ORDER-2024-5 : Request For Debt Exclusion Question For Public Safety Buildings Be Placed on the November 7, 2023 Election Ballot

Transcript (~1 h 27 min @ 26:03)

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

▶ 25:59 Leila Migliorelli: Alright. This order will be brought to the full counsel at the next meeting with a recommendation for passage. Thank you so much for being here tonight.

▶ 26:05 Speaker 5: Thank you.

▶ 26:07 Leila Migliorelli: All right. Last but not least, least on our agenda is order 2024 dash five. Request for debt exclusion. Question for public safety buildings to be placed on the November 7th, 2023 election ballot. Tonight we have here Mayor Broder speaking. Um, joining him at the table is Mr. LaRusso, uh, chief Financial Officer, Mr. Mark Remley, the interim city solicitor, and whomever else Mayor. Mayor would like to bring up to the table. We'll see. All right, I'll just start. You're gonna start. Okay. Great.

▶ 26:48 Paul Brodeur: Good evening, Madam Chair, Madam President, members of the committee, uh, honorable City Council members. Tonight I am following through on a commitment I made at the State of the City address last February, well, probably a year ago, last February, to take action to address our number one public safety infrastructure, our number one public infrastructure problem, the need to update and replace our aging public safety buildings. And I'm pleased to present to the council and ultimately to the voters of Melrose. I hope this opportunity to fund this urgent need through a debt exclusion. I do wanna express my thanks to the members of the Public Safety Building Committee, most of whom are here this evening. The co-chairs Jeff McNaught and Eugene Gibbons, uh, the city's professional staff, Elena per ell. And Denise Gaffey professionals drawn from the community, including Jason Chen and Emmanuel Andrade Chiefs, kina, kina and Flia. And before him, chief Lyle. Uh, union representatives, uh, who served or, um, you know, I guess I would call it rank and file support. Uh, Dale Parsons and Paul Norton from the Mills Police Department, and John McCarran of the Melrose Firefighters. I know you've all reviewed the committee report and heard from the committee about its content. So the administration will focus primarily on a financial discussion. Obviously, we're prepared, um, to engage in any kind of discussion you want to. Um, the financial team is here with us this evening, and there are also some legal and procedural questions that you all have raised. So, acting solicitor, mark Rumley is also here with us, um, today to answer any of those questions. Um, to get us started though, I'd like to offer some brief remarks on why I am proposing the $95 million, uh, Set of projects that focuses on three of the four buildings that make up our public safety buildings. While the committee report also spoke of the condition of the East Side Fire Station and advocates for an additional $35 million for its replacement, the charge that I gave to the Public Safety Committee was to focus on the needs of those buildings and generate a, a report. And they have done excellent job with very, very thoughtful, uh, recommendations. However, I suggest that the role of the mayor and the role of the city council, um, is to see the big picture and to consider this proposal in the context of our overall capital and other budgetary needs. I wanna talk a little bit because it's come up in some of the discussions outside of this chamber about the past history of our, of our building investments, our significant building investments, uh, which have focused on the schools. So in the past 25 years or so, the community has essentially funded three building replacement projects, all of which were schools of the Lincoln School. Um, which you should know was built in 1896 with an addition in 1929, the Roosevelt School, which was built in 1924 with additions in 54 and 56, and the old Melrose High School slash Melrose Junior High School project, which if you're old enough to remember, we used to run double sessions in those buildings. Um, that was built in 1933, and we endured probably a couple decades of sewage presenting in the basement where we had classrooms and our cafeteria. And happily, those were, we, we finally moved on that. And those were important projects in their time that were absolutely necessary. By comparison, based on the and current conditions of our public safety buildings, it is indefensible to fail to take action to dramatically renovate fire headquarters. Noting as Mr. Sullivan noted that it is a historic building built in 1895, replace and enlarge the engine two of the Melrose Street station, which was built on or about 1929, and to enlarge and replace our police station, which was built in 1907 and was converted to a police station when Noahs PD moved outta City Hall in 1951. Now, I do wanna be clear that in recommending the three building project that is before you, I am not proposing closing the East Side Fire station. That is not part of this proposal. I know there's been some confusion about that, and I want to be crystal clear about that. And while the, the last plan that was developed and considered well, never really considered was not presented to the council, put before the voters did in fact contemplate eliminating a fire station. Again, the current plan does not contemplate that we are, however, proposing to meet the critical needs of the East Side Fire Station without replacing the building at this time, the most immediate need of the East Side Fire Station is to replace the roof. I anticipate that the council will be asked to appropriate funds very shortly in the process of getting bids for a roof project shortly. That will come in at a very reasonable cost. And I wanna be clear, regardless of what you decide to do tonight and put before the voters, that project needs to happen. Uh, improvements to the living quarters H V A C in the building envelope are also high priorities. Uh, with an overall investment anticipated very roughly at two and a half to $3 million, uh, funding for that would be, have to be considered on a project case by case basis. And there are any number of potential sources of funding for that, including free cash, capital stabilization, non-exempt debt, which is debt that we pay for within our operating budget as opposed to a debt exclusion or exempt bonding as appropriate. As I've stated consistently over the past year, the public safety buildings here are our top priority. What I want to do with you, so that you'll understand completely my thinking for not moving forward with the $130 million project, uh, is that there are other capital needs coming up and to consider how we are going to address them in the context of the big picture. So here's what I do see. So, you know, we go in eyes wide open as to what those other needs are. We currently have three studies underway that will dramatically affect our capital planning in the years ahead, uh, all of which were generously funded by by this council. We're doing a strategic assessment of our school-based needs in the adequacy of our current buildings. So in order to bring special education services in-house, lower our out placements, and to accommodate our growing school population, we do need to expand and or reconfigure space. We know from recent studies that we'll need approximately 12 to $15 million to bring the BB school back online as an educational facility. We also know that the Winthrop School, which was built in the mid 1920s, making it our oldest school building by a wide margin, making it also older than everything except Father Fire HQ, needs at least a full renovation in the near to midterm future. We certainly will seek out M S B A funding for that. I would hope the community would seek out that option. But even with that support, our local portion of whatever that project will be will require exempt bonding, i e debt exclusion financing. We simply can't afford it within the context of our operating budget. We are also doing an H H V A C assessment of all our public schools and our proceeding with installation of air conditioning at the middle school. It is our hope that the budget for doing the AC at the middle school can be covered with the funding already allocated. And I think that is the most likely outcome. We obviously will have to wait for the design report to, to come back to confirm that. However, one thing that Covid has taught us is the importance of high quality, high capacity air filtration in exchange in all our high capacity buildings, especially our schools. In fact, it's the reason why you were recall, we decided to do an H V A C renovation at the, at the Milano Center. So it,

▶ 36:12 Speaker 2: we also though we also know that, um,

▶ 36:17 Paul Brodeur: the world unfortunately, is getting hotter and we are going to face growing challenges with heat in our buildings and our educational facilities, in particular for folks that work in the buildings every day. They know that at some place, air conditioning or something like that is going to be necessary. What this, the current study that we're doing will identify, you know, essentially a whole set of needs around which buildings can support it, what the upgrades are needed, and what the ultimate cost will be if our students and staff are gonna be able to function during heat waves. And this is true of all our employees in all our buildings, and I recognize that because it's relevant to our discussion of the public safety buildings. We know that those heat waves are gonna get worse and more frequent in the days ahead, and we need to be ready to address that. Finally, um, again, with your approval of your, um, I believe matching funding, we are at the, at the precipice or at the conclusion of our comprehensive assessment of ongoing capital needs and trying to restructure how the city does capital planning, essentially on all levels, both exempt and non-exempt. So everything from big buildings and swapping them out to vehicle replacement strategies for D P W Fire and Police. Um, we are about to see that. We anticipate from rough drafts that that is gonna identify roughly, and I say roughly $18 million in non-exempt

