ORDER-2024-28 : Requesting the Appropriation of $5,500,000.00 to pay costs for design and engineering of a new Melrose Highlands Fire Station and new Melrose Police Station.

Transcript (~58 min @ 14:37)

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

▶ 14:34 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, next we have order 2024 dash 28, requesting the appropriation of 5,500,000 to pay costs for design and engineering of a new Merose Highlands Fire Station and new Merose police station.

▶ 14:52 Jen Grigoraitis: There's a lot of us. Sorry, We might do this in shifts.

▶ 15:01 Jen Grigoraitis: Good evening everyone. Um, so before we get started talking about the substance of the order before you tonight, I just wanted to give a little context 'cause I know this is a significant project and it's the first time that my administration has come before you to talk about it. So I think as you're all well aware, in November of 2023, the public voted to authorize a debt exclusion for $130 million to renovate slash redo all four of our public safety buildings. Since that vote was taken, there has been a lot of work internally on understanding the legal landscape of both the, um, parameters of what the, uh, public voted on, as well as really thinking through some of the next internal procedural steps we have to do to prepare these sites. And I'll have the city solicitor talk a little bit about that in a moment. We've been working on preparing the financing through the bond, um, for this first tranche of funding. And then we've been working on preparing for project management. Um, so our intent is to engage with Dorn Whittier, who are the architects that we have used for the first phase of this project, when the conceptual design was done, um, be given their, you know, insight and knowledge of the project and the positive recommendations we had from many of our committee members. We've also been seeking to hire a full-time project manager, which is different than an OPM. I won't attempt to explain what an OPM is, but I know that they're different. Um, and the intent behind that is really a recognition on our part that the city of Melrose has never undertaken in a, or at least in a very long time, um, a public works project of this scope. And that it's really gonna require a level of dedicated full-time city staff to manage all of the stakeholders, ensure effective communication amongst all the stakeholders into the public. And that that's really not something that we have the capacity for in-House at that time, at this time. So we're working on that. It's been a little bit challenging trying to find a candidate. So I think we're working to revise the job description description, but that is our intent. And then thinking about how do we continue to have the public and stakeholders engaged in this process. There was previously a committee that worked on this plan and did a fantastic job ushering that through. Um, I have reconstituted a new version of that committee that has about 50% former members to make sure that we have some continuity and then some new folks, um, that committee will include our two chiefs who are here with us tonight. Um, uh, counselor at large Hamilton will be representing the council. I wanted to make sure that there was a member of this body who was on there. We have several, um, residents including Sue can from the cemetery commission, Jim o Laughlin, Martha Grover, bringing a sustainability lens, as well as, um, members of our police and fire unions and some other folks with project management

▶ 17:42 Speaker 6: and building experience.

▶ 17:42 Jen Grigoraitis: So I'm excited for that group to get started. In order for them to do that, we need to have the first phase of funding so that we can engage with the architects and then begin

▶ 17:51 Speaker 6: to have those meetings and discussions.

▶ 17:53 Jen Grigoraitis: So that's sort of what we've been working on internally since January. And then I wanted to have city solicitor Phillips talk a little bit about just the overall framework of what can and must happen with this funding.

▶ 18:06 Speaker 7: Sure. Good evening everyone. Um, so I wanted to just talk a little bit about the scope of the project in light of the question that was put before voters last November. Um, so debt exclusions are usually for major construction projects like this one. Um, and often the details and costs will change as the project progresses. However, even though a dollar amount wasn't included in the question approved by the voters, the exclusion isn't unlimited. Um, and it does not necessarily cover all cost increases. So an exclusion really covers the debt service costs on the borrowing amount that was authorized or contemplated when the voters voted on the question language. So just as a reminder, um, the city is limited in what the question itself was. We're guided by state law. Um, as to what we can actually change in the language of the question before council put it, before voters, um, council had the purview of deciding on the purpose in the question. Uh, and that purpose, I'll read it to you again. In order to pay the cost for design engineering, construction site improvements, equipping and furnishing of a renovated Melrose Central Fire Station, a new Melrose Highlands Fire Station, a new Melrose East Side Fire Station, and a new Melrose Police station. So given the purpose language that the city council at the time voted to put on the ballot, um, in my opinion, as I outlined in the memorandum that submitted as part of the agenda packet, um, council does not have the purview to change the purpose. Meaning you can't decrease it to two buildings or three buildings. You would have to be for those four buildings. Um, also, um, you are going to have to likely stay within that 130 million parameter. So you have to be careful about, uh, expanding the scope of the project or the details of it in such a way that you're going to significantly go over 130 million. Um, so debt service on any borrowing above the fixed amount, so 130 million that was presented as part of the, uh, presentation before council voted on the language of this question before it went on the ballot, um, it will not be approved. So in other words, if you're seeking to increase that 130 million because the project changes in some way and you decide on a different building or a different scope or purchasing land, acquiring land to do this type of building, um, it won't be approved. And there's a process that you have to go through with the state to actually get an increase to that dollar amount approved. Um, unless it's a modest amount that's attributable to inflation, new regulatory requirements or minor project changes or another exclusion is approved by the voters. So if, um, the committee that the mayor is talking about, you know, were to make the decision that they wanted to expand this past the 130 million in some significant way, uh, in my opinion, it would require another exclusion vote by by voters in order to do so. So, I'm happy to answer any questions on that, um, that anyone might have.

▶ 20:49 Maya Jamaleddine: Councilor Hamilton, thank you.

