Transfer of the land and building previously used for the Beebe School, located at 263 West Foster Street in Melrose, MA, to the care, custody and control of the Mayor to be used for general municipal purposes.

Transcript (~59 min @ 1:26:15)

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

▶ 1:26:03 Mark Garipay: This will get recommended to the city Council next. Thank you. Next week. Uh, last up is ID 1, 2, 3 2 9. The transfer of the land and building previously used for the BB school. Located at 2 63 West Foster Street in Melrose, mass to the care, custody and control of the mayor to be used for general municipal purposes.

▶ 1:26:27 Speaker 6: Miss City Solicitor, thank you for being

▶ 1:26:28 Speaker 8: Here. Good evening. So I'm here tonight to speak to the, um, legal request that this order is bringing before council. Um, the order before you, as it mentions, is a request from the mayor, um, that the land and building previously used for the BB school located at 2 63 West Foster, um, be transferred to the Mayor's care, custody and control to be used for general municipal purposes. So, as, uh, this council may know this is the final step in the process that's been underway for a number of months, um, in which the school committees previously voted, um, that this pro this property is no longer needed for the specif, the specific purpose, um, of educational purposes. Uh, so there was multiple school committee meetings in the fall, um, and they took two votes declaring that. Um, so under the law, the next step is the school committee chair sends that notification to council, which, um, chair Driscoll did. It's, it's attached to this order, uh, in the packet that council should have received, um, that this vote was taken. And now the next step is for city council to reassign this building. Uh, so the school committee has determined it's no longer needed for educational purposes, for all the reasons they provided at their meeting, um, multiple meetings. Um, and now it's up to council to reassign in order for the building to be able to used for any other municipal purpose. So the request before you, as I mentioned, um, the mayor's requesting it be assigned to general municipal purpose. Um, under the law, the required vote, um, uh, to declare this building is no longer needed for educational purposes, as I mentioned, has already been taken. Um, now a vote of the city council is necessary in order to reassign it. And it not in this committee, but when it gets to full council, it would require two thirds vote of City Council to pass. Um, so I'm happy to answer any additional legal questions council may have on the request before you

▶ 1:28:08 Speaker 6: Council Stewart?

▶ 1:28:09 Robb Stewart: Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. I just as the Ward three City counselor, uh, I have been speaking with several of the abutters and neighbors of the Considered area. Um, uh, Mr. Frank Wright reached out to me earlier today. Um, he wanted to indicate that he does support the neighborhood group effort, uh, some of which we heard this evening, including as relates to the design and the size of the proposed building. He looks forward to the administration working with this neighborhood group, uh, to see that the building works for both the neighborhood and the police department. Um, I've also been speaking with, uh, Ms. Cowell, who is, uh, the designated neighborhood resident that is on the working committee. Uh, and she appreciated the positive interaction that she had with, uh, Ms. Denise Gaffey. Um, and I do want to express my gratitude to Ms. Gaffey, uh, for considering and opening the discussion, uh, particularly this past week, uh, of the neighborhood, and continuing to work with Ms. Koal to address the concerns brought forth. Um, the, um, the, the question that came before us, uh, that, that I've seen is that, um, there's real concern about the budget, which I do have. Um, the budget as last presented as I've seen, was, uh, from the previous administration and to hold to the $130 million. I think there needs to be a reexamination of all four buildings. Um, yet, uh, the budget and this order, in my view, are two separate and distinct things to continue the process forward and to engage in that conversation about the budget that the council is responsible for. Mr. Chair. Um, I think it's important that we look and s and segregate those two items, um, as this is the vote that we have this evening, as I understand it, is that we are asked simply to transfer the building, that there's no design considerations, there's no budgetary considerations. It is just a simple transfer from one part of the administration to another. And so, um, while I am, um, very interested in supporting my constituency on the budget and some of the questions that they have, um, I don't believe that, uh, for tonight's effort, that is the discussion we that we get into budgetary. 'cause it's not part of this order.

▶ 1:30:38 Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

▶ 1:30:39 Mark Garipay: You. Um, that's, that's my understanding. But, um, Ms. Solicitor, if you could just confirm that that's correct for, for the fellow counsel so we know what we're

▶ 1:30:49 Speaker 8: That's correct. This, this, um, request tonight is simply a transfer from, uh, the school committee's custody control and care to the mayors, uh, to, for the building and the land to be used for general municipal purposes.

▶ 1:31:00 Mark Garipay: Okay. Thank you. Uh, council Jamal,

▶ 1:31:02 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Um, thank you for being with us tonight. I truly appreciate that. And, um, how, what would happen if we hold a transparent demand?

▶ 1:31:16 Speaker 8: Um, so it's within council's purview. I can't say, I can't speak to the project specifically. No, we are, if that's a question. Yes. Um, but as far as under the statute, counsel, just at any time after receiving this letter can take a vote to basically reassign. So until council votes to reassign the building can't be used for any city purpose. And, and the school committee has now indicated they have no use for it. Um, so as of right now, it is still be u this is still being used as the temporary library space, um, until the library construction is finished, is my understanding.

▶ 1:31:49 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. So to be clear and more, um, concise with my question, so if we say, if I would, you know, we make the decision to hold from transferring the land. Okay. Um, what are the, um, you know, like the results or the outcome or impact of that? Uh, in terms of, um, uh, the actual expenses for the building, uh, what is it, what would be the impact in general from holding this building for a certain amount of time?