▶ 37:57 Speaker 2: projects that are going to need

▶ 38:02 Paul Brodeur: to be taken care of. That will be recommended as high priority in the f y 24 to f y 28 capital plan. And that includes, uh, probably fi roughly $5 million for the Franklin School, which has a need right now for a roof. It is leaking like the Hoover did, and to a much lesser degree the hos Mann before we invested in the roofs that we took care of this summer. And replacement windows, which we have done at the Hoover, uh, and some other locations, the roof and the windows are about a $3 million prospect as we sit here today. Uh, the good news is if you watch the school committee meeting on Tuesday, you know that, uh, the, um, accelerated repair program that went offline, um, really during the covid crisis is back online. I do not yet have a sense of what the bandwidth or the timeframe, um, that that will involve. Uh, ideally we would get the same deal that we got on the Hoover and the horse man, uh, meaning that S B A would pay for roughly half, but it's a little bit of a brave new world. But those are the kind of things that we face in addition to the, the top priority that we're talking about here tonight. As you know, the non-exempt debt policy, the things that we, the things that we borrow, that we service the debt through the operating budget, we have a policy that we cap that at 5%. We are significantly below that. Uh, but you know, from our current budget situation, we don't have a lot. If we, if we grow that out to 5%, we will have a challenge of servicing that debt. So if 5% is kind of our load star, I can't tell you as we sit here today under current conditions that we were able to borrow within the operating budget to service those needs. And again, that is the current stress on our operating budget. Uh, as you know, free cash, which is performed at record levels over the last several years, is not going to operate, is not going to be present at the same level given our commitment to, uh, fully funding our special education and transportation needs. So in order to meet those needs, much like what this project, the city is going to need to find other funding sources. So there are clearly a lot of priorities for us to weigh in balance. What it comes down to is that we're going to have to have functioning school buildings, roads that don't fud playing fields and parks for rec and all the other infrastructure we rely on. And we need to figure out a way to accommodate those projects as well. And thus, my recommendation that we do not advance 35, what is potentially $35 million for the East Side Fire Station, where there potentially other fixes for a building that, uh, well is not, uh, what I would consider state of the a by any stretch of the imagination is far superior in context to the other buildings that we're considering this evening as well. Thus, my reasoning for offering what, um, well was described as a, as a cheap number. Uh, we have have made a lot of progress in Melrose, where 30, uh, I think $95 million is now seen as the minimum investment that we will consider in our public safety buildings. And for buildings that have waited for many decades without even getting to this point. That in and of itself is remarkable. I'm excited that a debt exclusion, I hope will go before the voters and I will close with, um, what I said during public comment last evening. I urge you all, whatever position you take to be prepared to support it in November, uh, I don't think there is much value in saying, well, this is really up to the voters and pushing it forward. If that were the case,

▶ 42:27 Speaker 2: there wouldn't be any reason for you to weigh in at all. You know, it is our collective job to

▶ 42:38 Paul Brodeur: do what we believe in, what we can support, what we as leaders of the city, we'll say to the community, this is what we want, but more importantly, this is what we feel we need. And that is why we're asking you for, let's all be clear. A very, very significant investment, even at the $95 million level in terms of what we are asking voters, taxpayers to put forward. That's my opening. You've heard it a little bit before, uh, but I did think the context of why I made my recommendation, uh, is important. And with that, uh, I'm gonna turn it over to our, uh, terrific team in terms of financial resources. Patrick de Ruso, you all know our C F O has been at this a very long time, and I dare say is more expert than probably anyone else that we're going to hear from in terms of the funding mechanism and how they work. Catherine Armada, our city treasurer, um, who is responsible for issuing the bonds, uh, coordinating with bond council and pursuing debt and other, and Sarah McClellan, our chief assessor who can talk most specifically about, um, what the potential impact is as we sit here today on any particular amount that would go before the voters for their consideration, hopefully on the November ballot. Ladies and gentlemen,

▶ 44:51 Speaker 6: Well, good evening, great to be here this evening and I appreciate the time, um, worthwhile topic and something that, um, I think as, uh, we just said is so, uh, so much, um, in discussion today. Uh, pleased to, uh, have a chance to speak to that. Um, I'd like to take this time just to review the prominent financing components of the Public Safety Building project that we're considering this evening. And as the mayor indicated, I'm pleased to have with me the chief assessor and our treasurer collector, Katherine and Sarah, and they will also speak, um, after my brief comments, um, themselves and through the chair respectfully. If there's any questions that we'd like, um, to address, be happy to do that after that. But, um, but I wanted just hit on just really three points and maybe four. 'cause um, It may also be helpful to know and right from the get go. Again, the funding mechanism for this project is called a debt exclusion. The city has used such a funding protocol in the past for the middle school project back in 2003. What this means is that we will be paying the debt associated with the project outside of the general two and a half tax levy raised by the community. Again, outside of that, this is critical because if approved, a new dedicated funding stream will be created, designed specifically to fund this project until completion in 30 years, at that point, the tax obligation will cease, period. It does not go on. Secondly,

▶ 46:52 Speaker 6: I am confident that standard and Poors bond rating agency would look favorably on utilizing this funding strategy as it removes stress from the regular operating budgets to pay the needed annual debt service associated with the project. This will allow the city to maintain its 5% operating budget limitation on annual non-exempt debt service currently in place, which really has served this community extremely well. And to put into context, number wise, currently we're budgeting $5.3 million for community debt service in f Y 24. In this particular project, we're talking about approximately $6.2 million every year. So in magnitude, you can see where it's, it's just about a million dollars over what we're currently funding in the regular budget. That's why debt exclusion is the alternative for funding. One of the many reasons. And finally, again, as Amir indicated, I'm not gonna spend too much time on it, the, this funding strategy provides the opportunity for the city to actively pursue what's existing five year capital improvement prob program without jeopardizing our ability to fund other much needed capital projects through this community, which have been referenced again in the mayor's memorandum as well, of this common tonight. And one other quick note that I, um, number four, which I want to highlight this is, this funding of these public safety buildings is quite, um, unique in the sense that unlike the school projects, there's no state contribution. We don't get M S B A funding, we don't get anything to offset this cost. It makes it extremely hard for communities to fund buildings of this nature. And it's not just Melrose, it's statewide. I know there's been, um, my 30, almost 31 years doing this. There's been a lot of chatter at the State House and years gone by and, and even actually, actually last year as to why that is. Why doesn't the state create a program just to help public safety buildings? 'cause they'd wa they wear out, they get worn down, they need windows, they need roofs, like in just like a school building. So again, what makes it unique and, and the reason it, it sort of, um, sets itself alone is you don't have another alternative source to help you fund it. So it's truly on the back of the community if they chose to do it. Um, but at some point I'd like to see that change in the future. I've always said that. Um, so again, i, I just want to be brief and I wanna give an opportunity for questions and answers and also to allow Catherine and Sarah to talk a little bit about what they see from their perspective departments. Thank you.

▶ 49:50 Speaker 6: Good evening counselors. I'm gonna take you through the bottle of the bonding of the $95 million scenario, and I'll cover the following points, the assumptions in the model, the timing, and the cost. And I just wanna point out right up front that a review of the model is not an approval of a bond order. If the order before, if you choose to pass this order tonight and then the voters pass it on the ballot, then I would have to put through a new bond order that goes through the usual protocols to meetings, appropriations, et cetera. So I just wanted to put, put that out there for clarification. Uh, the illustrations in your packet were developed by the city's advisor, Hilltop Securities, based on the information we know today, which is the projected costs, uh, projected timeline and the current market conditions. So any of these assumptions could change in the future. I'll be referencing the document in your packet, draft two dated August 11th 23. And I'll just be focusing on the first page because the supporting pages just roll up to the top. On the top of the first page is your interest rate assumption. It shows 4% for the short term rate, 5% for the five term rate, five long term rate. These are based on current interest rates for melrose's, SS and P rating of AA plus. At this time, uh, the expenditures are per the report, uh, issued by the Public Safety Committee. The issue of the bonds are staggered to follow a project plan build out. The term of the long-term bonds is 30 years, and the illustration only shows the projected exempt debt and does not include any of the non-exempt debt obligations of the city. So the model includes all current and contemplated exempt debt. Column A shows the remaining payment schedule of the middle schools, which is, um, schedule two expire in 2029. Column B represents the interest on the bans. Mm-hmm. Uh, we plan to issue short-term debt in the initial stages as we receive updates on expenditures and get a better grip on the expenditures. And it's important to know that there are restrictions on how we can bond that drive this philosophy of banning. There are time restrictions on how we can spend the money, uh, time within, we can spend the money, uh, that we need to adhere to and we cannot issue debt ahead of a project spend and then invest it for extra money. That's called arbitrage. And there are negative consequences. So following the timeline that was put out in the report, the model forecast forecasts the issuance of the first 30 year bonds in 2026 to pay for the cost of the police station and engine number two in the amount of $68.2 million. The first principle in interest payments shown in column C, uh, will be due in 2027 to the tune of 4,475,000. The final issuance would be, would be scheduled for 2027 for 26.7 million to cover the cost of central fire station renovation. In addition, with the first p and i due in the following year of 2028 for 1,740,000 for the majority of the following 30 years, the principal and interest payments on the debt would be, as Patrick said, approximately $6.2 million. At the very end, you can see that trickle down with the maturity of the first bond. So over this 30 year period, the total cost to the taxpayers or the funding mechanism for all of the contemplated exempt debt in this model, middle school bans and 30 year bonds would be approximately a hundred eighty five thousand three hundred forty eight thousand four hundred dollars. And then Sarah will talk to you about her end of the model. Mm-hmm.

