ORDER-2023-100 : Presentation of the Final Report of the Public Safety Building Committee

Transcript (~1 h 41 min @ 17:06)

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

▶ 17:03 Leila Migliorelli: Aye. Aye. Any opposed? This order will be brought to the next full council meeting with recommendation for passage. Last on our agenda is order 2023 dash 100, presentation of the final report of the Public Safety Building Committee. Um, tonight I'd like to welcome the co-chairs of the committee to the table and whoever else. Um, I'd let them introduce who else is joining them, but co-chair Eugenia Gibbons, thank, and Jeff McNat. And Mayor Broder. We

▶ 17:34 Speaker 6: Are rotating. Okay. We're gonna try To avoid rotating 'cause it gets distracting, but I am gonna ask my, our chiefs to join me up here.

▶ 17:47 Speaker 6: All right. Can we get, alright. Uh,

▶ 17:53 Paul Brodeur: good evening everybody. At the risk of, um, really of being redundant, uh, I want to talk a little bit about, in, in as briefly as I can, uh, something that we hopefully have already gotten consensus on throughout the community, which is the need to address the biggest infrastructure problem that we have in the city, which is the condition of our public safety buildings. Uh, if you had a chance to read the report, you know, uh, a good part of this story already. If you do not, I commend this report to, uh, the citizenry, the voters Melrose, to be sure. Because as we know, they will ultimately, um, be making the decisions about, um, when and how we do this. Um, obviously, um, the, the next step of this process is myself and the members of the council trying to come to a consensus on what, if anything we choose to put before the voters. And when, uh,

▶ 18:56 Speaker 7: speaking for myself, uh,

▶ 19:00 Paul Brodeur: we cannot afford to wait. I think we need a healthy debate on the particulars of our options to be sure. Um, and I think we all recognize the financial challenges to our residents in paying for something that is, uh, expensive. But expensive does not mean unnecessary. Uh, so, uh, without much further ado, I do want to thank, um, the members of this committee. They have worked tirelessly. Um, they've taken this show on the road in many, many, including, um, looking at, quite frankly, at the good, bad, and ugly of what is out there, what other communities have done. I think we all understand, um, both the table stakes and the matter of resources. If there were resources outside the city, uh, to contribute to moving these projects forward, we would take advantage of that. I continue to advocate for that in the legislature. I am not naive enough to think that there will be in the next session a significant amount of money in a public safety or municipal building authority that would mirror what the S B A does or the school building authority does. Uh, but it is serious business as evidenced by, and y'all know this too, like the, the mid nineties study, a 2017 study. But there's one thing that I think distinguishes this. And that is, you know, the public nature of it, the other work that was done. It's not a judgment on the quality of the work, um, by any stretch, but it is a comment on the approach the committee has taken. Um, I can't recall which public meeting this is. Um, but the opportunities have been plentiful and they will continue to be. Um, and I think that's super important. 'cause this is, at the end of the day, you know, a a quality of life issue, a public safety issue, and a community issue. So, again, I know, um, how much you all are interested in trying to, in trying to get this right. And I, I look forward to hearing again the presentation and certainly the group's prepared, uh, answer just about any question you may have. So, thank you.

▶ 21:21 Speaker 6: Thank you so much, mayor Broder. Um, before we, we begin, I do wanna take a moment to just recognize by name the members of this committee. We have, as Mayor Broder mentioned, been working closely together for 18 months. Um, it's been a tremendous privilege to work alongside these folks 'cause everybody brought dedication and commitment to really solving this difficult challenge in a way that balances the needs of the departments. And also is very cognizant of and representative of the challenges that individual Mel Rosens face. And the reality is, mayor, mayor Broder said that, you know, this is an investment that's gonna last multiple generations, and that comes with the price tag. So I, I feel free to at least raise your hand if you don't wanna stand up. But I do wanna recognize that the 11 members of the committee include Emmanuel Ade, um, Jason Chen, some might not be here tonight. Jason Chen, great Chief Kalina, ed Kalina from the Fire Department. Chief Kevin Foller from the police department. Denise Gaffey, who's our Director of Planning in the City of Melrose. Um, John McCarran, who is not here tonight 'cause he had another conflict. But, um, he's also a member of the Melrose Firefighter, uh, fire Department and the president of the Melrose Firefighters Union, local 1617, Jeff McNat, who's my co-chair, former city council member. Uh, Paul Norton, who's the police lieutenant and the patrol commander. And also, um, the, a member of the Superior Officers Association. Dale Parsons, who is the, is a patrolman and, um, member of the police, excuse me, of the Patrol Officers Association. And Elena PKIs Ellis, who is the director of the Melrose Department of Public Works. So, and I'm Eugenia Gibbons. I'm a Melrose resident. So I just wanna take a moment to acknowledge you all by name. Uh, we often come in and just sort of say, all right, we're digging right in. But these guys deserve to be recognized by name. So with that, I will turn it over to Chief Fers.