▶ 20:52 Ward Hamilton: Uh, thank you Madam Chair and through the chair. Uh, first I wanna say thank you, uh, for being here before us tonight. Several years ago when I was on the Public Safety Building Committee myself, um, we had a subcommittee that selected, uh, it was a designer selection subcommittee, and Dorin Whittier was one of those firms. And they were clearly the best and most advantageous, and we selected them. And I'm glad to see folks who I recognize here tonight. So, uh, very good signs and, um, I'm appreciative, uh, of that and where we are here in the process. Um, my questions are going to be limited. I did have some questions, which I posed in writing ahead of time, but since I'm going to serve on that committee,

▶ 21:47 Ward Hamilton: um, I'm not, we we're in good shape and, um, I, I feel good about where this project is going. Um, before I ask these folks some questions about project management, my one question for, uh, city Solicitor Phillips is, um, it's a legal one based on, um, your opinion and your decision. We are still working out some wrinkles as far as, um, property and location for a building. And in your opinion tonight, can we make a vote to move this forward and still work out those issues? Um, specifically we're talking about the Ripley School, the history of the land, the cemetery commission. It's not totally been resolved yet. Um, but can we move this forward and still, um, discuss, is the location still open? And I don't mean to suggest we don't have a plan. We do have a plan, but, um, can we move this forward and still continue that conversation to include alternative sites? But, um, you know, everything has been moving in this one direction and certainly won't. We want to keep things moving forward. Um, but we want to have the opportunity to explore if there are other possibilities. So that's what I, I'd like you to

▶ 23:26 Speaker 7: Say yes through the chair. Um, I don't see any barrier to doing that. Um, legally speaking, um, again, the only, uh, parameters would be the number of buildings. The purpose would remain the same. And obviously the details and things, those can be worked out. Um, as you go along with the process. As long as you, as long as everyone is careful to try and stay under the 130 million, um, that's really the only limitations.

▶ 23:48 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. And then, um, one of the things we're gonna do with this project, which the mayor, I think was the first one to suggest the idea, and I thought it was brilliant, which was to create a city of Melrose project manager, which alleviates Ms. Gaffey of the many hats that she has to wear in her role and allows that individual to focus on the single, single largest investment that this city has made in infrastructure in its history. I think that's fantastic. And so we are going to, um, advertise for and hire a city of Norris project manager. We're going to also have OPM, which is standard and projects of this scale, and we're gonna have a construction manager. So if anyone would like to just speak to what those different roles are, because it sounds to the lay person like a lot of project management. Um, but it would be helpful to understand what each individual's role is as we move forward. And this is a 6, 8, 6 year project for all three buildings. Six, eight years. Seven.

▶ 24:59 Speaker 8: Yeah. You wanna speak To that?

▶ 25:01 Speaker 9: Sure. Happy to. Uh, thank you. Uh, and thank you for having us. I'm Don Walter, principal with Do Whittier, and, uh, going Gora our project managers here with me tonight. So in terms of the makeup of the team, 'cause as you said, it's, it's like, seems like a lot of people here. The, um, we're, we're the designers, we're the architects, and we have a team, uh, within our offices. We have a team of consultants, of engineers and, uh, specialists who'll be working with us. On top of that, uh, as you noted Mr. Hamilton, we, uh, have to hire an owner, owner's project manager, someone who's independent of the design team, who would represent the owner of in Massachusetts for any project over estimated construction value, over a million and a half dollars. So clearly we're going to be exceeding that here. And, uh, they, they helped to be your eyes and ears throughout the entire project. The hiring of someone in-House, an in-house project manager, uh, is very important here, given your day job and, uh, and the, the, uh, basically what you, you take on, uh, every day. So that person will represent the city with the owner's project manager and with us as the, uh, as design, as a design team working for it. And then lastly, you mentioned the construction manager. Uh, there are two ways you can do public construction in Massachusetts. One is chapter 1 49, which is traditionally design bid build. We go through, do our design documents through our construction documents and put it out to bid. And then the lowest responsible bidder is reward is awarded that project, assuming it, it's on budget. This project, because of its complexities, uh, there's been a lot of discussion about doing what's called construction management at risk or Chapter 1 49 a. And what that allows you to do is to hire, uh, a company earlier in the process, generally during either schematic design or design development, and they become part of the team. Uh, they don't physically build the project, but they would organize the construction team, uh, and put that together. And the benefit of that is that you start, you develop a relationship just as we'll have with the owner's project manager and with the city. You also have that with the construction manager. And while we'll be doing our own cost estimates throughout the project, throughout the project's, matic design, design development and construction documents, the construction manager will be doing the same thing. So we get to compare, uh, those estimates and get to a point where we agree on what those costs might be at the time.

▶ 27:34 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. And I think that, um, answers my next question would be a year from now when construction after construction documents have been generated, when we would've otherwise gone out to bid, um, it sounds like we're gonna be working with someone and, um, you'll come back before this body at that time and talk about where we are budget wise. Um, a a, a couple final thoughts would be, um, I know $130 million is a, a large number, but in the construction world, um, seven miles north of Boston with escalation and infl inflation, what it is we're trying, we're really trying to get a lot for that money. And so, um, I'm hopeful that, you know, we're gonna accomplish all of our goals and address all four buildings and I think we will. Um, but, um, we're gonna want to be, you know, uh, on top of things and we wanna make, we'll wanna make sure that, um, we plan and accommodate accordingly for, um, any type of contingencies, things that could come up, the type of surprises that might happen, you know, when you're building on a place that's been inhabited for 300 years. Um, so, uh, I think that that's all the questions I have at this time. Thank you, mayor Chair. Thank

▶ 29:00 Maya Jamaleddine: You. Councilor Gpe.

▶ 29:03 Speaker 1: Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair.

▶ 29:08 Mark Garipay: Um, a couple questions. Mine, ev mine revolve around the, the sliver of land that is currently, um, cemetery property. Um, and I've had, uh, numerous conversations. I've supported this originally, everyone always has known my concern with that land. I'm just, I'm, where I'm struggling on supporting this total dollar amount is we don't, we haven't had a final vote along the process from, from, from the Secretary commission. Um, so I'm struggling with allocating the whole dollar amount. So if for some reason that sliver of land is not available,

▶ 29:54 Speaker 1: or it doesn't, it won't change ownership, um,

▶ 29:57 Mark Garipay: can we fit the, can we fit, um, the potential, um, station where in the current property that the city, city owns?