▶ 54:01 Speaker 7: Good evening, mad chair and members of the committee. Um, each fiscal year we calculate the, the tax levy for the community using last year's levy limit. As the base, we add two point a half percent to that base through prop two point a half, add our certified new growth dollar amount and we add if app applicable, any new override amount approved by voters in a given year. These elements make up the levee limit for the fiscal year to that levee limit amount. We add our annual debt service payment to get us to the maximum allowable levee for the fiscal year. Unlike overrides debt exclusions do not become part of the levee limit and therefore are not added to the base for calculating future year's levee limits. To provide a general idea of debt service impacts since 2009, Melrose has been paying 1.8 to 2 million in an annual net excluded debt service for the capital project to build the middle school. That debt will be fully retired in 2029. As you can see on this, um, 8 11 23 draft number two document that Catherine was referring to, um, included in the packet. Um, as Patrick briefly touched on, um, if the city favorably passes a debt exclusion vote for the new public safety buildings project with the projected cost of the 95 million, the annual debt service payments would increase to roughly 6.2 million for the majority of years during that 30 year period. Um, as Mayor Broder previous previously noted, the debt service impact for the $95 million project on the average single family property in Melrose, which was valued at 7 33 4 65 in fiscal year 2023 would be roughly $640 per year. We use that average single family home as the standard measure, but for all residential property, this would be about $87 per hundred thousand dollars of assessed value per year. Or it, it adds about 87 cents to the tax rate annually. Again, it's important to note during this discussion that the impact estimates I'm providing are based on the current economic conditions and are subject to change in succeeding years. The results would vary with changes in the city's total assessed value, the tax rate, the c i p shift, the long-term interest rates, and additional any additional debt service structure. And with that, we are happy to answer questions that you have.

▶ 56:35 Speaker 4: Thank you. Questions from the council. Councilor Sella.

▶ 56:39 Christopher Cinella: Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I guess I'd want to know, um, from the committee if they could chime in on whether or not, did you guys assess, um,

▶ 56:53 Christopher Cinella: rehabbing East Side versus is that something you guys looked into? What the,

▶ 57:04 Speaker 5: We approach the table? Mm-hmm.

▶ 57:05 Speaker 3: Yeah. You don't mind? Yeah. Microphone? Yep.

▶ 57:26 Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Emmanuel Andrati, member of the Public Safety, um, committee. Um, given the needs of the fire department in engine three and the needs for additional base, additional, uh, space needed for equipment for personnel, which is very, a very, very small station from 1964, uh, that was adequate at that point, but no longer adequate for the 21st Century Fire Station. We did not look at, uh, minimal improvements because those were not, uh, were not deemed, uh, successful by the committee as part of our effort. Okay. So, uh, what, uh, the direction that we reached with the architect was a complete demolition and a construction of a new larger station because of the needs of the fire department. Okay. Uh, we, we believe that any study to try to keep the station as is and

▶ 58:43 Speaker 1: a little bit of, uh, T L C, let's call it, was done in the previous effort by the previous committee. And that that information is wildly available and, and, you know, that was not the direction that this committee, uh, pursued.

▶ 58:56 Christopher Cinella: Okay, thank you. So I, I know we'll, we'll discuss this further this evening, but I appreciate the work that the committee and all the mayor's staff has done and the mayor's comments earlier. Um, but as I had stated in the meeting that we had with the committee coming before us, that I support, you know, the work that they have done, the order that would, well, the recommendation coming from the committee, um, and you know, I just, I think that the east side, um, fire station, the, the days of using, you know, gorilla Glue and Flex Seal are over and the costs are only going up. And I think the differential on the, um, one 30 versus the 95 on a monthly basis is on average around 20 bucks ish, give or take. Um, I mean, it's, it's negligible. It's a large amount overall. But, um, you know, at this time I would, I would like to, um, make a motion to amend the language. Um, and I'll read it off for the question that will be on the ballot. Uh, shall the City of Melrose be allowed to exempt the provisions of the proposition two and a half, so-called the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to pay the cost for the design engineering, construction site improvements, equipping, and furnishings of the renovated Melrose Central Fire Station, a new Melrose Highlands Fire Station, a New East Side Fire Station, and a new Melrose Police station, and all other costs, incidental and related thereto.

▶ 1:00:39 Speaker 1: I second that motion,

▶ 1:00:42 Leila Migliorelli: A motion made by Councillor Ella to amend the order as was read, seconded by Councillor Repe on discussion.

▶ 1:00:54 Speaker 4: Councillor McMaster.

▶ 1:00:56 Shawn M. MacMaster: Uh, thank you, uh, Madam Chair, one of the, the things that I just think it's important for us in the, in the public to, to know is what it is that we're voting on tonight and, and what we're voting on tonight is the question that will appear potentially on the ballot. And this may be a question, Madam Chair for the acting city solicitor, but if we voted tonight simply on the language to appear on the ballot, I believe there'd be a subsequent vote on how much the, uh, the council could look to, to borrow. So is is the, is the acting Yes.

▶ 1:01:39 Speaker 4: Mr. Rumley? Yeah.

▶ 1:01:44 Shawn M. MacMaster: So the, um, just, just to be clear sir, thank you for being here. The, the administration is recommending the 95 million. Yes. You add the east side, it's 35 million. That's not on the table right now. They, it, they'd need a subsequent vote by the council to determine a, a certain amount, whether it's 35, 95, more or less,

▶ 1:02:08 Speaker 5: The debt exclusion before you, uh, first by way of introduction, I'm sorry, uh, through the chair to members of the, uh, committee. My name is Mark Rumley, R u m L E Y. And I have the pleasure of sitting in for city solicitor Shannon Phillips for a certain period of time, and I'm honored to do that. Just so you have a little bit of background on me, I was city solicitor in Medford for 20 years, assistant there for 17 before and special counsel in Malden right now for the last two years, which I'll continue after I'm done this short hiatus. Now, to answer your question, you're not voting on an amount tonight. You're voting on whether or not to go essentially against the restrictions of proposition two and a half, uh, for what's before you for three projects. The only thing that you can change or amend is purpose. As was said to you in a July 21st opinion by Solicitor Phillips, you can change purpose. So you could go from, I'm, I'm calling it three to four, you'll have to forgive me without, with not being familiar with all of your stations and, and their condition. You could change it if you, if that was the will. But of course that short answer begs other questions, which is this, the mayor has proposed three, would he support four? And if he doesn't, you don't have a debt exclusion question. The other thing is this, and this is not to be provocative, but you do have some time constraints here, uh, because you have to have this all buttoned up by, uh, 35 days before the election. And I believe that's the cutoff date would be October 2nd, as I understand now that's a practical concern, but practical concerns have to be looked at and considered when you're deciding whether or not to change something which is before you. So it's kind of like a race in a sense, a time race. There's something that's before you in a certain form that you may be able to have appropriate discernment on and consider in time when you begin opening up the possibility of amendments, a lot of things bubble to the top, whether or not the mayor would approve and that approval is required. And whether or not you're then pushing the question down the road a little bit to make it prohibitive to get the right question there, uh, in time for the ballot also, whatever, if you change it, what also has to happen is we have to consult with bond counsel because there'd be something like that down the road. So it's not just a matter of changing it, passing the change and assuming that everything goes according to Hoyle because that's not necessarily the case. So yes. Can you change purpose of course, as you were told on July 21st by Solicitor Phillips, you can, and that's what you're proposing.