▶ 1:32:27 Speaker 8: Expenses to the current operation of the building? I mean, it, the maintenance is done by the Department of Public Works regardless of who's care control it's under. Um, so that would not change in my understanding. And like I said, it's still being used day to day as a library, um, for the foreseeable future until the new library is completed. So I don't know day to day wise that it would have an impact, like you said, on expenses. Uh, the only foreseeable impact that some might see would be the process of the project, um, being able to be gotten underway and a pathway to be cleared, uh, to consider that as a site for the police station.

▶ 1:33:01 Maya Jamaleddine: And with, uh, within our, um, you know, capacity, how, uh, uh, and legally how long can we, um, hold the land from being transferred.

▶ 1:33:16 Speaker 8: Um, so council has to vote to reassign it. There's no time limit on it, is my understanding. But like I said, it can't be used for another purpose. It can't be sold. Nothing can happen with it unless this council decides what that purpose is and votes on that. Um, so as far as holding it in committee, that's, that's, we have to defer to your rules of, rules of order to decide when you hold it and how long we can hold it for and bring it back up, et cetera.

▶ 1:33:44 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Um, and so we don't know what I am hearing, and I'm sorry, this is very new to us as well. What I'm hearing is, um, we don't know how long we can hold it in a committee or my understanding is like 45 days.

▶ 1:33:59 Speaker 8: Yes. I'd have to, I'd have to double check the new rules of order that this council just passed, but that's my memory. Yeah.

▶ 1:34:04 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. And after 45 days, we will have to reassign it or

▶ 1:34:09 Speaker 8: I'd have to double check on that. Okay. Yeah.

▶ 1:34:13 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, thank you. Um, those are my questions for now.

▶ 1:34:17 Speaker 6: Councilor Ro,

▶ 1:34:21 Speaker 4: Um, I just wanna say I appreciate a lot of the thoughtful remarks. People Buck got up and spoke tonight. I share a lot of the similar, um, feeling sentiments, um, of the things that you spoke about, the budget, the design of the building. Um, my mother-in-law happens to live right across the street from the school. My husband grew up there and, um, she share shares similar, um, feelings about, you know, she's gonna be looking at staring at the building. But I think it's, it is important to know that tonight we are voting on the transfer of the land. And I think collectively this body would, um, look to address as many of your concerns as as possible, like the budget. Um, I'm actually really interested in the design of the building. I don't know how much pull I have there, but, um, so I, I think I just wanna get across that we vote yes on this tonight. It doesn't mean that we, we don't care about, you know, your remarks and, and all the concerns that you have.

▶ 1:35:29 Speaker 4: So just wanna make this general statement,

▶ 1:35:30 Mark Garipay: Counsel Van and then Council Williams.

▶ 1:35:33 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, thank you. Uh, I, I also, uh, I appreciate the, the amount of engagement and, uh, I have, I, I guess I, I, I would really appreciate additional transparency into the project because I've heard, um, in particular, um, with regards to the budget, I've, I've heard that we're over budget. I've heard that we're under budget, but I don't know where to look for that information right now, um, to confirm one way or the other. Um, and I, and I also don't understand, other than this vote where we have the opportunity for oversight. Um, so I guess my understanding is that our options right now are to vote and move forward, vote yes. And move forward, vote no. Which I believe would lead to six months before we could reconsider that question. Um, or hold for 45 days at a time. Um, and I, I guess my legal question as it overlaps with the project plan is, um, I want to provide oversight, and at the same time, I want to not throw too large w rents into the process. And so I, I want to understand, because I don't have a detailed understanding of the project plan right now, at what stage does it become a serious issue for the project plan that this land has not been transferred? Is that something that we know?

▶ 1:37:05 Speaker 8: Unfortunately, I can't speak to that. I would have to rely on, uh, Ms. Gaffey or another member of the advisory committee to speak to that

▶ 1:37:11 Kimberly Vandiver: Point. Um, if I may through the chair, uh, it, it, would it be possible to request an update? I know that the council has a, uh, seat on the advisory committee. Could we get any information either from other members of the administration present or from from a council representative about that? Is that something

▶ 1:37:28 Mark Garipay: We, yes, we, um, we have a council representative here, if you're okay. Um, yes. Counselor Hamilton, if you wanna speak to that.