▶ 30:08 Denise Gaffey: I think we, I think we studied that, I think we studied that question during the, um, pre-design process and really just determined that we would need to have that. It's a significant amount of frontage on that, on that property. And it's, it's, it's hard to envision how you could construct a really viable, um, police station building with all the parking that's needed without it. Is that safe to say? Yeah, it,

▶ 30:32 Speaker 9: It, it's a very challenging site as anyone who's been there knows It's a lot of ledge. Uh, it it right in it. Oh, I'm talking about the existing Yeah. Uh, police. So, um, yeah, it would've, it would've to be many stories to tell.

▶ 30:47 Denise Gaffey: No, I think he was saying he, what he was asking is, um, without the front, oh, I'm sorry, the cemetery currently that is apologize, misunderstood.

▶ 30:57 Speaker 9: Yes. Yeah. Yes. Um, it, it, it's challenging, but, um, without, without further study, I, I wouldn't wanna say definitely no or definitely yes. But that's part of what we'd be doing upfront is, is going through that. And if that's something we need to consider, we certainly would.

▶ 31:14 Speaker 1: Um, so help me,

▶ 31:18 Mark Garipay: convince me on how to, how to, how to support this tonight, this, this total dollar amount. Um, what with that money for the police station, if we're, if, if we're not a hundred percent sure on the land, what are you gonna use? The one point, what's it 1.8 million? How, what are you gonna do with, I mean, if we don't right now, know where it's gonna be if we don't have that property and hasn't been voted on by the, by the commission. So I'm just trying to get convi. I'm just trying to have you convince me on supporting on the, on, on the total dollar amount.

▶ 31:59 Jen Grigoraitis: So I think, I think everyone in this room, probably to varying degrees, is aware whether you were in November or not, that clearly there are some procedural steps that I learned about in, in January that still need to be taken as it relates to the Ripley site, both with the cemetery commission and with the Melrose, um, school committee. And I have had the opportunity to have conversations with both of those bodies around what needs to be happened and what needs to be assessed. I think part of, as it relates to the cemetery piece of city land that is currently being used by the cemetery and is also currently being used by the Ripley, is to assess exactly what you just said, is there a viable, um, option to shift some of the, um, site lines so that there's an sort of an even swap, for lack of a better term, for land that was part of the plan for the police station, which is what we did put before voters to approve and to sort of make the cemetery whole. I think that is part of what we would be using this initial amount of money to assess, as well as to figure out if we need to consider different options, shifting the sighting of the building, things like that. We would also use the funding to have those conversations. I think from the city's perspective, there's a public vote to move forward with this project. It's a significant dollar amount. While I think we've budgeted within the realm of being able to get this done, we know that every moment that we don't move forward, this certainly doesn't become any cheaper, that we need to move forward with the plan as envisioned and put for the public with an understanding that when we identify challenges, that's gonna be part of what the committee is gonna help to assess and make a recommendation to the administration about how best to move forward.

▶ 33:38 Mark Garipay: Um, you make a great point about trying to figure out the land, what, what would be given up and what's gonna be gained. Right? Yep. I I think for me, I, um, our family is cemetery people. I spent a lot of time down there and I think everyone's entitled to have a final resting place in the city of Melrose, and we have about 10 years worth of burials. So I think that is an important, important part of, uh, all this, all this discussion. Now, um,

▶ 34:09 Mark Garipay: I had another question, um, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I lost my train of thought, so I'll come back.

▶ 34:16 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, next is, uh, councilor Stewart.

▶ 34:18 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here this evening. Um, per const, Garra pays, uh, thoughts and questions that in my more fundamentally right now we can't say definitively where the police station is gonna be. Can we,

▶ 34:39 Jen Grigoraitis: In terms of being able to, we have not completed all of the procedural steps needed to be taken. Correct?

▶ 34:47 Robb Stewart: Right. So then we can't establish like, the real cost of design, I would think 'cause we don't understand the square footage. We don't understand. I mean, I, I just, I'm trying to get my arms around if we really don't know what the site is or the dimensions of the site, how do we actually move forward with the design plan?

▶ 35:12 Speaker 9: So we actually do know the approximate square footage of the building. We have gone through a pretty robust programming, uh, phase a couple times over the years. So we do have a great sense of how, how big the building is. Um, we have a sense of what a site wants to be in terms of size and certainly upfront with this early work, we'll revisit that program again to see if there's any efficiencies that can, that can be found. Mm-Hmm. Working with Chief Fowler and, and, uh, his staff and also, uh, to having the initial looks at this particular site to see how it may work either with or without some land and configuration out there.

▶ 35:55 Robb Stewart: Is there any risk that the Ripley cite will not be, um, chosen for various reasons?

▶ 36:08 Denise Gaffey: I mean, I think they, I think we determine that the site itself is, um, is is more than sufficient in size. Right. You know, notwithstanding the issue with the sliver of land at the frontage, um, it is more sufficient. It's sufficient in size. Um, and I think there's also a recognition that the school, the building that's there now is completely obsolete. And it sort of, um, kind of, uh, solved a couple of issues for us because we knew we weren't gonna be repurposing that as a, as a school and it couldn't continue to be occupied for much longer as a school. So for those reasons, it seemed like an ideal site.

▶ 36:44 Robb Stewart: Okay. And I, I just want to allay the, the basic concern that we go down a certain path and then we find out for some legal or boundary or some some reason that we can't move forward with that site. And I just want to make sure that that's not going to be an issue.