▶ 1:04:59 Shawn M. MacMaster: So, but separate and apart from that, Mr. Rumley, if, if the counsel, let's say chose to, to vote in favor of the mayor's question

▶ 1:05:10 Speaker 5: Yes, sir.

▶ 1:05:12 Shawn M. MacMaster: So that's, that's one amount right now, and I know that's not tied to this particular matter before us, but that amount is 95 million based on Council Ella's motion. We know the cost, if you were to add East Side, would be 35 million. Mm-hmm. So at some point later down the road, there would be a separate vote Correct. Before the council on how much to borrow. Is that, is that fair to say? If you are

▶ 1:05:37 Speaker 5: Going to do project four, which would increase it from the 90, whatever it is to either

▶ 1:05:42 Shawn M. MacMaster: Way, at some point the cons, the next matter before the council will be how much to borrow?

▶ 1:05:46 Speaker 5: Yes, it would. Okay. Because you may have, I'll just use easy figures. Uh, you may have, I don't know, this funding coming forward, which would make your bonding obligation perhaps a little bit less prohibitive. It is not necessarily, I'm not a financial person, but it's not necessarily at the 95 if you had alternative funding, which was forthcoming. So If I haven't misspoken,

▶ 1:06:10 Shawn M. MacMaster: Regardless of how the council, uh, votes tonight, we're not bound though by either amount, whether it's 35, you know, an additional 35 million more than 95, the council could, could determine as an independent body what that amount is. Is that fair to say? The

▶ 1:06:28 Speaker 5: Council, without question to, just to affirm you, the council without question is going to be required to vote on bonding,

▶ 1:06:36 Shawn M. MacMaster: But we're not just, we wouldn't just be looking at necessarily 95 million or 95 million plus 35 million. It could be another number. Is that

▶ 1:06:46 Speaker 5: Yeah. But, and the number is not on the debt exclusion tonight. Right?

▶ 1:06:49 Shawn M. MacMaster: Right. So it's not one or the other. I mean, we're, we're either way, you're, you're either voting for the, the three buildings or the four buildings. But the numbers before us are estimates that that number could, could be a different number.

▶ 1:07:03 Speaker 5: Yes. And I, I don't wanna sound facetious, but every number is an estimate. It always is. Especially in this economy. And also remember, the debt exclusion is a funding mechanism as opposed to the approval of a project

▶ 1:07:17 Paul Brodeur: To, to shorthand it. Uh, 'cause he's a real lawyer. I'm a recovering lawyer. As you all know, the basic paradigm of the basic thing is that if it's three buildings, you are right. You can borrow whatever

▶ 1:07:36 Speaker 2: we as a community deem is needed to do the three projects,

▶ 1:07:39 Paul Brodeur: um, or the four projects, if that is what is included in the question. What you could not do outside of two and a half is if the ballot question is for three buildings, you can't then go outside of two and a half. Yeah. You know what? We changed our minds. We're gonna do four. Mm-hmm. That's the Right. I think that's what you were getting at.

▶ 1:08:03 Shawn M. MacMaster: Yes. And essentially, I mean, there are two numbers that have gone back and forth, but at the end of the day, that number could be different based on if we, if the council voted tonight to support cons, sun's amendment, you as the mayor could come back to us understanding what the council approved. Yep. With another number other than 35. You could say 25. You could say 20. But we have to vote on the next matter that comes before us. Right. And that amount wouldn't necessarily mean it's an additional 35 million. It could. Right.

▶ 1:08:34 Paul Brodeur: But it could, and to be, I mean, just not to put too fine a point on it, but that will likely happen under different administration and under different counsel is those numbers will take some, some time to mature a little bit. But because the, the way, as I understand it, you will, you know, the first phase of this is a year of design that could be funded under the debt exclusion. That will get you to a much harder number. And that's when it really, you know, the, the price really comes into much better focus.

▶ 1:09:08 Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair,

▶ 1:09:11 Speaker 4: Councillor Stewart, Madam

▶ 1:09:12 Robb Stewart: Chair. Uh, just a point of clarification. Uh, I had to step up for a minute. Could you just repeat the motion on the table, please?

▶ 1:09:17 Leila Migliorelli: The motion on the table is made by Councillor Ella, um, without reading the entire ba ballot, proposed ballot language is including a renovated, um, fire station, a new Melrose Highlands Fire Station, plus a New East Side Fire station, um, in a new police station. So is that clear? That's four buildings versus the three. Okay.

▶ 1:09:42 Speaker 4: Any other questions?

▶ 1:09:47 Speaker 4: I, if there are no questions or Councilor Eccles.

▶ 1:09:50 Jack Eccles: Yeah. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I'll start by saying that I'm really excited that we're here tonight. Um, like many of the people that have spoken before, I think this is long overdue. Um, I will also say that no matter how this amendment lands, I plan on supporting it in November and out of committee with recommendation. Um, with that being said, I don't plan on voting on the, for the amendment because I do have some reservations on the 130 million version of this project. Um, unlike the Public Safety Building Committee, we are not limited in scope when making big decisions. So with the structural deficit and infrastructure priorities likely to surface in the near future, I anticipate and likely will support future initiatives that will seek to raise revenue for investments and our needs. And each tax increase ends up being an affordable, an affordability issue for many of our residents. And I think it will be continue to be with future requests, and I think we need to make adjustments and scale down where possible. Um, I think it best to put forward the project as proposed and potentially revisit the East Side Fire Station in the near future. That could be a standalone debt exclusion or improvements could be funded through smaller capital projects. Um, but with that being said, there are definitely quality life of life issues there, and I understand that and we should address those, um, in some manner with urgency. Um, to be clear, you know, the proposal before us either one, is the largest one-time investment in public safety in Melrose in at least a hundred years. I think. Um, and it's previously mentioned, I wholeheartedly support either, either proposal in November because I believe in the urgency of these needs. But I would prefer, prefer the scaled down proposal no matter what happens, um, with this amendment. The likely next steps for this propo, for the proponents of the project are to get together and discuss with their friends and neighbors, you know, the importance of investing in public safety. And I plan on joining them.

▶ 1:11:54 Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Repe, then Councillor Williams.

▶ 1:11:56 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Um, I support the, um, motion by Councilor ler, uh, to include the east, uh, east side fire station on the ballot. Um, question for the dead exclusion. Um, the East side station, um, the first responders to my constituents up in the, up on the upper side of four two, also the residents of six two and seven two. Um, I feel I wouldn't be representing the residents and the firefighters if I do not support including the Public Safety Committee's recommendations, um, for the station. Um, and so I get this straight where, uh, what the amendment is is we're looking at buildings. We're not looking at a dollar amount now. So to everyone's point 130 million, it could come in at 125, it come in at a hundred and 120 or maybe, maybe a little bit more. I understand the financial impact for each household is real. I mean, we all agree that, I think we all agree that around this table,

▶ 1:12:54 Mark Garipay: but I, I think the mayor convinced me more with his, with his speech to, to support this because a debt exclusion to C F o De La Russo's, uh, statement is a separate funding source. So if we don't do the side or don't include that and something drastically changes, there is a major impact to our already stressed out financial operating budget. So I think it's irresponsible not to include it. And I'm, I'm more physically, I'm, I'm always questioning the finances as you, as you know, Mr. Mayor, but I think this is the way to go with this. I, I think let, I mean, you don't want to hear it, but put it on the ballot. And, but I also think if, if something was to happen to the east side, we can't absorb that with, with all the other projects and all the other projects you mentioned, were, we're not gonna able to, we're not going to, you talk about the, the budget, but we're not gonna be able to absorb those other projects in the budget, 10 to 15 million for the BB school. We don't know what the school enrollment even is, let alone, we don't even know what it costs to fund our school system. So I, I think, I think this is the way to go. We really should be putting all four buildings for the community, for the fi long-term financial stability of this community where it's a separate bucket of money. I agree. It's a lot of money to the residents. It's a lot. And that's when I say let them decide, but I think we would, we would not be, uh, fiscally prudent if we did not put it on there. So,