▶ 1:37:37 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. So the answer is, if we don't vote yes tonight, it's going to have a costly impact on the, on the project. In speaking about budget, there's one budget number that's $129.7 million. The other numbers, when we talk about phase one, there are artificial budget numbers that we've set for the police station and the West Side Station. We can take from future phases and add to that, or we can remove from the present phase and add to later. And we've already done that. And just by simply removing the construction manager at risk from the West Side Station, we were already back on quote unquote budget. So it's not a difficult thing to do. Um, to speak to the concerns that had been raised, geothermal is one of them. And we've already, uh, authorized the expenditure of a hundred thousand dollars to do the test well for geothermal as far as the aesthetics go. Um, building materials. Um, as recently as the end of last week, I spoke to the mayor and she was conferring with the architects, Dorin Whittier, in taking the examples that the, uh, neighborhood group gave to them for different materials that they felt would be better in the neighborhood. And I believe the mayor has directed the architects to create new renderings and designs that, um, would be more, uh, acceptable to neighbors and abutters. And I think they're planning for a meeting in February to present those. As far as timeline goes, we're there right now, any delay on this is going to cost money. I'm not making that up. It's absolutely gonna cost money to delay things. The third, um, major objection raised by, um, the neighbors has to do with the size of the building. And I didn't hear it tonight during public comment, but I've heard previously, uh, the assertion that the size of the building would be a metric of the number of officers, uh, sworn officers. And in Melrose we have 51 sworn officers, and we're proposing a 27,000 square foot building, which is one officer for every hunt, 529 square feet. I took a close look at the Burlington project, and I know people have mentioned that it's 16,000 square feet. That's the footprint, that's the first floor of the building. It's a three floor building, 35 to 40,000 square feet. They have 64 sworn officers, that's 546 square feet per officer to 5 29. So I agree that Burlington is a great example. I'm thankful that the, uh, neighbor of butter group brought it to our attention. And I think that this demonstrates that what we're planning aligns with Burlington. So I think we've made great strides, um, towards being, um, more amicable towards the wants and desires of the neighborhood. If I could for a moment, 'cause I know, um, initially we were focusing on the Ripley, but I think one of the things that we could have done a better job of that we didn't, was pointing out all of the serious issues with the Ripley site. And to go back a little bit further, um, when the previous administration convened the last iteration of the Public Safety Public Safety Building Committee in October of, uh, 2021, that was at a time when the schools were considering opening or reopening the bb, they hired Tappe architecture to take a look at the BB and what it would cost to, you know, um, renovate the building, bring it up to code and reopen it, which that was, that was presented to the school committee, I think it was December 10th, 2021. And they were looking at that time at about $14.5 million to do that. Um, so at the time that that last Public Safety Building committee started to take this up, the BB was not on the table. The, the plans were for the schools to maybe reopen it and return to a, a local, um, neighborhood approach, uh, for schooling, and then obviously would've to populate that building. Since that time, um, we've obviously had the, uh, financial issues. We've had what appeared to be a bubble in the student population. I, I wouldn't say it's totally gone away, but it doesn't look like it was what we thought it was gonna be. And so we find ourselves in the present situ. Well, we found ourselves in the present situation where the BB could be back on the table again, backing up just a little bit, the prior administration oversaw the last Public Safety Building committee, um, endeavor. And that was presented to the council fall of 23. It was on the, uh, elect, it was on the ballot, and it passed overwhelmingly, I think, six to four or close to that. So our new administration comes in in January of 2024, and they immediately inherit a financial crisis. And this administration has done an admirable job, which I fully commend and support in working us through the last budget season. We came out with a balanced budget. We attempted a override measure that wasn't successful, but, you know, working within our means, um, the administration has done a great job. Once that ended mid late June, the administration then correctly turned their attention to the second most important priority, which was, you know, the public safety project. And that's when the mayor named folks to the, uh, public Safety Facilities Advisory Committee. And one of the first things that we talked about, I believe it was in August, was are we gonna do this at the Ripley or what about the bb? And it was the unanimous opinion of the folks on the committee that the BB being centralized was a better location. And so what I said a moment ago was, we have not done a great job of pointing out all the bat all the issues with the Ripley. So if you would bear with me that the four, I call them the four LS ledge, lease, land, and location, first of all, to, uh, develop the Ripley site would require over a million dollars in blasting of ledge. We have a lease with the same collaborative. We have students there through the middle of summer of 2026. So to break that lease would be costly and we would displace students. The land, a significant portion of that parcel is Wyoming Cemetery Land. And the prior administration did not resolve that issue. And that issue would still, still has to be resolved even as the school committee votes now, uh, that at the end of the seams, uh, lease to give it back to the city. And the final issue is location. The Ripley is in the southeast corner of the city. Um, it's not a centralized location, it's not ideal. And we also don't know what's going on there. And, um, some research was done, um, at my request by Jim Bennett, who was the former chair of the Historical Commission before May, we did some work together, and Jim took a look and we found that the stretch of land along Lebanon Street, that's now Wyoming Cemetery, that border Sylvan, and the triangular parcel that is part of the Ripley was at one time owned by Pratt. Uh, he was a farmer, and he deeded it over to the city in 1889. It was later used for, for cemetery use, but the city later used it as a part of the poor farm. The rest of the parcel where the BB school is, was part of the Malden Poor Farm, which was on Forest Street where there's, now, I think it's senior housing. So as Melrose, we know Melrose was pat of Malden until 1850. And after Melrose became its own town, Malden still retained that parcel where the school is built. Melrose becomes a city. In nineteen hundred and nineteen oh two, the city of Malden, uh, requests permission from the city of Melrose to develop that site. And in 1902, the Board of Alderman authorized the construction of a, a smallpox hospital. Okay. So we don't know what, what exists on that site, what we might encounter in 1923, the city of Malden sells the parcel to the city of Melrose. And in 1924, a hundred or 101 years ago now is when we built the building. So the Ripley has tremendous issues. I know one of the concerns that I've heard repeatedly from, uh, neighbors and Abutters and others that I understand is the appearance that a whole lot happened behind closed doors that people didn't know about. That's not the case. The reality is, had we focused on the Ripley instead of the bb, we would've been in the public process in exactly the same place where we are now. The last iteration of the Public Safety Building Committee, it was, it was largely an esoteric, uh, exercise necessary where they looked at program use, um, for police, fire, what did they need? And so they, they didn't design a building. There were no renderings, there were no, uh, blueprints. It was data. And they determined during Whittier determined, we need a 27,000 square foot building for police department. And one of the things that we asked in August was, have you already looked at the Ripley? Like, is this tailored to the Ripley? And they said, no, what we're talking about can be put, you know, quote unquote anywhere where it fits. And, um, you know, the rip the, the BB is the more advantageous site than the Ripley for a variety of reasons. So, um, I apologize, um, I apologize to the neighbors and the abutters for what appeared to be a lack of transparency. I know it's a surprise and I apologize for that. Um, I don't know how it could have been avoided because we just took up the issue and first met in the end of August, and I think it was September 25th, about a month later that we had our first, um, town hall meeting at the Learning Commons. Um, I'm thankful that the administration, um, invited Elizabeth onto our advisory committee, and I think there's been some real value there. And so, just to recap real quick, um, geothermal we're doing the test well materials. I think the a I know the architects are looking at new designs and ideas that are gonna be presented to the neighborhood and size. I I, I think we can justify the size. I think it, it is, it is the right size. I would also point out that the proposed police station is 27,000 square feet. The school that's there right now is 30,000 square feet. So it's a 10% reduction in size from what's already there. And, um, so, uh, I I hope that that's helpful. Thank you.

