APPRO-2025-20 : An Appropriation from Free Cash(account 01-324001) in the amount of $175,000 to DPW Admin (#401) for Lebanon and Sylvan Street Stormwater Project.

Transcript (~18 min @ 1:18:23)

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

▶ 1:18:18 Mark Garipay: Will be recommended to the full council. Thank you, Ms. Lata. Thank you, Julian. I, next up we have ID 1, 2, 6, 3, 7. And appropriation from free cash account zero one dash 3 2 4 0 0 1 in the amount of 175,000 to DPW admin for Lebanon in Sylvan Street Stormwater Project, we have Ms. Proac Ellis and Mr.

▶ 1:18:48 Speaker 5: Troop with us for the foreseeable future.

▶ 1:18:50 Speaker 9: Thank you. Um, so I'll give a little bit of background on this project. Um, back in, well, back when I started around 2015, this, uh, the Lebanon Sylvan intersection and the associated drainage that floods during pretty low volume storms, um, floods routinely and also floods into the cemetery. The drainage goes through the cemetery out to and outfall that's right on the Pine Banks and cemetery, uh, border. Um, it has been one of the most significant flooding concerns that the city's had in the entire time I've worked here. We applied for FEMA grants two different times for this project. MEMA was very much in support of funding it, but FEMA ultimately denied it after about a three year process, um, application process. We then submitted it for an earmark, a federal earmark, um, about a year and a half ago. And it got approved. In the meantime, back probably five years ago, we requested $129,000 to get the design started when we thought that the, when we were in one of the approval processes for that FEMA grant, and we thought we would get the grant awarded if we did a little bit more design work. Um, so we got 129,000 and we've been working with a consultant, um, on some preliminary design and modeling and such for that. Um, for that project, we've now been awarded the million dollars of congressionally directed spending. Um, and provided that nothing changes on the federal level, we require the additional 175,000 to meet our, uh, match component. There's a small component also of in-kind services, but the 175,000 is the remaining match component for the city. Um, the design work is going well, and I guess, and oh, just to be clear, the million dollars, it only can fund the investigatory and design work, bringing it all the way up to biddable plans. But it can't fund based on the way the earmark was written. It cannot fund, um, construction. But the goal of this is to have a completely biddable project at the end of the day that we can then resubmit for grant funding with FEMA and hopefully get it the fact that they opted to fund the, um, the design work through the, uh, earmark process. But it also still goes through fema. Um, we're hoping means that we can come out in the end with a project that FEMA approves of that meets their criteria for benefit cost ratio. And then hopefully we can get construction funding down the road. Um, but if anything changes on the federal level with this, um, with the congressionally directed spending, we would just continue to spend the 175,000 on the design. Um, we wouldn't be able to complete the design, but we would just move the project that much farther forward. I think this is a critical project that we need to be putting money into, whether we have the million dollars or not. So, um, I would recommend that we move forward despite the uncertainty on the federal level, but we are hoping that since this was an already approved project, um, that we, that our funding hopefully is secure.

▶ 1:22:11 Mark Garipay: Councilor Romanul and then Councilor Williams.

▶ 1:22:13 Devin Romanul: Um, thanks so much for bringing this to us. I can just share with my colleagues. This is the number one intersection for me for constituent service, um, inquiries, complaints, and, um, so I'm very enthusiastic. I think I've lost a recycling bin to the water going down the hill. I'm just a few blocks away. Um, two quick questions. Uh, I wanted to ask about a timeline for the proposal, ultimately to be able to have a biddable project, number one. Number two, is there any interplay to the TIP project that is, that is looming on Lebanon Street?

▶ 1:22:45 Speaker 9: Yeah, those are both great questions. Um, timeline wise, I would say the design will take about a year. Um, and then ideally we would be eligible. We also need to finish our hazard mitigation plan update to be eligible for FEMA funding. And we're doing that right now. That will be done within the year timeframe too. So hopefully in about a year we'll have a, a, a project to resubmit to fema. Great. Mm-hmm. Um, regarding the relationship with the TIP project, the work, most of the work won't be in the actual intersection, but I do anticipate that there'll be some regrading in the intersection, and that's critical to factor that into the design of the TIP project. Great.