▶ 1:14:31 Paul Brodeur: Um, to, to your point, if roughly a question, uh, this is not, I don't, this is easy in any stretch because the financial is impact is enormous. And the, the one thing I would recall with that I heard around the table tonight is it's only 20 bucks a month. Well, it's 240 bucks a year on assuming the numbers hold for 30 years, that on top of 600 at the, at the, the base model at my model, um, that doesn't mean the need goes away. The most important thing, I think I did it this evening was to paint a picture of all the needs and remind people these choices are hard and they are. They, they are not. It's, I think the no disrespect another 20 bucks. It depends who you are. Yeah. Right. Um, the absolute, the virtue of putting this on for debt exclusion, the, the east side is absolutely what you said. The virtue of anything debt, exclusion wise, is it does hold harmless. The operating budget. I'm not, I would never suggest that is not a benefit. But I do want it clear that the things that are kind of stacking up what the council has always asked, wondered by administration and is what's the plan? What's the bigger plan? There's only so far you can project that out. But I think it's absolutely imperative, as I said before, we go in eyes wide open and understand that we should at least be thinking about, um, to Councilor Eccles point, at some point, affordability and capacity make a difference. And, and that is something absolutely the, the voters will ultimately decide, but they need to have all that information because the choices as we go along further are gonna get harder. So I do think that the context matters. This is not, I wouldn't suggest that it is completely irresponsible to move on the East Side Fire station. I just, again, I want that data out there and I really want to encourage city leadership, as I've now said over and over again, if you, if you, if you are going to support this, please support it just to say I'm not sure what the wisdom is. That's what we have the voters for. Quite frankly, I think that's a coppo. So I urge you, again, if you are supportive of this, of a, of the fuller scope, tremendous. I don't think that is a bad thing for the city. As I said, I think it poses, it makes the, the other financial challenges we have in the future harder to address. That doesn't mean don't do it. I will be the first one. My approach is cautious. It's not nearly as cautious as what we've done in the past. I e nothing for decades and decades and decades. But again, eyes wide open. So, I mean, I don't have a big quote, so,

▶ 1:18:01 Mark Garipay: So I know we have a 90 something million on the capital improvement plan, right? Um, pat Patrick. Yeah, I I was on the, I was on that committee. Yep. Um,

▶ 1:18:09 Speaker 2: And just be clear, that is different in percent

▶ 1:18:12 Mark Garipay: From the, but some of the projects, some of the projects you discussed were, were part of that. And we've always struggled as a community and use free cash for projects and bonding based on the capacity. We know the bonding capacity's coming down the next few years. Um,

▶ 1:18:31 Mark Garipay: 90 million. I mean, if it's a separate bucket, are you, do, do you believe that the city's gonna need another debt exclusion to do all these other projects you're talking about?

▶ 1:18:38 Speaker 2: We'll see that again, that is, that's always,

▶ 1:18:44 Mark Garipay: But, but if we can't puzzle, if we can't absorb it right now in the budget, then that's the only option anyway. So why, I guess, why wouldn't we just do the four buildings right now? And so

▶ 1:18:54 Paul Brodeur: That, I mean, that is, that is, that is absolutely the crux of the question. And to be feel like you have my recommendation. Yep. Obviously, and it is a conservative one, doesn't mean it is the only, and it's, it's obviously what I believe in based on the risk assessment and the other things. Mm-hmm. We confront. But, you know, some, it's just, you all know this, you do this, you're professionals for, everyone's been on for four years, I think in this, pretty close in this room probably feels like four. Um, that, like we've had a very good process at exploring this. But again, it's, it's that bigger context, harder thing to wrestle with, I think to be in good faith with the voters, with the, with the folks who write the checks for this stuff. It's 'cause quite frankly, we've, we've already heard it. You know, we received a letter that for probably good reasons, wasn't read, read into the record, but appeared in the paper today that said, this is outrageous. The override was outrageous and you should be cutting taxes. I don't suggest that is a quite frankly, serious opinion to be considered. That's not realistic given where we are at. Um, but it does beg the question for the future for folks that feel like that is the situation. We absolutely need to tell me this for better or worse, this isn't the end of the road. That there are other challenges out there that will have to be addressed. And we just need to keep that in mind as we make our present ask.

▶ 1:20:41 Mark Garipay: Thank you. I appreciate you at least putting it on the ballot. This is the first, it's exciting to be able to do the first council to vote on, on something. Amen. So thank you for Thank you for that. I'm all set.

▶ 1:20:52 Speaker 4: Thank you Councilor Williams.

▶ 1:20:53 Ryan Williams: Thank you. Um, I want to be really honest that I started this process with a very open mind, right? I wasn't sure what we needed to do. And I've toured the buildings myself, so I have my opinions. Um, and I've been on a real journey over the last couple of months. One of the things that frustrates me a lot in this chamber is that I always, not always, but I sometimes feel like I'm being provided with a kind of crisis proposition. You know, things have gotten so bad that we have to take a drastic measure now, um, or else everything will fall apart. And I often wish that we could take things in smaller stages. We could plan it out. We know that this is very old and needs to be upgraded. Let's do this every five years and then we'll plan in five more years to do this and five more years to do that. It never really seems to happen in Melrose. It all seems to happen all at the same time. Um,

▶ 1:21:54 Ryan Williams: but then Talking with folks, thinking more through the proposal that's in front of us, I started to ask myself why the East side, you know, why not Highlands? I understand the police station, the downtown fire station. I've been in and out of them several times, so I get that they're in really rough shape. But I, the thing that, the thing that is stopping me, the reason I'm gonna vote yes tonight on this amendment is because I can't figure out why the east side and I live on the east side, so I go by there all the time. And I have definitely thought to myself that it's a building about the age of my kid's school. Um, but two counselor Rae's 0.1 that I had thought of myself looking through the, the documentation. If we're looking at bonding out potentially three or more million dollars for making upgrades to the station, why don't we potentially think about bonding out $20 million to just fix the whole thing from the ground up? And to Councilor McMaster's point and a thing, I want to just clarify again for the record, the vote we're taking tonight. What's the question on the ballot? It's a spiritual question. We ask people, do you think we should replace these buildings? And if they say yes, then we find out how much it costs. We kind of have an idea already, but we don't know how much this is gonna cost. This could come back and we've all been very kind of, um, cheery in this room talking about it could be one 30, it could be one 20. In my experience, when you do construction work, the price doesn't go down, right? The price goes up. So we're gonna have another, and if, if I could get a, if I could get a nod from the, from the gallery, am I correct about this? We're gonna have another fail safe opportunity if the voters passed the exclusion. Uh, if, if we put it on the ballot, if the voters passed the exclusion, then we find out how much it's gonna cost you, Ms. Armada come before us and say, this is the bonding request, and we vote on that bond request. So if that bond request shows up and it's $850 million, we're gonna vote no because it's outrageous. If it comes up and it's less, we're gonna vote. Yes, we're gonna feel good about it. But, so there is another opportunity for public input, for counselor discussion, whether it's this council or the next blessed council or, uh, and for, um, negotiations on the buildings, on the scope, on the footprint on the materials. All these things are gonna happen. All this vote tonight is about asking the people of Melrose, do you think that we should fix these buildings up? That we should replace these buildings? That's it. And I think the answer is yes. So I'll be supporting Councillor Sun's amendment tonight. Thank you.

▶ 1:24:40 Speaker 4: Thank you. Um, councilor Eccles for a sec. Well, anyone else for first time President? Greg?

▶ 1:24:47 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you Madam Chair. Um, thank you Mr. Mayor for being here tonight and to your team as well, and to everyone in the audience. We don't normally have such great attendance. It's really exciting. I am in support of amending up to the four buildings. I feel the need to defend the east side along with my fellow east siders. Um, and I think it's interesting that we point out about that the Winthrop School, which serves much of the east side as the oldest school building. Um, and that we're also then considering not investing in the fire station on that side of town as well. So I wanna see this investment. I would also like us to get out of, um, talking about schools versus city services. We need to invest in all of them. I don't think it's an either or choice. Um, I think there's more decisions to be made. And I think Mr. Mayor, to your point about we need to support this, I do support this. I will personally be voting for this in my family, and I think all of us should pledge in this room tonight to work with all of the other folks that we need to have this be successful. We know it's gonna need to come back before whoever are in these seats next, um, come January. We know it's gonna need to have buy-in from the school committee. It's gonna need to have buy-in from the cemetery commission. So I think all of us need to recognize that there are more steps to take and we all need to be committed to using the power and privilege that we have right now to try to make this successful. So I thank Councilor Sella for motioning, and I look forward to supporting it.

