38:03 Monica C. Medeiros: think it could pass and just to say can't wait so thank you Thank You

▶ 2:38:15 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman Medeiros alderman Forbes please Thank You mr. chairman I know we're

▶ 2:38:21 Scott M. Forbes: talking about bonding the five hundred and forty thousand but is there a reason why we wouldn't take this out of the out of the reserve accounts miss Delarue so if you could maybe come and answer that question for us so I think it last count i think we have about nine hundred thousand dollars between water and sewer built up in these reserve accounts and at a fifty four thousand dollar payment per year if we were still contributing towards those accounts on an annual basis like we're projected to i just want to get your input as to why we wouldn't go that route instead of going to bond sure that's a great

▶ 2:38:56 Speaker 3: Good question, this is a SOAR obligation on the SOAR side. And we have 493,763.93 in the reserve for retained earnings for SOAR. We're still in the middle of our program, our five year program. So first we haven't hit our 10% of reserves. Anything we take from here to apply to the programs is going to have to be made up for next year's rate.

▶ 2:39:26 Speaker 3: So to make up for the money we took from the reserve, now we have to restore it. And really the most important thing at the end of the day is that because of the nature of the payback, where the 54,000 is two-fold. First, there's no interest, and second, the payback is so quick that it's really advantageous absorb it over the 10 years within the fund and as was mentioned earlier we have an opportunity and I think it's in 2020 with debt actually rolls off so it's almost going to be like a negated effect so for all those reasons it's

▶ 2:40:05 Scott M. Forbes: advantageous to take this approach okay and we're in year four I believe is that percent out of the five-year commitment are we heading into year four I believe

▶ 2:40:13 Speaker 3: yeah exactly didn't year four and you know fortunately we're hopefully we can reach our goal again as a result of the past year's operation our target and then we have one more year after that and then that obligation wouldn't be needed to be raised any longer at least not at that amount as a reserve on the rate so we'll minimize that to the extent possible so that's a win too

▶ 2:40:39 Scott M. Forbes: that's a win too sure well I guess there'll be time to consider that since We're looking at a $10 to $40 million project down the road.

▶ 2:40:45 Speaker 3: Absolutely.

▶ 2:40:46 Scott M. Forbes: I agree with President Kahn. I mean, this is something that has to be done. We can build from the ground up as much as we want, but if we don't take care of what's underneath the ground, then that really doesn't serve much of a purpose. So this is definitely a decision, I think, that everyone will agree on and that we'll be able to move forward. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:41:06 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much. Alderman Boyce, help, please.

▶ 2:41:10 Robert A. Boisselle: You identified in your study five areas are targeted to be first. Do you identify sub-area seven and sub-area three? Where is that in? Sure. Melrose.

▶ 2:41:26 Speaker 5: Matthew.

▶ 2:41:32 Speaker 5: So, sub-area seven is over in this area, which is, I believe, Washington Street. Yeah, Washington Street as it heads towards the Fellsway in Stoneham. just over the stonem line and heading down towards the malden line ending here and then sub area three

▶ 2:41:56 Speaker 5: is yeah it's right in here just trying to see the street names

▶ 2:42:02 Speaker 9: i have a whole breakdown of all the sub areas by every street

▶ 2:42:08 Speaker 5: street names aren't all on the map so i see glen road but charles street cypress park

▶ 2:42:17 Speaker 9: Dyer, Avenue, Glen Road, Lindfels Parkway, North Cedar, Oakland, Otis, Pilgrim, Pine, Poplar, that area. Okay. This is some area three.

▶ 2:42:25 Speaker 2: Is it possible that we could have a copy of the sub-stations? We could forward that.

▶ 2:42:31 Speaker 3: Yes.

▶ 2:42:31 Speaker 2: That would be great.

▶ 2:42:32 Robert A. Boisselle: Sure. Or did you want to put that online with the rest of the information? We'll forward it to the clerk. Just put it on the package.

▶ 2:42:42 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Boyce. Seeing no further discussion, President Connors made a motion to recommend this order for passage to the full board. Said motion was duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, this order will be recommended to the full board for passage at our next full board meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. Motion to adjourn.