▶ 23:25 Speaker 1: Uh, thank you all for having us again, and thank you to the committee. I, I, as you know, I joined late into the committee having, uh, only been a chief here for seven or eight months now. Uh, but very impressed with the work they did. And, uh, looking forward to the next steps in the process. So, um, I don't wanna sound like a broken record. You have seen me speak before on this matter, so I'm gonna keep my comments short. But, um, I was sort of asked tonight to just bring to light some, I guess, recent examples of, um, issues that we faced in our building that, you know, sort of highlight the need of, of why we, we need new public safety buildings, uh, renovated and otherwise. Um, I have a, I think a little bit of a unique experience coming from an agency that had a, um, and I worked 25 years roughly before we, uh, moved into a new police station in Medford. So I can appreciate what, what the men and women behind me have gone through and are going through now, because our station in Medford was, was just as bad. It was bigger, but it was just as bad. And we got it done. And, um, again, I sound like a broken record, but for the two years plus that I was there in the brand new state of the art police station, the tangibles in intangibles that it did for the men and women that worked in that building was, uh, immeasurable. It truly was. Uh, but not only for them, for the community itself. Um, the pride that, you know, the, the, that we would host open houses just to come in. We would host so many community events. Uh, I know just recently they had a blood drive there, but we used it for vaccination centers during the pandemic, uh, for community events. So many other reasons that public safety buildings can be used for outside of us. So what I wanna leave here tonight and the public who's watching is this isn't our building, meaning me and the chiefs and the firefighters, police stations. This is going to be everybody's building public's, public's building. Because, you know, I won't get too crazy in textbooks, but Sean, you may know, uh, years ago, the public or the police and the police and the public, it's one of the first principles of policing. And it, it truly will hit home if we get a new police station. But to sort of highlight some of the stuff that I've seen in the first seven or eight months, and I don't wanna be negative Nelly, but, you know, issues with power, um, and infrastructure. And it, uh, not anyone anyone's fault. It's just years of neglect and years of kind of outdated systems. And the chief will, Kaena will elaborate a little bit more on what they went through. But, you know, when we have radios, power phones, lights, everything going out and almost five times, I've only been there seven months, it's five more power outies as that I've experienced in 28 years. Um, and we don't have the ability to communicate to our personnel or get those 9 1 1 calls out in a timely fashion. Again, that's a problem not for us. That's a problem for, for you guys of people who live in the city, but it's also office of Safety. You know, we just recently had an issue with the power going out. 9 1 1 calls, get rerouted to Wakefield pd, great. But we had no regular phones to call out or call in. So what the commanding officer had to do was give the CO in Wakefield pd, his cell phone number. So if they got a call in Wakefield that was routed to them, they had to call our sergeant on the phone, cell phone, then he would put the call out to our troops on a text thread because we had no communications. Think about if that was you or your family in a medical condition or a robbery or something like that. That's, it's, it just can't happen. And we we're, we have the ability as, as constituents and, and leaders and police officers and firefighters to make a difference. And that difference is to get this, get this passed. Some other things I've seen in the first few months that I've been here, we had several critical incidents, um, crime and otherwise. And when you have a major crime, you are gonna have district attorneys coming in. You're gonna have state police coming in, investigators, civilians, the press. We have no ability to host any of that stuff. And we had, you know, a relatively ma you know, it was a major crime and I had no place to host the victim, the victim witness advocate, the district attorney, the attorneys to have meetings. We have no conference rooms. We have none of that. We have no training rooms. My second day in the job, we had a, uh, a tragic suicide by train. And I, we had no place to debrief, critical incident, debriefing, psychological, and or otherwise. We had to scramble and find an outside place to host the police department and the outside professionals that come in that take care of our own people when they're thrust into a situation that's just not normal to normal people. Hell, it's not even normal for us. But, you know, it, I don't wanna say it's embarrassing 'cause it's a strong word, but what I as the chief don't have the ability to take care of my own men and women and to have a critical incident debriefing to make sure that they're gonna be home when okay, when they go home at night and we have to stop making phone calls to our partners around the city, Hey, can you host us? It's great, but I should be able to do that. We shouldn't have to be looking for help. Um, I take pride in our city, you know, I take pride in what we do. The community needs to take pride in what we do. And it starts with having good stuff, right? I mean, if you have a good police station, you have a good fighter station, you have a good city hall, it's something that you can walk through and look at and be proud of. Negligent, excuse me, not negligent, but retention and hiring, recruitment. We're all facing it in the private industry and the public industry, you know, chief. Mm-hmm. We're having trouble recruiting personnel for many reasons. But when I'm up, when I'm up against a chief or another city that's got a $30 million brand new building with a brand new gym, break room, firing range, you name it, it's hard to compete. And, and as a city, if we want to have the best police department and the best fire department, we need to get the best candidates. And it's, it's, it's, quite frankly, it's an attraction if you have a good station. Um, so I think I spoke a little bit longer, but you know, this isn't about us. It's about, it's about everyone to move into the 21st century. Thank you.