▶ 1:26:04 Speaker 4: Thank you. Um, councilor Eccles for a second time.

▶ 1:26:06 Jack Eccles: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have, I have one question for the interim solicitor. Um, just, I'm, I'm interested, um, for the future council, um, on the second clarity around like what I would consider the second at bat, you know, after the voters vote and what, what is the precedent on like, scope of the project, right? Because we obviously control could control the, the dollar amount, but if the, if the, if the language on the ballot says that we need to replace a building, I assume we, we are, we are required to replace a building

▶ 1:26:47 Speaker 5: Unless you can't afford it.

▶ 1:26:49 Speaker 3: Okay. So, so

▶ 1:26:50 Speaker 5: You're talking about the scope. The scope somehow is, uh, there are some conception of what this renovation on new buildings will look like. I presume that's in a report I've heard it alluded to, and there's an estimate of what that will cost. Well, let's say that the economy goes crazy crazier than it is and the cost goes right through the roof. Well, those, those are factors which are gonna come into play. What you are getting a funding mechanism here, which you are not doing with the people's, even they're as sent to this, they're sent to this, you have another tool of financing, but what you don't have by their vote is a definitive final compelling, uh, f forcing this council to do just that. If you can't, if you can't get, you can't afford the bonds. If you can't, if the bond in demand is so much higher than this, if it's higher than what's estimated, well the, the people said yes. So we'll have to bank, I'm being a little bit over the top here. If the people said yes, so we'll bankrupt the city. Well that, that doesn't make sense. No.

▶ 1:27:59 Jack Eccles: But I think that this is unique in that it's really just a separate funding source that goes to the voters. So it's not about our ability to afford something. Right?

▶ 1:28:07 Speaker 5: What you're getting is a tool. Mm-hmm. What you're not getting is a, uh, definitive final. This is what you must do. It's, it's the, there are too many dominoes that need to fall before you get to that point.

▶ 1:28:21 Jack Eccles: Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair,

▶ 1:28:23 Speaker 4: Councilor Williams,

▶ 1:28:24 Ryan Williams: Because this has gone faster than I expected. I would like to ask a clarifying technical question of, uh, Ms. McClellan and Ms. Uh, Armada, if y'all wouldn't mind. I thought it was gonna be like 10 30. So,

▶ 1:28:37 Ryan Williams: so I want to ask, I want to, you don't have to, I want to ask some que I wanna ask just a couple, um, about the model and the, the debt service model. So I want to ask on the assessor side, the first question I have is the, the, um, average assessment in Melrose 7 33. What, do you know what the median assessment in Melrose is? And is there a difference? I know that this can be different based on how the data, data skews, whether it's heavily weighted in one direction or the other, but do you have off the top of your head, like what's right in the middle?

▶ 1:29:08 Speaker 3: Um, Is it the same?

▶ 1:29:13 Speaker 7: No. So we don't, we don't really use that, um, to look at this. Like, I didn't use that to, to look at this, but, um, hold on. Lemme, sorry. I'm just gonna look at here.

▶ 1:29:23 Speaker 7: So that's why I, um, so basically 60, about 67% of the residential parcels in Melrose are a single family Yeah. Property. So that's why we looked at like the average of that. Then for the rest of the, um, the rest of the residential properties would be, you know, condos, two families, any multi-families, apartment buildings. Um, those would, that's why I broke it down for the rate mm-hmm. That it would be the $87 per a hundred thousand of assessed value. So, okay. Um, but I don't have

▶ 1:30:03 Ryan Williams: That's fair. That's fair. Okay. So, so my next question is about how, um, the two and a half increase in the overall, uh, levy affects the, the debt amount with each successive year. And I'm just curious whether or not that number per a hundred thousand stays consistent as the levee grows over time and is able to absorb more debt. Is it, is it always the same? 'cause we're talking about 30 years in the future. So let's say year 26 and 27, is each household still going to be $87 per hundred thousand if the levy goes from 90 million to 160 million?

▶ 1:30:43 Speaker 7: No, because it's gonna be based on, you know, the assessed value. Yeah. Because it's, it's spread over all the, spread over the levy. Levy's got like all the residential values and then the, um, so it's dispersed that that way. So when every anything changes, like all those, the shift, yeah. Like every, every, all those little factors will,

▶ 1:31:05 Ryan Williams: So when affect it, when we're looking at the sheet that shows the, um, amount per house, you know, the big spreadsheet that shows you amount, but it's like, it's like one year, it's 119 when they overlap and then it goes to like 87 or something. This was, this was the, the new proposal, the, the amended proposal would be a little bit more number two. Yeah. So like when you get down to the end of that and you're in the 20, 2030s and the 2040s, is that percent that price, is that kind of based on today's levy?

▶ 1:31:34 Speaker 7: Yes. Yes.

▶ 1:31:35 Ryan Williams: Right. So in the distant future,

▶ 1:31:38 Speaker 7: In today's rate, like today's tax rate.

▶ 1:31:40 Speaker 3: Today's tax rate, yes. Correct.

▶ 1:31:41 Speaker 7: Yes. And that's as much as we can do. That's why I, we keep saying it's based on current

▶ 1:31:47 Ryan Williams: Conditions. So property have, have property values in Melrose gone up? Yes. Yes. They have. Um, they've gone up substantially. They've gone up several hundred thousand dollars per single family home right. In, in just a couple of years. And maybe they'll keep going and maybe they won't. But I think to my mind, one thing is that, one thing that is certain is that as we reach the end of this debt service, it's not potentially not going to be, um, this same amount of money as it is today per household. It's gonna be less per household because the entire levy will be larger.

▶ 1:32:18 Speaker 7: Right. And then the tax rate goes, usually goes down, um, based on the, you know, as

▶ 1:32:25 Ryan Williams: You can't predict, the future Value goes up. So the rate goes Down. Yes. Value Goes, value goes up, rate goes down. Yes. Yeah. We've seen that happen. My taxes went down like last year. Okay.

▶ 1:32:33 Paul Brodeur: Practical point generally if it, so, um, explained by analogy might be a little bit easier. When we did the middle school estimate was $200 average impact per household that, you know, plus or minus 10 bucks held. So I think that's what folks, um, if you're trying to figure out like, oh, is this gonna explode in the future as a citywide proposition, the answer is no. If you, you know, double the size of your house through an addition, yeah. You know, the impact to you is gonna go up. But that'll actually provide a, a little relief to somewhere to someone else. Someone else in a sense. Right? And, um, regardless of the number, um, what is very easy to do and will be done is essentially an impact calculator. Mm-hmm. So there'll be a, a set of assumptions, whatever they are pretty good assumptions again, they held when we did the middle school. Mm-hmm. Um, you can crank in your home value and it will spit out, here's what the likely impact is. I will say the, um, and I think we need to, um, refine the idea of, you know, this is just an authorization is to spend whatever it takes to do these buildings. I think that is a prescription for an 80 20 loss. The polls, quite frankly, um, the reason why these estimates were developed, they aren't kind of back of the envelope. Estimates absolutely are subject to change based on, you know, big conditions, materials and those kinds of things. Um, I would respectfully suggest if they get wildly out of whack with what these estimates are, again, good faith estimates done by professionals, uh, you know, the, the council in place at that time can certainly do whatever they want, but it shouldn't be thought of as a blank, a blank check because at some point you're breaking faith with the voters as to what we all honestly expected the impact to be Caveats and all. Mm-hmm.

▶ 1:35:02 Speaker 3: That's it. Thank you

▶ 1:35:04 Speaker 4: Councilor Stewart.

▶ 1:35:07 Speaker 2: Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, don't move.

▶ 1:35:10 Robb Stewart: Got a couple of questions for you as well. C and and uh, uh, council Williams was kind of going down the path that I was thinking and I just, I need to bring it down a little bit more simple terms. So if we have an assessed house today at say $800,000 and then 10 years from now it's assessed at a million dollars, we're paying that 87, 40 times 10 now instead of 87 40 times eight. Is that right?

▶ 1:35:38 Speaker 7: Um, yeah. So it's just, that's what basically it would add to the tax rate. It stays pretty, it, it basically stays pretty steady if you see over, over time.