▶ 1:23:23 Speaker 4: Thanks so much. Yeah. So Council Williams,

▶ 1:23:29 Ryan Williams: Sort of a similar, so similar vein. Um, so FEMA has sent us this money, or it's an escrow or something? No. Okay.

▶ 1:23:40 Speaker 9: Um, so we presently have two FEMA projects. Yeah. The, the other one is the brick grant project. Mm-hmm. They're both reimbursable projects. Okay. But in terms of the Brick grant, the money has been sent from FEMA to mema and MEMA administers the grant to us. Um, and we got a letter the other day saying that that one was secure, and that was the one that we thought was, was at the time, more at risk because the whole brick program has been pulled from FEMA completely. Mm-hmm. Um, so any project that wasn't already secured and underway got their money definitely pulled from the brick program. Um, this is through the hazard mitigation program that is a little less sort of politically charged, but that doesn't mean it won't get pulled. Right. So, yeah, it's really hard to tell. Um, but, but we don't have a signed contract on that one yet, so it does put it at greater risk in that regard.

▶ 1:24:36 Ryan Williams: Okay. So we give $175,000 and that we take that and we say to the feds, we have this money for the match, can you please send us the million dollars? Right. Okay. So,

▶ 1:24:49 Speaker 9: Well, it's still reimbursable though. Can you please send fema, uh, send MEMA the million dollars? Right. Yeah. And the state will give it to us as we spend. Got

▶ 1:24:57 Ryan Williams: It. Okay. So, you know, in, in the, um, potential outcome where fema, there's no one left at FEMA maybe to answer the phones, and they just never send it to mema, this $175,000 that could not go to use for this purpose goes where, or what happens to

▶ 1:25:14 Speaker 9: It, it still gets spent toward design of this problem. Okay. It just doesn't have the benefit of the additional million dollars to complete the Design. That's a lot. That's

▶ 1:25:22 Ryan Williams: a, that's like a, a million versus $175,000. What kind of design could you do for $175,000 that, that, like where does the extra million

▶ 1:25:34 Speaker 9: Go? So, from what we've done so far, um, we had been hopeful that our initial design would be considered a full solution, which is upsizing the pipes through the cemetery, running them in a better location. Right now, they run under the dog park, so we can't even access, we can access the manholes, but we, we can't dig through the dog park to put in new pipes. So we were gonna relocate them to the road and upsize them. Um, that will solve a portion of the problem. But I guess the, the modeling has shown that that's really not the ideal solution. My impression from our most recent meeting with the consultant is we're gonna have to be looking at sort of a multi-pronged solution to this problem. Um, we will still have to upsize those pipes. We'll have to put in probably a new outfall. We'll probably have to dredge some down the, um, the stream that it enters as it leaves Melrose and goes into Malden. Um, we might have to do some other downstream improvements in Malden. This is technically a joint project because it's required to be, um, because we have to look at downstream impacts. We may end up wanting to do something to, to redirect some of the drainage toward Main Street at Sylvan. Um, there's a separate drainage system that goes in that direction to spot Pond Brook that might be offsetting part of it. There's a drainage basin in the cemetery. We may want to do something to enhance that, give it more storage capacity. So there's all these little projects. So perhaps we, we pick the most significant, uh, beneficial project of the many projects and we just advance that design and try to construct that one. Um, but yeah, there are a lot of unknowns still as, as the modeling continues before we can really answer that question.

▶ 1:27:22 Ryan Williams: So, so this is a, this is a stormwater capacity and storage potentially project that goes between Melrose and Malden under the cemetery into Pine Banks Park, connects to, uh, spot Pond or something, or spot on Brook or something else?