▶ 29:54 Speaker 8: Uh, I'd like to echo what Chief Alia said. Um, it is as far too long, um, the interoperability of our current stations. They don't meet the needs of modern day firefighting and policing, uh, housing engines, um, pumper trucks, ladders, uh, rescues, which are ambulances in Melrose, um, rescue boats, and a plethora of other types of equipment is, it's challenging at best in our stations. Our firefighters live and work in deployable conditions inside cramped stations. Uh, in the last month, as the chief alluded to, uh, we've lost our radio systems and phones due to electrical storms. We have no redundant, reliable backup, um, to our system

▶ 30:41 Speaker 8: to move to when, uh, situations arise from, um, last week, like he said, the police lost power in all communications. Um, in both cases, officers and firefighters had to rely on their own personal cell phones to communicate emergency operations. Adopting our public safety committee's recommendation for two new modern stations, one on the East side Tremont Street, and a renovation of the historic, uh, fire headquarters just on the other side of those windows, along with the police station, would address our needs now and in the future. Uh, these builds will not only be addressing the apparatus space needs, but also storage for equipment, fitness areas, training rooms, training props, decontamination, clean areas where our firefighters, um, can clean up and be free of cancer causing contaminants. Uh, and most importantly, the space needs of our staff that our staff live in and operate inside these stations daily, 24 7, 365, we never shut down. Um, this, this, uh, project is needs driven. And these are the needs of our public safety officials. I'm very proud of the men and women of the Melrose Fire Department that have been putting up with the conditions, uh, for too, too long. So I would hope that, uh, this council adopts our recommendation. Thank you.

▶ 32:08 Speaker 6: Thanks, Chief. So you can see the Chiefs have painted or provided some grim reminders of just how tenuous the circumstances are at our public safety buildings from day to day here in Melrose. Lack of redundancy, as Chief Kaleena noted, lack of resilience of communication systems leaves both departments especially vulnerable to something as basic as a power outage or an electrical storm. It's 2023. The overall lack of space means that at a minimum, the buildings don't meet department apparatus needs, as Chief Klean mentioned. But we also know that these buildings do not comply with current codes and standards. You can't have a public building serving the entire public when the entire public can't get into the building. So it's been almost 60 years since the last public safety building was built in Melrose. With each passing decade staffing equipment, vehicles and standards have changed. But what we know when we look out that window when we walk down the street, when we pass our neighborhood fire stations, is that those buildings remain largely unchanged.