▶ 37:02 Jen Grigoraitis: No, I think I, I wanna recognize that I don't think that the cemetery commission was sufficiently engaged in the conversation. Um, and that I would like to make sure that they feel engaged. That's part of why I've asked a member of that commission to serve on the committee. I think we're highly aware of the issues that Councillor Repay has brought up and are trying to determine as many potential solutions based on what it is that we learn. I think the challenge for us is that obviously to do the geotechnical work, to figure out how far down ledge goes, to have somebody redraw plot lines to figure those things out takes both time and money. And we don't have the money to do those things without the approval of the bond. So I, like, I I, we recognize that these are issues. I don't wanna pretend like they're not, um, but that we need to kind of proactively address them. And I also feel really strongly that I don't want that to just be coming from the folks at this table that I think we certainly wanna have leadership from police and fire as well as some of the other members of that committee helping to weigh in. And then should we need to talk about one of the many variables we've discussed here, that that group of people is engaged in that conversation and also providing a dedicated place for public engagement. Like, I certainly don't wanna be designing four buildings, with all due respect to all of you with just this group of people that are here tonight. I think we, I think the committee was really successful and effective in this last round. And I wanna make sure that we're replicating that opportunity for problem solving and engagement with experts, residents, and the people who actually need to use the Buildings. Sure.

▶ 38:35 Robb Stewart: Thank you. I would like to go back to Solicitor Philip's comment on, uh, the parameters that we need to operate in. Um, and just to understand this, because you're saying that we need to operate within the four building construct, I get that right. We also need to operate within $130 million. So if, but we can stage it so that way we can do building A, then building B, then building C and so forth, right? Uh, and we get to building C and we're out of money. Mm-Hmm. We're not at that point, are we still required to build building the fourth building or because we're outta money? What happens then? Because it's a four building situation, right? Yeah. So are we required to build that fourth building even though we're outta money?

▶ 39:26 Speaker 7: Uh, I think at that point we'd have to go to the director of accounts at the state and request an increase in the amount of money and see if they would allow us to do it at that point. And if not, we'd have to go back to the voters for another exclusion if we actually needed the money that goes beyond the 130 million. Okay. So you can't go beyond the 130 million if it's, like I said, a modest amount attributable to inflation, new regulatory requirements or minor project changes. But those are all subject to approval by the state. So we would have to go back to them if we, I would, I would hope possibly we'd have an idea of whether we were going to exceed the 130 million before we actually got to the fourth building. And that would be the time that you'd have to go back to request the increase. I would imagine. I have to look into the exact specifics of the, but that, that's my opinion on

▶ 40:09 Speaker 10: That. And so then

▶ 40:12 Robb Stewart: why are we designing only two buildings and the cost thereof when versus a big bang approach? So we understand the full entire cost of the effort to see if we're gonna fit within that 130. And I know that we have, um, kind of like a pre-design and everything like that, but when, when you get into, I think the, the real details, I'm a little concerned about, you know, the, the fact that we get three years into it and now we're gonna design, design the next two buildings and oh, guess what? You know, the numbers that we had for that are $10 million more.

▶ 40:49 Denise Gaffey: So I will say, and I can let the architects speak to this, but I mean, I think the estimating has been, um, has been both conservative and has built in escalation because from the very beginning we knew we couldn't take on four building projects at one time. It's just not physically possible to do that and keep the fire department up and running. So this has always been viewed as a phased approach with three phases over the seven, I think seven to eight years. Um, and the estimating, if you look at the, the, the full, the estimate for all four projects, you can see the escalation that's built in for those out years. So I I, you know, that, that has been anticipated, it has Been anticipated About the cost are, are encompassed in that $130 million number.

▶ 41:37 Robb Stewart: Right. But I'm not talking about the construction, I'm talking about the design. Right. And the design will dictate what the cost is of the construction, right?

▶ 41:46 Speaker 2: Oh Yeah.

▶ 41:48 Speaker 9: I mean we certainly could design all four projects today, but since the two of the projects aren't gonna be built for a couple years down the road, um, not only cost we built in escalation, but also codes can change, uh, the way firefighting, uh, is gone about could change, which may change the designs that we do today that you'd have to make revisions to later. So if you're not gonna start and build them now, it really does make sense to just do what you're gonna build now and let the other designs, uh, sort of come out as you're getting closer to construction time for those.

▶ 42:26 Robb Stewart: Yeah. I mean, you see, you see where I'm coming from, right? We, we either have a better understanding of cost because we design everything or we, we, we design, we build. If we design, we build. But there's that risk of not knowing the full cost of that construction because we haven't designed everything.

▶ 42:44 Speaker 10: I mean, that's the concern that I have.

▶ 42:47 Jen Grigoraitis: I think the inverse is also that we know the design has to fit within a certain cost based on what's left of what hasn't been spent. I'm, I'm speculating a little bit, but also there is a, um, to bring the treasurer collector into the conversation. 'cause she's also here. Um, you know, when this was put before the all of us, you all, I was there at the time to, um, to vote on this. There was a schedule for the bond that was phased. And so I think there was, I'm assuming some of that was about sort of how much of this is gonna hit people's tax bills at a certain time. Mm-Hmm. So the first phase was approximately $5 million. That's where we are obviously to go to 10 million means that if that's what it would cost hypothetically, then that's gonna be a bigger amount of funding hitting pe you know, that's gonna be passed on to taxpayers. I, that's just a one consideration.

▶ 43:33 Denise Gaffey: Can I also just clarify this? So the construction cost is, is pretty much a factor of the square footage and that square footage has essentially been determined through, through the, all the planning and programming meetings that have occurred, um, in this pre-designed phase. So I, so the numbers again are, you know, we feel like, I mean they're, they're pretty, they're not, I can't say they're a hundred percent accurate, right? But they're pretty, they're a good representation in their conservative and based on this square footage calculation, adding an escalation of 5% over, you know, every year out for those out years. And there's even design contingency, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's also design contingency built in into these numbers.