▶ 1:48:54 Mark Garipay: Thank, um, council Vva, any anything else or,

▶ 1:48:59 Kimberly Vandiver: Oh, uh, sorry. Thank you. I, I, uh, I appreciate the, um, that additional detail and I think that's really helpful to get more clarity. Um, uh, uh,

▶ 1:49:11 Kimberly Vandiver: I don't have any further questions at this time. I only other, um, comment that I, um, neglected to, to say earlier is I, I also would like to ideally see additional representation on, on the committee, um, um, for the neighborhoods since they are so engaged. Um, and I, I think that's important to, um, bring forward as part of this discussion that, that this engaged group of people is, is, um, has an opportunity to have an impact on the committee if possible.

▶ 1:49:44 Mark Garipay: Correct. And I would encourage that you, uh, reach out to the administration to, to bring that. 'cause we, we can't make that we can suggest, but it's up, it's up to the, to the mayor. Councilor Williams,

▶ 1:49:55 Ryan Williams: Thank you very much. Um, to avoid being duplicative, uh, I want to ask a couple of legal questions. Um, I noticed the school committee's vote was conditional. So they added conditions to their vote that the land had to be allowed, that the city had to use the building as the library until it's completed. Is that a binding condition?

▶ 1:50:22 Speaker 8: Uh, no. The, the transfer is to city council, but it's with the understanding that the library will be continued to use. And I think the mayor has referenced that exact same sentiment in her, uh, letter to council with this order that she's planning on that happening as well. Yeah. So is it, so council wanted to add that vote language, you could do that as well. Yeah.

▶ 1:50:38 Ryan Williams: Could be add other vote language

▶ 1:50:40 Speaker 8: Council can change the purpose. You can make it specific, you can make it general. You can add other language. Yes.

▶ 1:50:45 Ryan Williams: Um, sorry,

▶ 1:50:49 Speaker 8: The only caveat to that, obviously if it's a specific purpose and the mayor doesn't end up using it for that, she'd have to come back to council to request a new purpose.

▶ 1:50:56 Ryan Williams: The possibilities are endless. Um, with regard to the question of what happens when we hold things in committee. And I hope that someone will correct me if I am misunderstanding this. If it's held in committee, the 45 days is the time within which we have to do something. We can do something before then. We could hold it in committee today, and we could have a meeting 48 hours from now or whatever the public, uh, you know, open meeting alone. Our rules will allow. So we could have another meeting on Friday, or we could have a meeting next Monday to talk about it so we can hold this, um, without knocking this thing down for a month and a half. That's my understanding about the way that that goes. Um, I, I really, I, I wanna say I really appreciate Councillor Hamilton comments and the information that he provided. I, uh, I wish that we didn't have to get all of those great updates like that because I would've liked to have come into this meeting knowing more of that information. And I, I suppose I'm just commenting not to anyone in particular, um, just kind of explaining my thought process here, because I'm, I am personally, I have grown increasingly uncomfortable with taking votes on this body when I just feel like I don't have all of the guarantees and the information that are before me. So I wanted to lift up Councillor Vandiver question again and make it a little more specific. Will there be another voting opportunity by this body to, um, deal with this building and its use if we vote yes to transfer the land, will it come before us again for another reason? Any reason? Or will it just become a project of the city, you know, and the city can do with it whatever it wants.

▶ 1:52:46 Speaker 8: There's various possibilities. The administration would have to, um, the mayor's office would have to say exactly what they're planning to put before council. But for example, the bond authorization, uh, it depends if the next bond authorization would be a total amount or whether it would be continue to be piecemeal. Um, there's also the option of doing orders before council every time they go out for a bond for the various phases of the project, at which case council would be involved in that process. Um, so there's various opportunities that you could discuss. You could discuss with the mayor what council would wanna see.

▶ 1:53:16 Ryan Williams: Okay. Thank you. So, and you reminded me that we've only authorized about $5 million for this project so far. Mm-hmm. That was for design and some, some preliminary work. There's a lot of money, obviously that needs to be appropriated and bonded for it to break ground and be constructed. Mm-hmm. So that's another vote that's gonna come before us. It's either gonna come before us for the whole thing. Correct. Which would be, I mean, a choice, um, or it's gonna come before us in pieces mm-hmm. For each individual project. Um, and so, you know, I, coming into this, I, I can swing one of two ways. I can understand the impulse to hold this in committee because I just, I don't feel like I know whether or not the architects actually would entertain or be able to entertain a change in design. I don't know if the geothermal wells have had, um, results back yet. Uh, or if they've been drilled yet, which I would assume that they, they have. Okay. So they have, so they have been drilled. So, you know, I would love to hear a little bit more about that. That being said, um, I also don't want to, um, put up a cost barrier, put up something that's going to increase the cost. If there's going to be another opportunity for us all to, um, to think through this when it comes time to talk about the actual amount of money that we need to put forward in order to build the building. And I take the neighbors at their word. I've met with a number of them. I went to one of the meetings, I've read all the emails. I, um, I've listened to the voicemails. I have not heard people say that they don't want this building there. I've heard people say they want it here differently. I've heard people say they want more, um, opportunity to speak. And I think that they're getting that and I think that they're going to keep getting it. Um, so at this moment I am

▶ 1:55:12 Speaker 9: still

▶ 1:55:16 Speaker 9: undecided. That's all. Thank you.