▶ 1:27:37 Speaker 9: Yeah. Farther downstream. It connects to, it may even be Malden River By the time it connects. Wow.

▶ 1:27:41 Speaker 6: Yeah. Um, okay.

▶ 1:27:44 Ryan Williams: And with the tip, you could regrade the intersection if you had the right Yes. Specs.

▶ 1:27:50 Speaker 9: Yes. So you can certainly regrade the intersection Yeah. To make it higher. But that's not gonna solve, right. That's not gonna solve funding problem because it's just, it's too extensive to solve just by raising the road.

▶ 1:28:04 Ryan Williams: Okay. Well it's good that you've got a couple of things to pull from, from this. 'cause tip is 2028, it's in 26 30 right now.

▶ 1:28:12 Speaker 9: Provided that we can fund the remaining, the 25 to a hundred percent design. So we've funded the 25% design. Right. We're looking at over 900,000 to fund the remainder of the design. Okay. Um, we're hoping to take bits and pieces of Chapter 90 and such when we have, if we have anything left over. Um, but we're gonna have to at some point figure out where that money's gonna come from.

▶ 1:28:36 Speaker 6: Okay. Alright. No more questions for me. Thank you

▶ 1:28:39 Speaker 5: Councilor Ro?

▶ 1:28:41 Cal Finocchiaro: Yes. Um, thank you. And thank you for being here. I just have one follow up question. So, just to clarify, um, if we approve the $175,000, you submitted the request for a million dollar grant, that was for what? For whatever reason we, we didn't get it. You were saying that you would We could use that 175,000 towards other smaller projects in the city.

▶ 1:29:04 Speaker 9: We would still use it toward the drainage issue at Lebanon and Sylvan. Okay. We would just continue to advance the modeling and the design as far as we could with the money that we have. We haven't even completed spending the 129,000 that we had. Okay. We've been working very slowly on it because we've been kind of holding back. We didn't want to go too far if we weren't gonna get any more money. Um, but yeah, we would, we would advance as much of the design as we could. Okay. And with a lot of these grant projects, not just through FEMA but through the state's, um, MVP, the municipal vulnerability, uh, preparedness program, um, a lot of these grant opportunities, they like designed projects, they like shovel ready projects. So if we can get something shovel ready, if we don't get the million dollars we would apply for other grants.

▶ 1:29:54 Cal Finocchiaro: Yeah. Because it's obviously not a small chunk of money. So, um, I would just wanna make sure that we could do something with it. And I mean, do you think that we would be able to get the million dollar grant? Like just knowing

▶ 1:30:09 Speaker 9: I Previous, I Think we're, we're fairly well positioned for it. Mm-hmm. And MEMA definitely wants us to get this money. Mm-hmm. Um, but we really can't control what happens on the federal level. Mm-hmm. If they pull the entire hazard mitigation program, all the money that hasn't been allocated from it, then, you know, we have really no recourse for that. But if we're set up with, with the design,

▶ 1:30:31 Cal Finocchiaro: I'm saying No, no, you answered my question. I'm sorry. I'm just following up with that. If, if we're set up with 175,000 design maybe a year from now or whenever, could you reapply with the design?

▶ 1:30:44 Speaker 5: Yes. Okay. Thank you Council Stewart.

▶ 1:30:46 Speaker 4: Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, so I'm just thinking about this.

▶ 1:30:53 Robb Stewart: If we didn't do anything right, I mean, this is a lot of money that we're spending on moving water on, right? So, if we didn't do anything, what is the cost of managing the current SI situation, like on a yearly basis? What d what does the DPW have to spend to deal with the current situation?