▶ 1:35:49 Robb Stewart: So you say it, but what, what stays steady?

▶ 1:35:51 Speaker 7: The impact like your,

▶ 1:35:53 Speaker 2: Your the impact, so

▶ 1:35:54 Speaker 7: Average impact over the

▶ 1:35:56 Robb Stewart: Years. So if the a so if your assessed value of the house goes up, does then that 87 40, the impact the assessed the residential tax impact worth $1,000 that goes down?

▶ 1:36:15 Speaker 7: Um, so well it's, it's just apply each year. It's applied over the, so that debt, the debt service is factored in with all the other factors, is factored into the tax rate. It's just applied to the tax rate each year. So it's just added in afterward and then applied to the

▶ 1:36:35 Robb Stewart: Okay. Because, because we, we have, it's a fixed amount that we have to pay over time. So yes, that Okay. So that, that balances it out.

▶ 1:36:43 Speaker 7: And as you see on the, the sheet that we're referring to, it's not, it'll say, you know, total existing and projected debt service. It's not exact every year. You know, it's not the exact amount every year. Okay. You know, so it's, it could be, so there's so many different variables each year.

▶ 1:37:04 Robb Stewart: Yeah, sure. But in the end though, regardless of assessment value mm-hmm. Um, if overall assessed value goes up quite a bit, well then the contribution needs to come, come down as a percentage because, uh, we only have a fixed amount to pay. Okay. That makes sense. Exactly.

▶ 1:37:24 Speaker 7: Yes. Okay. Got it. Yes. Always as value goes up at the, uh,

▶ 1:37:28 Robb Stewart: 'cause Madam Chair, my concern rate will go down is, you know, I have, um, as maybe some, some of the other counselors that represent a ward, I have a large representation of retired people and they're, you know, a number of 'em 11 on fixed income and this is gonna be a pretty significant hit to them. I just want to be sure that that hit is going to be consistent in nature and not something that could escalate. But, um,

▶ 1:37:58 Speaker 2: that, that's where I was going with that. And

▶ 1:38:04 Speaker 2: so the,

▶ 1:38:08 Robb Stewart: the other question that I had was on, on the vote. Right, so you're saying that it is vote estimate

▶ 1:38:20 Robb Stewart: and then bond, right. And not vote bond estimate. Right?

▶ 1:38:26 Speaker 2: Correct. 'cause you can't, if if you, you wouldn't know how much the bond, okay,

▶ 1:38:30 Robb Stewart: say I'm gonna make up a Number. Like, and so 75% Designs And that's the whole thing that they're saying is vote estimate. We get to

▶ 1:38:39 Robb Stewart: put our 2 cents in, we get to vote on that, and then, then if we agree,

▶ 1:38:46 Speaker 2: then we bond. Okay. Okay. I got it. Thank you, major.

▶ 1:38:48 Speaker 4: Thank you. Any other questions?

▶ 1:38:54 Leila Migliorelli: Um, I just wanted to thank everyone for all their questions. This is really helpful to hear. Um, I guess

▶ 1:39:01 Speaker 4: just to kind of then piggyback off of what Councilor Stewart said in the timing, um, the, what,

▶ 1:39:10 Leila Migliorelli: is there a set ti like an anticipated period of time? So this, let's say this passes in November. What, how long is the length of time before, I guess you just said estimate is do we have to engage in a whole other architectural and design process then before it goes to bond? I didn't think that there was that long of a period. Okay.

▶ 1:39:32 Speaker 2: I dunno if you wanna jump in because it's a might be a little bit more

▶ 1:39:38 Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. Uh, generally correct because we have to get the full scope and much more detailed understanding of the cost of the project. So typically what you would do is you'd vote to do the, an appropriation mm-hmm. That for the architectural work and any other, uh, design associated work with that. And let's say for the purposes of a number, it's $3 million. So you would vote that to, to get the process begun so you can actually ascertain what the cost will be and also the, um, which is critical, the timetable for that cost. 'cause the timetable drives, um, the, um, borrowing scenario. And that will make a determination from our perspective when we need to draw down the, the amount of money we need and when we're gonna need to draw it down. So yeah, you'd have to engage the engineers to get that process going. Um, because now you're gonna go from really a, uh, I'll say a draft, you know, figure that we have before us now to something really more concrete. And that can be, um, detailed in a way that, uh, you necessarily have to have to actually get cost proposals put out and get people to actually consider, uh, the project cost itself, what that might look like, the components to a timeframe. I mean, this is extremely complicated. You could not undertake that without that type of engineering study because you're talking multiple buildings and actual relocation as well. So it's an extensive period of time and it's gonna be ex um, uh, probably, as I said, I'm choosing 3 million as a number that would not be unreasonable. Anything in that ballpark, given the scope of the project that we're talking about, in my opinion,

▶ 1:41:18 Leila Migliorelli: 3 million for, and that's not part of the bond. It would be a $3 million? No,

▶ 1:41:23 Speaker 6: It would be, yeah. Typically it would be rolled into the debt exclusion itself. It's just that I don't know yet the extent of the cost 'cause we're not there. Okay. But at some point we're gonna have to make a determination as to how much is an estimate of what they're gonna need to do that kind of work. It's, it's really, um, um, extensive and uh, obviously you want to be as tight as you can so that you don't spend more than you have to, but you want to get the job done.

▶ 1:41:47 Leila Migliorelli: And are we able to use the work of the Public Safety Building Committee in their, like is that a starting point that then goes through the whole design process after that? Is that

▶ 1:41:57 Speaker 6: I would have to defer that to the engineering and the city D B W and they can give you a better scope on that, the timeframe. Okay.

▶ 1:42:03 Leila Migliorelli: And then that process, the time of that, I guess the timeline is you, you're saying it's a significant time. What does significant mean? Are we talking months? And just to preface this, I know the mayors is, has implied that we need to be behind this no matter what. I'm just trying to get some concrete answers, um, for residents who I think are eager to understand the process and not so much like around politicking about how this will pass or not pass. So, um, pass in November. So I, is the length of time we're talking before we have a concrete number, six months, a year from now and then go through a bond process? Or is it shorter than that?

▶ 1:42:43 Speaker 6: From my limited exposure to the o overall extent of the project, I would have to suggest that probably you wouldn't have any real firm or organization in place to begin that work. Probably till after the new year, January, maybe February, depending on the expediency of, um, getting that together and what they already have and don't have. I mean, um, I know there's been a lot of work done in the past. There's been a lot of studies done. So depending what, what, what timeframe they have. And again, I can't speak to the availability of these people that would actually do the work because then everyone knows there's been issues with even getting that type of, you know, service at times mm-hmm. To get projects completed because, um, other people have commitments. But the sooner we know, the sooner we can get working on it and engineering can put together some type of a timeframe for you.

▶ 1:43:36 Paul Brodeur: Okay. I, if I, yep. Uh, I think the person could probably, she best to this, uh, it's Ms. Cathy as you know, she has been in, um mm-hmm. Every process, quite frankly we've ever done in terms of the modern building era of the city and can speak to from a professional perspective what a potential timeline is given where we're at right now.

▶ 1:43:56 Leila Migliorelli: With all due respect, Mr. McKnight, I would have to have the mayor invite you up to talk. I can't invite from the gallery speak.

▶ 1:44:03 Jeff McNaught: I'm just wondering if the committee's allowed to jump to the table too.

▶ 1:44:06 Speaker 4: That would be up to the mayor.

▶ 1:44:08 Speaker 1: I'm gonna,

▶ 1:44:09 Denise Gaffey: Yeah, I don't think, I don't think I would say anything that would be inconsistent with what the committee is going to say either. Um, just, um, based on my experience, I think, um, what would need to happen, you know, assuming an affirmative vote by the public, there will have to be, um, um, an authorization pretty quickly by the, by the council for some funding to do the, the, um, schematic design work in order to, to identify exactly what the project is going to be for the first phase. Right. We've, the, the, the public safety building committee study talks about phase one, um, related to the police station and, um, the Remont Street, um, fire station. And I think there's some really great work that's been done already by the architects. So it's building off of that. Okay, great. Um, and just digging deeper into exactly, um, exactly what's gonna need to be involved, like doing all the, you know, in depth survey work and architectural studies and thinking about, you know, um, how you're gonna phase it and, and um, and all of those kind of things. So there's probably a good a year's worth of design work that happens to get to the level of documents that you need to put a project out to bid into, have a final like estimate. And that's when the, that's when, um, we'd come back and ask the council to authorize the, the, the amount, the bond amount for those, for that first phase of work. Okay.