▶ 1:55:19 Mark Garipay: Thank you. So shady, this will be your first ti Yes.

▶ 1:55:25 Speaker 1: First time, right. Um,

▶ 1:55:28 Manjula Karamcheti: many counselors have sort of asked the questions and said a lot of things that have been very helpful to me. I find I find that I am learning a lot in this meeting, having read emails and done the things. I think think just one question I still have in my mind that I'm just not sure about. And I'm not sure if anyone here is actually gonna be able to answer it for me. Given the current bill, the BB currently is being used for the library, I think I'm not understanding the impact of us holding and the financial burden of that given the buildings being used for something else till 2026. So I just love some clarity on that. 'cause there is something desirable about holding, given a lot of this information for me. Like, uh, counselor Hamilton like update, that's new for me. And I'm someone who likes to take time to process and really understand and be ensured that the neighborhood is being listened to and that they are really a part of like the conversations and moving forward. So I just, it sounds like you might be able to answer that question. So through the chair, if that is an option. So I can understand the impact of a hold financially. 'cause I'm not seeing it at the moment.

▶ 1:56:58 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. Through the chair. Keep it. Um, yes, this is going to have a significant financial impact if we do not pass this tonight because when you design a project, you start with schematic design process, the kind of broad overview. We've already done that focusing on this site for this building, and now we're in the design development phase way into it. And we can still pivot and change exterior building envelope materials. That meeting takes place in February. Um, we've done the, we've invested a hundred thousand dollars and the geothermal testing that was either last week or it's happening last and this week we won't have those results until

▶ 1:57:42 Speaker 13: March or April.

▶ 1:57:43 Ward Hamilton: Um, we've already spent a lot of money on the design of this building at this site. If we do not approve this tonight, then it's in jeopardy. And my recommendation is gonna be that we pivot and move to something else. And those monies, I wouldn't say they're totally lost because maybe we come back, but, um, yeah, there's been a lot of time and money invested to this point. The focus has been on this site and, um, yeah,

▶ 1:58:16 Manjula Karamcheti: So as I process, it's not insignificant. So as I process a little bit, um, it sounds like there would be a large financial impact to not vote tonight. And holding would be a part of that in terms of a detriment. And I think what I'm also hearing is that even though it was newer to me in terms of revitalizing green space, historical design, like a sense of community, the neighborhood's voices being heard, that actually has been happening. And there is an opportunity for more of that as things move, move forward and we as a body may have more opportunities to weigh in on transparency and things happening. So I think that is just all very helpful in terms of like being, feeling, like being brought up to speed a little more tonight, even though it isn't how I wish it had happened in terms of being brought up to speed. It sounds like, again, the neighborhood is being heard. We are thinking about budget, we are thinking about size, green space, historical design, community sense, and the neighborhood's voice is being incorporated into that. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to process that. You're welcome.

▶ 1:59:33 Mark Garipay: Councilor Romanul for the first time.

▶ 1:59:36 Devin Romanul: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I wanna thank everyone who, uh, from the administration who showed up to, uh, give us information, um, and for my colleague Councillor Hamilton for, for, uh, that update. I'm so deeply appreciative. I'm also deeply appreciative of everyone from the community who showed up tonight. Keep showing up, uh, the Margaret Mead quote about a small group of people changing the world comes to mind. So, um, anyway, appreciate you giving your voice to this. Um, my goal is to do this, right? Do it on budget. And this is gonna be something that lives in our community for, I mean, my goodness, a hundred plus years long after all of us are gone. So, um, I, I'm excited to really nail this. And, um, I think that I just want our constituents to understand the blunt instruments that this body possesses, um, the decision point to keep the property and not, and then ultimately, um, the ultimate dynamically sword is whether or not we appropriate the money, you know, put out the bond issue if, if I'm understanding correctly, which is a decision point, another decision point that we have down the road. So I'm, I'm really hardened to hear on geothermal and the envelope that we're seeing some progress and, uh, talking with you more about that sounds like we're not getting closer on square footage, and I'm not gonna opine on that at the moment, but, um, I'm, my understanding is that I, I am ideologically opposed to the city getting rid of land that it owns for financial, logistical, political, all sorts of like, um, my, my background is in city management, and so that's like really something I'm opposed to. 'cause there's all sorts of issues, um, with, uh, getting rid of it. But, um, so I think that's on that decision point, I'm, I'm very firmly in the camp of keeping it under our umbrella and I know that, um, that impacts this in a, in a certain way, but I just wanted to get that out there that like, that's, that's what we have before us tonight, and I'm firmly for keeping this under city ownership one way or another. Um, and, uh, I think the, the other lever that we have is just appropriating the money. Um, and that's, uh, you know, I've, I've met with many of you before and like articulated that that's the other card that we have to play. Um, I'm really grateful that you're advocating. I encourage you to keep advocating. Um, and, you know, I've been in communication with the administration to, um, to make sure that my concerns are, are shared as well on, on budget and all these issues. But, um, anyway, I just wanted to articulate that. Like, those are the two things that we have to decide. And that, um, on the ownership issues being a very discreet one is one where I feel very strongly about us keeping that land. I think I shared that previously. Um, but I, I, um, yeah, I, I, I'm just, we have limited levers to impact the, the issues that you've raised, but I'm grateful. Um, I'm really grateful that we're seeing some progress in some of these. So anyway. Thank you.