▶ 44:20 Robb Stewart: Okay. I, I'm smiling because the police chief, he's probably like, I wanna go first to make sure he gets everything right. Um, okay. Thank you for that, that, that, that helps me a little bit. Um, so in, in your memo, and I appreciate your memo, um, you talk about, uh, having the regular updates to public informed and feedback. Can you talk about that and, and do you have like a schedule in mind and, and frequency and, and do you have a plan on what this looks like over the next 12 months that you can communicate?

▶ 44:49 Jen Grigoraitis: So I think from a communication standpoint, um, you know, the first phase was we, Denise came on the Melrose minute to talk about the project. Obviously we're here with you all. I think it's to have the committee meet to have them try to establish some regular communication. Our intent would be to, um, revive and sort of enhance the portion of the city website that hasn't been updated since November about this project so that people have one place they can go to for information. I've also asked the committee to expect to hold, um, quarterly public meetings that were the, you know, sort of like what you all do, where the public can come and comment on certain parts of the project. And I think we would continue to do updates. Um, you know, we've been doing the paper, we have a weekly newsletter that goes out. So I think just to kind of have a regular drumbeat of where the project is at. And then obviously if there's pieces where we want engagement or need people to understand that we're at some critical juncture that we would try to really highlight that for folks.

▶ 45:43 Robb Stewart: Great. Thanks. And a request that I would have is if you could come to us perhaps maybe on a quarterly basis just to give us a sense of that we're on track. That the, the budget is fitting that and it, it'll help both us from a, from a planning legislative oversight as well as I think, and more importantly, it'll help our constituency to understand that the, the, the value of the investment that they've voted on is being well spent and properly managed.

▶ 46:15 Jen Grigoraitis: Absolutely. And I, not to put a lot of work on Councilor Hamilton, but also our intent in having a counselor, current counselor on the committee was to have there be like some of our other liaison roles, sort of a direct conduit for this body to the committee and vice versa.

▶ 46:28 Robb Stewart: Sure. Thank you. Uh, and just, um, what does OPM stand for?

▶ 46:35 Speaker 2: Owner owners project manager.

▶ 46:37 Robb Stewart: Owners project manager. And so this funding schematic through bidding only, um, so the, the one that you have to be hired is, is that for only 12 months? Um, The $600,000 for 12 months.

▶ 46:53 Denise Gaffey: So I think, I think it's for,

▶ 46:54 Robb Stewart: Or is it for the duration? Is it the longer duration?

▶ 46:57 Denise Gaffey: No, it is, it is up until 14. 14, 16 months. 16 months. And it's up until the actual construction starts. Because then, you know, after the, once the construction document's prepared and we have the true bidding construction number, we will be back to this body for the construction funding. And that will include the, the, um, project management, um, fees that are needed for construction.

▶ 47:23 Robb Stewart: Okay. Uh, as well as in those 16 months is also for the City of Melrose, project manager and construction manager?

▶ 47:33 Robb Stewart: Yes. Okay. At OPM they're expensive, huh? Yes. That, that shot three, three times as much as the other two managers. I just wanted to be sure that was, that was accurate. 'cause that seemed fairly significant. Yeah,

▶ 47:49 Speaker 9: It, it, it's a budget number right now, so you still have the chance to negotiate that down.

▶ 47:58 Speaker 10: Okay, good to know. Um, you're rethinking your career.

▶ 48:07 Robb Stewart: Yeah, me too. So I will, I'll defer. I may have other questions. Madam chair. Thank you.

▶ 48:11 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Um, next is Councilor Chetty.

▶ 48:15 Manjula Karamcheti: Great, thank you so much. Um, I think I mostly have clarifying questions just really to make sure I'm understanding and can communicate this back to constituents. 'cause I will say even when I'm walking my dog in the neighborhood, people still make suggestions about why not three buildings, why not, how about this? Have you thought of this site? So I just wanna make sure that I'm saying back what I think I heard. Legally speaking, we are bound to four buildings. The city of Melrose must design and deliver on four buildings because that's what the community voted on. That's cor correct? Correct. Okay. We are not legally bound to the Ripley specifically. However, that is the path we are going down. That's where the work has been. And that's sort of currently what we see as the best location. And we're gonna try to really make that happen. Um, and work with the cemetery, work with, uh, constituents, all stakeholders to continue to move in that direction. So legally we're not bound to that from what the,

▶ 49:24 Speaker 7: what the constituents voted on. However, that is sort of ideally where we'll go. Am I understanding that correctly is correct?

▶ 49:35 Jen Grigoraitis: I mean the, our Understanding is we're gonna start with the plan that was presented to voters. I think it's the combination of we are legally bound to four buildings and we are legally capped at 130 million. Which I'm, I've also gotten that question. I'm sure you will all have too. Um, so I think when you start to talk about the conversations that people have with their, what about different sites, those become more complex conversations because we have to stay within that 130 million. But I think the intention is to, to work with the Ripley to address what we know are some loose ends that are important, that need to be addressed, um, to hopefully have these folks help us kind of expedite answering those questions and then having the committee move forward.

▶ 50:17 Manjula Karamcheti: Great. Thank you so much. And then in terms of the funds that we are approving tonight that we're, we're voting on, does that, that include hiring the project manager that includes sort of those pieces to launch and get this like really moving forward? Is that correct? Yes, correct. Great.

▶ 50:39 Speaker 7: That's all I had. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly.