▶ 1:45:34 Speaker 4: So

▶ 1:45:35 Denise Gaffey: There, so there would be two authorizations essentially. There'd be an early authorization of some amount of money, um, to do, to do the design and then to come back with a pretty solid estimate for the construction for the first phase.

▶ 1:45:50 Leila Migliorelli: Okay. But we have information that will help,

▶ 1:45:53 Denise Gaffey: But we have a really solid information. That's what I wanna confirm from Do Whittier. Okay. Yes. And they did estimate, and their estimates, um, we're very conservative as was represented earlier. Right. Um, very conservative. And they built in escalation, they built in all of this design funding. So when we're talking about one or two or $3 million to get to the design, that's built into the entire budget, a number already.

▶ 1:46:17 Speaker 4: Okay. Minor Point, not door. Right.

▶ 1:46:22 Leila Migliorelli: Do and woodier. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, I just, I, I think given the timing, why I feel it's important to bring that up is just in transparency. We've talked about how this vote is not binding on the, the project itself or the dollar amount, but it is authorizing, um, us to move forward with using this funding model of a debt exclusion. And I think that, um, also to be transparent, there are nine of us here tonight. We may all be in support of this. We may not. When it go, there's gonna be another potentially completely different group of people voting on this then. And I just want everyone to understand that, um, and, you know, be mindful of that in that decision. So, um, with that, any other questions? Councilor Williams? I'll be

▶ 1:47:09 Ryan Williams: Brief. I misspoke earlier and I forgot to ask you a question, Ms. McClellan, I'm sorry. And I don't want to confuse the record or confuse anybody who's listening or sees this after the fact. So I was asking you about the levy and this individual, this, this, this, that assessment and, um, and I was saying that as the levy grows, that the taxes go down, but, but that depends on the number of parcels that are paying those taxes.

▶ 1:47:35 Speaker 7: Right? Right. And, and then any other, you know, so new growth, new growth, it's gonna affect it. Right. Overrides would affect it. Right. You know, um, that would affect the other, you know, the, the regular within the levee limit that we would, this is outside of that, so

▶ 1:47:53 Ryan Williams: Yeah. Yeah. Right. So you have, I don't know how many parcels like tax paying, you know, parcels in Melrose, 20 some thousand,

▶ 1:48:03 Speaker 7: Sorry, 95, 53, 95, 53.

▶ 1:48:06 Ryan Williams: Oh, I was way off. Okay. 95, 53. So you got 30,000 people in the city. 95, 53 parcels are actively paying taxes. Um, the more parcels are paying taxes, the lower the overall tax per parcel is, unless you override it and push it higher. Right. So, you know, there's a scenario where, um, you could have a council that comes in and their number one goal is to stop housing production. Right? They don't want condos, apartments, they don't want new buildings or new developments. Uh, what would, what effect would that have on the tax burden if new growth stopped in Melrose? What would that do to this additional debt that's coming onto people's tax bills? Would it keep it the same? Would it lower it? Would it raise it

▶ 1:48:49 Speaker 7: So the debt is outside of that? Yeah. So the, like, if new growth was zero, it's, it's just only affecting the other number that we're levying. Like the, the

▶ 1:49:02 Speaker 3: Rest of the taxes. Yes. So the rest of the taxes,

▶ 1:49:03 Speaker 7: So it's still gonna have two and a half on it. Right. Um, but it won't have new growth,

▶ 1:49:08 Ryan Williams: Right? So you have like, let's $87, uh, a month or whatever it was, $87 a month, you might have a thousand dollars. Um, or let's say it's more like a hundred dollars for the whatever taxes. Um, then if, if new growth happens, that other piece of it shrinks a little bit. Right?

▶ 1:49:30 Ryan Williams: If new, if you get a lot of new growth, the, the general, the general tax bill shrinks a little bit for people as the number of tax paying parcels goes up.

▶ 1:49:39 Speaker 7: So the levy is gonna increase. So, um, it's usually that would increase, um, the tax.

▶ 1:49:50 Speaker 7: Essentially that's what increases our tax base, our base each year.

▶ 1:49:54 Ryan Williams: Right. But am I, am I misunderstanding this?

▶ 1:49:59 Speaker 7: Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm sorry.

▶ 1:50:03 Ryan Williams: Okay. Alright. When new growth comes into the levy, the city's bill is fixed at let's say 90, whatever, a hundred million dollars it is right now. And it goes up two and a half percent each year. But when that new growth comes in, you're allowed to tax it at a higher rate.

▶ 1:50:17 Speaker 3: Right. The full rate

▶ 1:50:18 Speaker 7: Tax. What at a higher rate, the

▶ 1:50:19 Ryan Williams: New growth, you're allowed to collect the new growth, the tax that comes in from that.

▶ 1:50:24 Speaker 7: No, no, no. So we're, so the tax levy,

▶ 1:50:29 Leila Migliorelli: Back to my, just to interject here. Uh, we can answer this question and then I think if you have follow-up questions later, you can just as long as it's related to the motion on the table. Just trying to

▶ 1:50:38 Ryan Williams: Keep that. Yeah. Okay. So let me be, let me be, be super clear. Um, I didn't wanna suggest in my earlier comment that the, the money that we're, that would be associated with this bond that's on people's tax bill would decrease over time as the levy increased. And I feel like that's something that came out of that discussion.

▶ 1:51:01 Speaker 7: Right? Right. Because debt exclusions are not part of the, that levy limit. That's what I was,

▶ 1:51:07 Ryan Williams: Right. Yeah. Right. That's what I, that's what I wanted to separate. Yes. Yes. It's separate. That's what I wanted to clear up. The big piece, the big piece of the tax bill increases over time, increases over time and with

▶ 1:51:17 Speaker 7: New growth and yeah. Overrides and the two and a half percent.

▶ 1:51:21 Ryan Williams: And that's how people's taxes kind of go up and down with that new growth that comes in or with the override or whatever else happens. Right.

▶ 1:51:30 Speaker 3: Okay. Great. That's it. Thank you. Sure.

▶ 1:51:34 Leila Migliorelli: A motion on the table to amend made by Councillor Selli. Seconded by Councillor Repe. Mr. Clerk,

▶ 1:51:40 Speaker 4: will you please call the role

▶ 1:51:45 Speaker 1: Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Ella? Yes. Councillor Eccles? No. Councillor Repe. Yes. Councilor Stewart?

▶ 1:51:55 Speaker 2: Yes.

▶ 1:51:55 Speaker 1: Councillor Brisky. Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President gti? Yes. And Chair Melli? Yes. That's eight. Yes. One? No.

▶ 1:52:07 Speaker 4: Alright. That passes, um,

▶ 1:52:09 Leila Migliorelli: passes and we'll go to the full council with a recommendation for passage at our next meeting, which is Tuesday, September.

▶ 1:52:20 Speaker 1: Just make a motion for the actual order

▶ 1:52:22 Speaker 4: Itself. Oh, thank you. Got it. Thank you. Second. Thank you.

▶ 1:52:27 Leila Migliorelli: Um, all right. Motion. So, motion passes to amend the order. The motion. The mo uh, order is now amended. Motion to for passage made by Councillor Sne, seconded by President Greg on discussion Councillor

▶ 1:52:41 Jack Eccles: Eccles. Just on discussion, you know, I had my preference on That amendment, but, um, I'm now fully in support and very excited to support this on the November

▶ 1:52:50 Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilor Eccles. Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk

▶ 1:52:55 Speaker 1: Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Ella? Yes. Councillor Eccles? Yes. Councilor Gpe? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Brem. Yes. Councillor Williams? Yes. President Greg? Yes. And Chair Elli? Yes. That's nine. Yes. Unanimous.

▶ 1:53:12 Leila Migliorelli: Right now the order PA is recommended for passage at our next city council meeting on, um, September 5th. Mr. Mayor? No,

▶ 1:53:19 Paul Brodeur: That, um, the only thing I wanted to say for the folks sitting behind me and the folks that, um, it's obviously up to the council,