▶ 2:02:32 Mark Garipay: Um, here I have in the queue, councilor Jamal and Council Hamilton and Council Stewart, I'm sorry, counselor Lyre for the first time.

▶ 2:02:42 Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm gonna try to speak as directly and bluntly as possible.

▶ 2:02:53 Leila Migliorelli: Um, when the council voted in 2023 to put this on the ballot, at that time we had pretty robust conversation about what the decision points are. We had a lot of talk about what would happen. 'cause this is a project, a series of projects would go span a number of years. What would happen if costs, um, increase over time? What were the decision points of the council at those times? Um, that information's all publicly available. Those meetings have taken place. Um, I think those of us who are on the council in 2023 are well aware of our fiduciary responsibility in voting on the bonds. And as the city solicitor pointed out, it is up to the mayor mayoral administration to determine at which point in which we will be voting on those bonds and in which way, so she could, the mayor could decide to, you know, have us vote altogether on the remainder of, you know, the project 130 million. It could be parsed out in pieces. Those are our points in which we will be accountable to the community for how this project is going to be funded. And staying on budget. From my conversations with the mayor, from my conversations with Councilor Hamilton, who's serving on the, the Advisory Committee, um, we are not at risk of the budget going over. And I will, you know, councilor Hamilton can weigh in after I'm finished with my remarks. What was presented publicly were designs from an architect an idea of what could be. As Councillor Hamilton pointed out, there are various steps within the project. I understand that it's complicated 'cause you've kind of got two different streams happening at once. You have things that need to be happening, um, to help determine the budget, but also points and pieces as Councillor Hamilton Illustrated, that will, that will give opportunity to change the budget. There is no late point in this process. We are not at a late point. There is, as the mayoral administration has told, the council in writing has told the public body that is advising that there is opportunity to weigh in on the designs and the exterior of the building that will happen. That has been promised and has been described. So there's that. And I think Councillor Hamilton, you know, uh, within reason within what, what the budget can withhold the geothermal piece, which was also another point of, um, you know, interest is also being looked at. But the budget, I'm a little troubled by the conversation around the horseshoe here of, you know, wondering where it is, or I'm not sure, I'm not certain. That's sort of very, um, speculative and, um, that information has been made available to all of us and is information that we can seek out as well. Um, and again, councilor Hamilton, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think that as far as I have heard, we're gonna stay within the budget. If we cannot stay within the budget, things will be cut. Those things will be decided upon by the mayor, the project planners. We have neighborhood representation on the committee. Whether the mayor would like to invite more representation, that's fine, but that's the point of engagement. It might not be exactly what everyone wanted hoped for. I know that it is concerning to have a project that was voted on in 2023 with everyone thinking that this is gonna be at the Ripley. Um, and it's not that that feels very last minute. And that is, it's something that is, is can be troubling when you find out something's going in your backyard that you were not anticipating going in your backyard. I think that's something that many of us do live in Melrose. Know that can happen at any time depending on where you're, where you're living. Um, I would just, I think I, I'm hoping that these reassurances here are being, being heard. I'm hoping that, um, it sounds like my colleagues and I are all on board and that we are advocates for, for the appropriate, you know, process to happen at the appropriate time and the designs to be reflective to the extent they can within, um, the neighborhood. I think one last thing, I just wanna be, um, you know, as a community, I really wanna be mindful of the rent rhetoric around what a residential neighborhood is and what resident, you know, housing and the fact that our city, we're a five square mile city. We are primarily overwhelmingly a residential city. The neighborhood in which the police station exists now has residents living by it. The Ripley neighborhood is also a residential neighborhood. The neighborhood in which our fire stations and Tremont on East side are also all residential neighborhoods. So I, I just would caution around that, you know, this is a residential neighborhood implying that there's somewhere within Melrose that is, you know, not residential. I think we can think of maybe like one strip of one street that has primarily non-res, non people living at, but this is, this is what it's, residents are more than residential neighborhoods, are more than just single family homes. Um, so I just, I really want to make sure, um, as a city counselor, city counselor at large, that we're being very mindful of that kind of talk in the community, um, and respecting the types of homes, um, that people live in and neighborhoods that people live in. And that really, anywhere within a five square mile, primarily residential community is going to impact people around it. So, um, thank you.

▶ 2:08:39 Mark Garipay: Thank you, president Elli. Um, I just wanna reiterate what the city solicitor had said earlier. Our, our vote here tonight is, is to decide whether to give back the land. Um, we could still, and it is our jobs to advocate for, for the residents and to make sure that their voices are heard with the administration. Um, with that, uh, with that said, we still have some counselors in the queue. I have Counselor Jamal and Councilor Hamilton and Councilor Stewart.