▶ 50:43 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Uh, next is Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 50:47 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, thank you Madam Chair. Um, thank you for being here tonight. Um, so as you've mentioned, um, there are a number of conservative factors built into all of the financial estimates right now. Um, and you know, rightly so because it's a big project and a lot could happen over the next several years and, and people are still to some extent concerned to make sure that, you know, that the project costs maintained. Um, however, on the flip side, I, I'm just curious, what is the rosiest possible picture, you know, if we don't need all of those various contingencies, is there a chance that we come in well under budget or what, you know, what is possible?

▶ 51:24 Speaker 11: I think anything is possible, but I'll let you all speak to that.

▶ 51:28 Speaker 9: We like the rosy picture. Um, quite honestly, these are budgets that have been established based upon conceptual drawings in, in a pretty comprehensive study that we did. But, uh, we'll be working hard with the, the building committee, with the mayor and her people and with you to try to keep the cost down. And if we can come in at 130 or well below, we'll be all for that.

▶ 51:56 Kimberly Vandiver: Great. And what, um, if that were the case, what would, what would that look like? Would that mean we would, you know, over the course of the next several years, take out a number of loans and then immediately repay some of them or not end up taking out a full one 30 in the end? Or, you know, how would that potentially play out?

▶ 52:12 Speaker 6: We'll bring one more person here to the table.

▶ 52:22 Speaker 2: We would manage the, sorry. We would manage the loan program and finesse the, the borrowings to the most recent quotes that we had. Mm-Hmm.

▶ 52:35 Kimberly Vandiver: So there may be a potential to not take out, never issue the last 5 million, 10 million, whatever it may be, if, if we were under budget by the end. Something to that effect.

▶ 52:47 Speaker 2: Yeah, we have, um, when we presented, um, when was it in the fall? Mm-Hmm. Uh, it looks like the last real debt issuance wasn't until 2030. So this is a progressive every year, take a breath, see where we are, what we're going to need over the next month, next year, and be able to adjust it that way.

▶ 53:11 Speaker 11: Okay, great. Thank you. Sure.

▶ 53:13 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you Councilor Ro? Yes, thank you.

▶ 53:18 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you for being here tonight. Um, sorry I had to leave 'cause I had a coughing fit, but, and so I don't know if this question was asked, but I just want some clarity on this. If the Ripley is seen as not a viable lo location and we've already done some engineering work over there, um, I dunno if design is also gonna happen, are we going to need, when we say we have to switch locations and find a new place, are we gonna need more funds to then supplement the design and engineering for another property?

▶ 53:46 Speaker 11: May you may

▶ 53:50 Speaker 5: Finally, Glen Radd, dorin Whittier Architects? Um, that's a great question. To this point. The, the work that's been done could ostensibly be put on any site. It tells us the size, the needs, the adjacencies in a diagrammatic or conceptual way. But if we did a little more work and found that without the cemetery land, it's not really a practicable site, then we've not really lost anything. I think you would consider the city has done their due diligence and worked through with us that well without that corner it doesn't work. They say, okay, great, we take chief follower's information, the information we've generated over years and you tell us where to look at and we shift volumes and, and the footprint and make it work. So

▶ 54:35 Speaker 2: You try to make Ripley work. Yeah. Okay.

▶ 54:38 Speaker 5: But so no, no, we haven't gone far enough down the road to have spent money that would be for Naugh.

▶ 54:46 Cal Finocchiaro: I guess that was my hesitation. It's like, are we gonna spend a lot of time in this spot that we don't know, we a hundred percent will work, or we can get that sliver of land that the cemetery commission's kind of held up on. And then, um, having to like shift gears and spend money on another, you know, engineering and design another spot.

▶ 55:05 Speaker 2: So that's was kind of like what I'm

▶ 55:07 Speaker 5: Right. And that may take tie back to one of the earlier questions about if, if you folks vote to approve money for the police portion of the project, some of that money for sure would be to, to verify where we left off with the study last year with the chief and the department. Um, but also just, just to make sure that it fits or if it doesn't move on, um, but again, not, not go further than is necessary to test the viability of that site. In other words, to not spend money needlessly.

▶ 55:42 Speaker 2: Okay. Is there like a dollar amount that, that, you know, like that would take to kind of figure out the site or is that, I don't wanna put you on the spot, but if you have an idea, it's,

▶ 55:50 Speaker 5: It's sort of pre-designed. It's, it's a sort of conceptual exercise to take what we know the footprint is what has to be on the ground floor and move things around away from that, that corner of the site to see if it can work or if it's just simply too tight, there's not enough frontage for staff and secure access and visitors. It, it would be before survey geotech, right. Before significant geotechnical investigations or surveys.

▶ 56:15 Speaker 2: I see. Okay. So you can kind get a sense of that before all that.

▶ 56:20 Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Thank you

▶ 56:24 Leila Migliorelli: President mc. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, just to clarify, the, the concern here isn't about the land viability. The concern is whether or not we, the city is able to resolve this with the cemetery commission and, and then second follow up, the cemetery land is city owned land. Is that correct? Mm-Hmm. Correct. Okay. So there's a procedural vote to determine whether a portion of this cemetery, cemetery land, which is city owned land, is something that we can use for this building. It has nothing to do with, we're worried that there's, you know, I don't know what you would find underneath there that would make this not viable. Yeah, I know. Okay. I I'm sure there's lots of things you could find underneath, but, but it's not like we're, we're concerned about this. So this is city owned property, there's a procedural vote that would need to take place. It's not like it's not out of the norm. What you're doing isn't like a concern that's out of the norm for a construction project to find out whether the land is viable for building, right? Correct. Okay, thank you. And then, um, I just wanna say, um, through the chair to Councilor Stewart's point, to echo the mayor's point with Councilor Hamilton serving on the commission, I would expect that updates would be coming to the council via rule 53 updates of, of full council meetings. Um, and then lastly, it just sounds like the biggest concern here for me, uh, you know, in, in making my decision to support this, which I do, is that delaying a vote on this or parsing it out in any way, um, the, the biggest concern in cost, cost increases is time. Right? If we are spending more time trying to figure out whether or not, not this, you know, a corner of land could be included or not included, could just push the whole project further down. And I think as we, um, voted, some of us around this table voted in November. And as the community as a whole voted on this project, they have an expectation that we as a counselor are gonna be good stewards of their money. And we're not going to, you know, delay something, um, that could potentially make this cost grow even larger. So time is the biggest concern here in, in, in cost, if I'm okay. Yeah. Um, so, um, with that, I, I wanna put a motion on the table, a motion to recommend.