▶ 1:31:10 Speaker 9: So the money the DPW spends to deal with the current situation is not substantial enough to offset the cost of this project. For sure. 'cause we had gone through the cost benefit analysis the first time we submitted to fema, and we did find that there was cost benefit, but it's mainly in prevention of private property damage. Um, damage to cars driving through it, damage to the, especially the six or so homes that are in the vicinity. I actually had to go to gather the information for fema. I had to meet with the homeowners in each of those homes. I gathered pictures of their flooded basements. Um, excuse me. When the road floods, it actually gets into the sewer system as well. And these folks get sewer backups into their homes. Um, we do end up paying out some insurance claims for those. Um, so I would assume it affects our insurance rates. Um, so the cost directly to the city is not, doesn't get offset by doing the project. But, um, the cost to the, the property owners and the city combined is we determined originally that it has a cost benefit. We'd have to go through that whole exercise again, um, once we complete the design, if we were gonna apply for more FEMA grants.

▶ 1:32:25 Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah.

▶ 1:32:27 Robb Stewart: I mean, I, I I get it because, and you're dealing with people that are struggling with a terrible situation. Um, how many, how many residents are impacted by

▶ 1:32:36 Speaker 9: This? So the immediate impacted area is about six homes that routinely flood. And then the, the broader area. I wanna say we had estimated there were about 20 to 30 homes that were in a potential flooding area for a larger storm.

▶ 1:32:55 Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

▶ 1:32:58 Speaker 5: Anyone else? Anyone else?

▶ 1:33:00 Mark Garipay: Um, just a couple quick questions. Um, if anyone's been down there during a flood, I grew up, down that we're not talking inches, we're talking feet over the wall into the cemetery, all the graves. Um, so it, it does get, does get pretty bad. But, uh, if you would've raise that intersection without, grade it up without doing this project, where's that water gonna go? Would it go, would it flow into the cemetery more? Yeah.

▶ 1:33:27 Speaker 9: Yeah. I mean, it's, it's a simple volume for volume change, right? If you, if you take up X number of cubic feet by raising the road, that number of cubic feet of water that used to sit in that spot will just disperse elsewhere around.

▶ 1:33:42 Mark Garipay: And so it would be the intersection of Sylvan going through the cemetery, connecting in to pine banks potentially is what the original FEMA grant was. Right? Yeah. Um, didn't we already do work? Uh, this was probably right maybe when you, when you started, but in like 1516, didn't, didn't we already do the row? Uh, the piping underneath the cemetery,

▶ 1:34:04 Speaker 9: A little bit of piping was done. There was one section that was, uh, upsized to I think a 24 inch. But we're talking about like 48 inch plus for the end section, um, down to the outfall that would have to be installed at a minimum to really address the issue. So yeah, something was upsized, it must have been deteriorating, was just before I started. Um, we also did, right when I started, we did a bunch of exploratory work. We tried to clean all those pipes, we tried to TV inspect them. Um, we did the little project at the end of Fairfield, which was another issue, another water issue. Um, that was all with the same consultant. But yeah, we, we never solved the intersection flooding issue.

▶ 1:34:45 Mark Garipay: So would we have to replace all the pipes that from Sylvan to the connection? Is that what I'm hearing? Or would we keep the new ones, the 24 inches that we,

▶ 1:34:56 Speaker 9: I think we would leave the pipes that we've already upsized, but I, I'm not certain. But our original proposal was to leave the ones we already upsized and then to upsize further from there. 'cause there's another, there are two sections of drainage that come together in the cemetery. And we were going to, that 24 is upstream of that. Why were they joined together? We were gonna replace everything from that point down to the outfall originally. Mm-hmm. But again, um, it all depends on the modeling work.

▶ 1:35:23 Speaker 5: Alright. Um, that's, that's all I had. We Okay. Talk about this wrong, um, counsel remind,

▶ 1:35:32 Speaker 9: Motion to recommend. Second.

▶ 1:35:34 Mark Garipay: Gonna recommend by Councilor Romanul seconded by Council Ro on discussion.

▶ 1:35:41 Speaker 5: Roll call. Vote please.

▶ 1:35:45 Speaker 1: Vice Chair Jamine? Yes. Councilor Occhio? Yes. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty. Yes. Cremsky? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Re? Yes. Chair Gar? Yes. Motion passes