▶ 2:09:11 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Jamal. Um, Mr. Chair, it's actually, um, uh, basically this is what I was, uh, going to suggest, um, uh, through the chair and for the city solicitor, um, legally, and by law are we allowed to discuss, um, this project, which is, I feel that, and I caution my colleagues here, that it's turning to be informational order about the police station rather than discussing the transfer, uh, of, uh, the land. So legally speaking, because I know that it happened in another, um, city where, uh, they received a lawsuit about discussing another, uh, topic in, in, uh, uh, in specific ordinance, like different ordinance. So are we allowed to discuss, uh, and share information about project while we are discussing? And we have this order before us

▶ 2:10:12 Speaker 8: Through the chair. It's, it's a relative to the discussion. I say you're not taking a vote on that piece of it. The vote that you're being asked to take is what appeared on the agenda and what you should be taking action on tonight, which is to transfer the land, not on the project itself. But

▶ 2:10:25 Maya Jamaleddine: So what just happened, just to be clear, and, and I'm sorry to be very specific, but I wanted to make sure that we are going, uh, uh, the right path and we're doing the right thing. What we are discussing about, uh, the size of the police station, the, um, all the other details about the, uh, this project is this something relative to this, uh, ordinance before us,

▶ 2:10:54 Speaker 8: Um, through the chair. I'm, it's not from my perspective, it's not relevant to the vote you have to take tonight. It is relevant to the discussion about the project itself, but you're not taking action on that piece of it tonight. All you're taking action on is the transfer of the property. So no, I would not think that there'd be a violation of any open meaning law because of the discussion that's occurred, if that's what you're asking. Um, as long as you're not taking a vote on that topic that you've now discussed at length, really the vote you're being asked to take is, um, on the transfer of the property, not on the actual project itself.

▶ 2:11:27 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Which, yeah, Thank you so much for this information. I will also share with the constituents and with the butters that, you know, um, ha whether, um, whatever is the decision, uh, going to be for tonight, um, our work as usual and our advocacy is not going to end tonight. And we will continue, um, holding the administration accountable, asking for more information, seeking more information. We will be available for getting your feedback and, uh, getting information. But the, i I do invite you all, and I do caution us that while we are discussing, um, while we are getting bits and be pieces from about this, uh, uh, project, um, while we are, we don't have an official order before us about this specific project, I am, um, worried that some information would be missing. So I would, um, I, I think the best way is to file, uh, or to request an informational order where we can invite administration, uh, that can speak directly about this order and can provide more information and accurate information and transparent information for you all. And then we can move forward. Um, however, this order that is before us about transferring the land, I do feel that they would be a negative impact if we hold it, uh, back, uh, uh, but then, uh, to, to continue serving, uh, the right way, we will. I, I hope that we will be able to hold a informational order for you all to be able to get the right information, and hopefully you will, you'll be able to share more thoughts and more, uh, questions and they write, um, uh, an appropriate, uh, form and and time as well. Thank you. Thank

▶ 2:13:28 Mark Garipay: You. Council Aldine, uh, I have Council Hamilton, Stewart, and Williams. Anyone else want to get in the queue? Council Hamilton,

▶ 2:13:36 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. And, uh, through the chair to speak to President Me's. Last comments, an important point or item I could share about the budget is, um, so we know we have a hundred, not 29.7, we'll call it $130 million. And on April 8th of last year, solicitor Phillips issued a memorandum that provided a directive to us that explained that based on the language on the ballot in November of 2023, with that money, we needed to build a new police station. We need to build a New East Side station. We need to build a new West side station, and we need to renovate the building next door. The current plan is for phase one to build a new West Side station and a new police station. Phase two, the restoration of the building next door, phase three, a new building on the east side. And there's some concern that things could get tight because you either build a new building or you don't, right? There's no, I'm kind of pregnant, like you have to do it. And the difference is with the building next door. And when I'm not a city counselor, I'm a preservation contractor and consultant who consults with municipalities throughout the commonwealth is we look at the building next door, we look at the roof, and there's a range from a slate roof to an artificial slate roof to a long lasting asphalt shingle roof. There's double bead half frow gutters that made outta copper. Then there are other material choices. Look at the fenestration, the windows there, the disparity at the range in products is wide. What we do on the inside is also scalable. So one of the things that I've talked to the mayor about, and I believe, um, chief White and um, uh, firefighter McCarran are, are talking, we're, we're, we've approached the mayor and talked about what if we did East side next, right? Because we have to build a new station there. Then when we get to phase three next door, we've got a pot of money and we can do a slate roof, or maybe we can't afford it, right? So, um, I think that although this is all new to everybody, because you know, this is the first time we're talking about it, uh, there, this is a constant conversation that's going on. Um, so, uh, at this time, Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the land and building previously used for the BB school located at 2 63 West Foster Street in Melrose, Massachusetts, be hereby transferred to the care, custody and control of the mayor to be used for general municipal purposes as the mayor deems reasonable inappropriate.

▶ 2:16:24 Speaker 6: Second, I'm sorry, second, um,

▶ 2:16:26 Mark Garipay: we have a motion on the floor to recommend for passage as stated, um, by Councilor Hamilton, seconded by President Elli. On discussion, I have Councilor Stewart and then Williams. And

▶ 2:16:46 Robb Stewart: Thank you Mr. Chair and Mr. Chair through the chair. Um, I, I would like to, um, uh, confirm and and appreciate, uh, what, um, our president has said regarding, uh, the, our responsibilities, our fiduciary responsibilities, to hold the budget and evaluate the, the administration's approach to the budget and appreciate that. Um, and so I have one question for you, uh, Ms. Phillips regarding that. Uh, a question came to us, a statement came to us earlier this evening, and it's something that I sent information to you, uh, in email, uh, prior to this meeting regarding if we get to phase four, and, you know, we have less than the amount of budget that is, uh, considerate to get what we believe is the renovation that needs to be done, uh, does the council legally have the right without public vote or opinion to increase that $130 million by vote,

▶ 2:17:57 Speaker 8: Uh, through the chair? No. So if we're gonna have an increase to the project, DOR allows for modest increases for different, different things like inflation, cost of goods over a period of time. You have to get approval from DOR to go over that 130 million amount, and they would have to approve it. But if it's significant dollar amounts over that 130 million, such as significant project changes that might result in a much higher amount, um, it would likely not be approved, but counsel would not be able to go over that one 30 that was contemplated prior to the ballot question.