▶ 58:55 Maya Jamaleddine: Uh, we have a motion to recommend made by President GL Lee. Second, seconded by Councilor Kim. She, on discussion, we have councilor uh, Romanul.

▶ 59:07 Devin Romanul: Thanks so much, uh, for all of the feedback. And a number of my colleagues answered my question. Say for one, um, and mayor, I think I might have mentioned this a while ago, but it was in the flurry of inauguration. But, um, I wanted to ask about, um, whether or not any of the IRS's direct pay components around the Inflation Reduction Act, some of the clean energy credits that are available as municipalities in particular, or, uh, cooperatives with, uh, private sector individuals as they look to build out any, you know, uh, uh, city fleet management, um, electricity, uh, resilience and renewable energy, uh, credits that are available through the IRA. I'm just wondering if that has been under consideration as you all are considering some of the plans of these, uh, some of the major upgrades at the confluence of like, some really incredible, um, opportunities to get reimbursed money from the federal government.

▶ 59:55 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes. So, absolutely. Um, DPW director Parus Ellis, who's also here, or she was, that she was, um,

▶ 1:00:03 Speaker 6: and I had an opportunity two weeks ago to meet with, um,

▶ 1:00:05 Jen Grigoraitis: staff from the Mass Building Trades Commission to talk about inflation reduction Act funding and credits. Um, there's a very robust partnership between organized labor and, um, federal elected, um, officials in Massachusetts to try to help municipalities access that funding for projects like this. So we had a preliminary conversation are looking to learn more. Um, so we've also talked with the Greater Boston Label Council about some of the steps that we would probably need to take in this project to make ourselves more attractive to some of those. Um, there's sort of two distinct tranches of funding, and I won't pretend to be an expert on it, but we've started to look into those and think about what parts of the, um, it could possibly apply to these projects. Plus we did receive, um, a federal congressionally directed spending, I'm not supposed to call it a new mark, um, to support making the police station net zero. So that is, um, while not specifically IRA money was a commitment from the federal government, which will, the intention is that that just reduces the, the bottom line payment to taxpayers by 3 million. Yeah.

▶ 1:01:08 Devin Romanul: Yeah. That's great. Yeah. 'cause I, I understand some of it's, uh, very formulaic. Like if you use, you know, you buy American, you use certain labor, you know Yep. Uh, provisions. And so anyway, great. I just wanted to make sure it was on everyone's right. Our screen. Definitely. Terrific.

▶ 1:01:23 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Councilor Depe.

▶ 1:01:24 Mark Garipay: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I know we have a motion on the floor, and I was half thinking, I thinking when I was coming in here tonight that I was, I wasn't convinced I was gonna potentially reduce the police portion of it until we can get the, what I believe is a concern on the cemetery property. A lot of people don't, but I personally do as, as a former chairperson of the cemetery. Um, but I just wanna go back to a couple things that you said. Just so I under understood it. Right. From counselor Ro, she had mentioned that if, for example, that doesn't work out, whatever happens with that land, you're gonna try to redesign and you believe you can redesign that building the proposed square footage in might not be ideal, but in the Ripley current lot, the current property of the Ripley school, did I understand that correctly?

▶ 1:02:19 Speaker 5: That's right. I think very early on we would do what we would call a test fit, right? Take our conceptual plans, see if they can be manipulated to fit on the site, minus that cemetery portion. And with the staff and experience we have, it would be pretty easy to recommend to the building committee or other staff, the pros and cons and help make that decision. We wouldn't tell you what to do or what not to do, but we could suggest the things that might be positive or not. Yeah.

▶ 1:02:49 Mark Garipay: To Consul Stewart and I believe canun, uh, cons, ROS point, I was also nervous about a proven money on something that we don't know whether it would fit or not. Right. So thank you for clarifying that. Um, when would the bond, this bond actually hit the taxpayers?

▶ 1:03:12 Mark Garipay: Um, are we gonna, are we gonna do a short term bond and then do a long term bond or what, like short term would hit, but we'd absorb that in the budget, I'm assuming?

▶ 1:03:19 Speaker 2: Sure. The plan is to actually, uh, bond, uh, ban it. I'm sorry. The, the plan is to actually ban it for a couple of years bond anticipation note. So when you ban something, you can only exclude the interest. So it's only the interest portion that will be hitting the taxpayers in the very beginning. And it's, it's nominal. Um, you won't, it will be several years out before you see the impact of the full bonds

▶ 1:03:47 Mark Garipay: Of this, of this first bond. And then And sub it Could be every six or eight months, we could see. Okay.

▶ 1:03:54 Speaker 2: It'll start adding up.

▶ 1:03:55 Mark Garipay: Think of two years. Um, I'm, that all depend on the rates, and I'm assuming if I'm sorry, I, I was trying to find that and I couldn't in my pile of papers, uh,

▶ 1:04:04 Speaker 2: I'm, I'm just looking at the, the schedule from the presentation. It was closer to 29. Um, 2029 to 30, 27 to 30 is when it starts ramping up.

▶ 1:04:17 Mark Garipay: Okay. Um, thank you. Sure. Um, the only other thing, um, happy to hear that the administration is gonna work closely with the cemetery commission. Um, I know, um, I'll say the prior administration, it was a surprise to them on all this.