▶ 2:18:26 Robb Stewart: Okay. I appreciate that input. Uh, and so, uh, I just want to reiterate that I think it is our important responsibility to question at the start of this effort, what that full project looks like and continue to maintain that they will abide by what was committed to, for this full community and respect, uh, the needs and desires of the constituency that I support locally. So that's, that is my, that will be my goal going forward, uh, as representative of Ward three. And, uh, that's where I would ask again to see a more, uh, I know information is out there, but, uh, perhaps again through the chair to, uh, council Jamal's idea of having, uh, an open informational discussion to share both with the council as well as with, uh, our constituency, uh, what that looks like, and, and address any questions that we may have as representatives of our constituency. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

▶ 2:19:33 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Councilor Stewart. Uh, councilor Williams.

▶ 2:19:38 Ryan Williams: I thank you. I just wanted to say out loud, uh, that this is, we're talking a lot about advocacy and accountability, and this is actually what advocacy and accountability looks like, right? It's about bringing these questions to this meeting, asking them out loud, getting a response on the record, and asking about the decision points that lead up to the, to the vote, asking about the potential consequences that happen as a result of the vote. These are all important parts of the process, right? So, you know, let's not entertain any, um, discussion that they don't belong in this body because they absolutely do. Um, I am aware that there is a substantial amount of information available on the internet about this. What's not available is the actual website that was set up by the city under the former mayor to describe the project to people. And I think that would be a great opportunity to, because we own the domain to restart that website and put some of this information in a clear, easy to understand format with a timeline that shows where we are, um, you know, that has, I mean, we have this stuff on the city's actual website. It's in a hundred different places. Uh, you'd have to, you know, do a research project to actually come up with an answer to some of the questions. We have a calendar, it has no dates on it, so, you know, we, there is information available out there, but there's a huge difference between information existing on the internet and actually being useful in a way that people can find it and make informed decisions with it. So, um, I agree with folks around the table that this vote is probably not the highest and best use of, um, of, um,

▶ 2:21:21 Ryan Williams: putting a pause on this project, but, uh, it's a huge project and it deserves to have some thought and some discussion in public. Um, and so I am, you know, I'm looking forward to the, to the vote tonight, but I'm looking even more forward to the informational order that I, that I hear will be, uh, put forward so that we can have more of that discussion in public down the road.

▶ 2:21:43 Speaker 5: Thank you.

▶ 2:21:46 Speaker 6: Council Machete.

▶ 2:21:48 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you. Uh, I just wanna briefly double click on a few things. Uh, one is what we're being asked to do tonight, which is specifically to transfer the property to the city. And that's the only thing we're being asked to do tonight. Um, I believe an informational order on is really makes sense in terms of this project, given I think where we are right now and what people knew and what people didn't know and know. And I love the idea of a website rededicated to the project as well. So everything is organized in one place. I think that helps with transparency and people feeling like proactively communicated with and knowing where to look. And I also just really appreciate President Meili reminding all of us that we are a community that is 95% residential and being very mindful of that in our conversations about our community. I think that's really important. Um, we talk a lot about it a lot when it comes to our tax base, but it's also important to talk about it in relation to everything that we're doing. We are 95% residential, um, and that's what makes us the unique and interesting and wonderful community that we are. And it's just something to be lifted up. So I'm grateful, president me for you reminding us of that.

▶ 2:23:17 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Anyone else? Uh, on discussion?

▶ 2:23:22 Speaker 6: Council Vanderberg?

▶ 2:23:23 Kimberly Vandiver: I'll, I'll be brief. I, I just wanted to say out loud. I, I believe, we'll, I believe, you know, I'd like to see additional detail. I'm looking forward to the information order. I think we'll get another opportunity, regardless of the outcome committee tonight to vote at full counsel. Um, and so at this time, I, I just don't feel that we have sufficient transparency to the information to vote. Yes.

▶ 2:23:50 Mark Garipay: So, anyone else? We have a motion, uh, for passage, uh, on the floor. Can we take the roll?

▶ 2:24:01 Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. Counselor Occhio? Yes.

▶ 2:24:09 Speaker 4: Counselor Hamilton? Yes.

▶ 2:24:14 Speaker 4: Counselor. Karen Chetty? Yes.

▶ 2:24:20 Speaker 4: President Elli? Yes.

▶ 2:24:27 Speaker 4: Counselor Reky? Yes.

▶ 2:24:33 Speaker 4: Counselor Romanul? Yes.

▶ 2:24:37 Speaker 4: Counselor Stewart? Yes.

▶ 2:24:42 Speaker 4: Counselor Vvi.

▶ 2:24:45 Speaker 1: Present.

▶ 2:24:50 Speaker 4: Counselor Williams. Present.

▶ 2:24:59 Speaker 4: Counselor Jamine? Yes.

▶ 2:25:03 Speaker 4: Counselor Garipay? Yes. Motion passes

▶ 2:25:07 Mark Garipay: That will be re recommended to the full counsel, um,

▶ 2:25:12 Speaker 6: for passage that, uh,