▶ 1:04:34 Speaker 1: So, um, I, I think that

▶ 1:04:38 Mark Garipay: if this, if this land does get, um, assigned over or transferred over to the city, I think it's imperative that we get equal value back for the cemetery. Yeah. To keep that as a viable, um, wrestling place for residents of Melrose and state law requires we have to have one in every city. So we're getting to that point. We're almost, um, we're running out. So I would just encourage in anything I can do to help. Um, we've had some ideas over the years when we're on there, so, um, I appreciate you keeping them in the loop. Thank you. You're

▶ 1:05:15 Jen Grigoraitis: Welcome. And I wanna be clear, first of all, as a highly anxious person, I don't like surprises either. Um, but also that I, you know, we're using, you know, it's procedural, it is city owned land. It is, you know, it's currently a parking lot. All of these things are true. I am not interested in having a situation where we have three resident volunteers on the cemetery commission feel like they have to take a vote because otherwise they're holding up a project that the city voted on. That's not a dynamic anyone here is looking to set up. So I think, but to the point that was made, this is what was put before the voters. I think we have an obligation to proceed with looking into the viability of what was put before the voters, knowing that there are parts that have to be factored into, into addressing. And I think we have a bunch of viable options for what to do when we hit that. But I certainly don't want the members of the cemetery commission to feel like they're literally gonna be bulldozed over because of this project that I don't think anybody here wants that. So tell completely, um, your feedback has been heard and appreciated. Okay.

▶ 1:06:16 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Hamilton.

▶ 1:06:19 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. Um, just a couple things quickly. Um, so I think the question of risk has been raised by councilor fro, um,

▶ 1:06:35 Ward Hamilton: right now the studies that have been done to date are, well, we'll just stick with the police station. What should a police station have? How many square feet does that take? It's an esoteric exercise where we could land that on the Ripley site or somewhere else, right? So we want to be careful because we still need to solidify the, uh, the landing zone. Um, and we don't wanna waste money designing something that can't then be implemented in a specific location. So I think my question, you know, uh, and, and Councilor Fania fro raise this issue, and as did Councillor Stewart, um, in this initial, in the beginning of this first design phase, phase one, will we be able to, um, nail down a location without adding cost? And if for some reason the targeted location isn't going to work out, can we pivot

▶ 1:07:45 Speaker 3: without adding

▶ 1:07:49 Ward Hamilton: significant extra cost?

▶ 1:07:52 Speaker 5: I think I can answer part of that anyways, and I'll let Don talk to the, the bigger picture implication. I, I do wanna clarify, and you bring up a good point. Uh, we went quite, quite a bit further beyond an esoteric exercise, and maybe I'm mischaracterizing your intent. We've, we've come up with a very specific right sized police program. Um, I think there is, there's a slight bit of gray area where we get to a point where we could say that site's viable or not. I think very quickly we could see if it works without the cemetery land or, or if it, it's a deal breaker. And I don't, I would intend to not spend any more effort than is needed to get to that point, to present to the city right here. Here's what it means.

▶ 1:08:40 Speaker 9: And, and we're hearing you loud and clear. We know what our first steps are. Let, let's see if it is as viable as we said it was during the study. So that that'll be done with very little money, uh, being spent up front.

▶ 1:08:55 Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And, um, I think I'll,

▶ 1:08:58 Ward Hamilton: I'll just have one last point that, that Councilor Stewart raised, which was excellent, which was, we all know that as time marches on escalation is gonna drive costs up. And so, um, I'm looking forward to working with you all on this committee, but I would echo Councilor Stewart's recommendation and concerns that we want design and construction to get underway as quickly as possible on all of these buildings. Because the price is only gonna go up and we're working with 2020 $3. It's not gonna, we're not, that number is not gonna increase.

▶ 1:09:39 Speaker 3: Thank you.

▶ 1:09:40 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Councillor Stewart?

▶ 1:09:43 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Madam Chair, I, I will, on the outside I will be supporting this. I just want, want to share that and through the chair. Um, I do wanna recommend, uh, uh, um,

▶ 1:09:58 Robb Stewart: uh, appreciate the comment that, uh, cons, uh, that President McGuire had made about the time and how important time is 'cause I agree with that. I think time is of the essence here. Um, uh, Madam Chair, I think what the biggest risk that I see is that risk of the unknown that I talked about. Uh, I think the library is, uh, an example that we all understand where when we dig and we find something that we weren't expecting and, uh, cost can go up fairly significantly that we weren't anticipating. Uh, and that the fact that we have a set number of buildings that we have to build and a fixed costs, and I'm sorry if I sound redundant, but the, those, those costs of the unknown, uh, in my, my mind is that the biggest risk? Because we have four projects that are each twice the size of the library, right? So roughly, um, and to me, that, that we're gonna come across something who knows what it is. 'cause we don't know yet, right? But we're gonna come across something. And so that is why I am asking, and I, I, I strongly recommend that we have tight control and communication throughout the whole effort. Uh, including where are we out of date, what the, what the forecast is to have a forecast that, that you present to us, um, and what the schedule and plan looks like. So that way there are no surprises. And I like, like you said, um, none of us really like surprises, but I think this helps mitigate the communication of the surprise, uh, to our constituency. So with that, uh, I, I'll thank you for, uh, being patient with us, and thank you Madam Chair.

▶ 1:11:41 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Anyone else on discussion?

▶ 1:11:49 Speaker 5: Okay. C Vice Chair Williams? Yes. Councillor Repe. Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Carcetti? Yes. Councillor Hamilton? Yes. Councillor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Councillor naca? Yes. President Elli? Yes. And Chair Jamal? Yes. Motion passes.

▶ 1:12:10 Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you

▶ 1:12:12 Speaker 11: For your excellent questions. Thank

▶ 1:12:14 Speaker 9: you. Thank you very much.