▶ 33:19 Speaker 6: I would note that in 2018, so five and a half years ago, when Mel Mayor Dolan gave his final state of the city address, he noted, and I quote, the challenge of the next decade will be addressing public safety facility needs update, upgrading our public library, restoring this great historic call and funding public education. We are two thirds of the way through the decade that he referenced, and we have managed to address the library. The public safety buildings have to be a priority. The current state of the three fire stations.

▶ 33:58 Speaker 6: Well, when that, there you go. The current state of the three fire stations and the one police station necessitate that urgent action be taken to modernize these facilities. As we stay in the report, in some cases, without significant capital investment, the buildings could become dangerously unsafe, dangerously unsafe. That's not to suggest that in some instances, they're not inching close to that already. And so it's within that context that you all know. The Public Safety Buildings Committee was reconstituted. Our task was to, uh, our mission that we chose to accept was to, uh, develop a recommendation for how the city can move forward in a way that's prudent and meets the interest of the departments. Also considers the interest of the public. You can see here we, um, had a great group of folks who were working. We no one can question how thoroughly we undertook this process. We had 11 volunteer members. We collaborated for 18 months. We had multiple meetings, uh, with committees, with subcommittees with the architect. We held two public learning sessions. This is our third city council update. We held two open houses. We are more than happy to avail ourselves going forward to help walk through the findings of the report and to continue this conversation. Really though we undertook this endeavor with the intention of, in informing the public discourse on how to move forward and presenting a solution that represents a starting point for progress and not an indication or an invitation to look backwards or restart. And I think we've accomplished that. So again, our charge was to assess the needs and deficiencies of the Melrose Police and Fire facilities, identify opportunities for improvement and an optimal path forward for the city, inform the public dialogue and discourse. This piece is so important. This was foundational for our working group, for our committee, because we know, as the mayor said, and as all of you have indicated, this ultimately needs to be put to the public. And the public needs to have confidence and faith in the process that was undertaken to arrive at this dis this recommendation. Um, and so we've really took very seriously both the needs assessment and allow making sure that this dis this conversation was driven by needs, but also recognizing that we're also all residents of Melrose. And we would wanna know that this is grounded in a thorough, uh, investigation of what is needed. And then tonight, we're here to present the final recommendation to this body.

▶ 36:46 Speaker 6: Um, our, we also identified some guiding principles as we thought about how to arrive at an optimal solution. And you can see here, we want it to be comprehensive and thorough. We wanted our final recommendation to be supported by and understandable for the public. We wanted to balance the benefits and trade-offs with costs, including prospective tax impacts on residents. We really want to make sure that the solution we put forth is long-term durable and implementable. Again, we don't have time to kick the can further down the road. We really need to be, uh, solutions focused, solution driven, and action oriented. So we tried to present, present that here. We also wanted to limit the disruption to services at all stages of implementation. And we wanted to make sure we could optimize existing sites and building locations. All of these are, uh, particularly these last two points are because we were cognizant of cost drivers and we wanted to make sure that we could mitigate them as much as possible in the areas where the city has the ability to do so.

▶ 37:51 Speaker 6: There are also a number of constraints and considerations that, uh, inter that informed or underpinned our final recommendation where you're gonna hear a lot about, you've already heard about space needs. Uh, the historic designation of central fire, you know, that is a building that is historically designated at all levels, municipal, state, federal. So there's no raising that building to build a new one. And we're very constrained in terms of what we can do to improve that building, which means that the only way to meet the space needs of the fire department, it's to increase the, uh, space and the footprint at the other two fire stations. We explored consolidation both of dispatch and departments, and we're happy to, happy to talk through that, uh, through the q and a. If you have questions about how we arrived at the recommendation that these things should not be consolidated, we were driven also by the importance of response times. Uh, response times are regulated by the National Fire Protection Association. Um, 1710 NFP 1710, uh, requires that response occur in six minutes or less 90% of the time. And the Minerals fire Department currently meets or exceeds that standard on a regular basis. Part of that is 'cause we have, well, a large part of it's 'cause we have excellent personnel. But the other part of it is because we also have three stations. Um, police station location was a factor and a consideration. Uh, the current site of the existing facility does not allow for expansion at the rate that the, or at the size that the police station requires. So we had to consider where could we grow, um, and that fed into available land. We had to consider the cost of land acquisition as well as the time that it would take to acquire new land. Comes as no surprise to anybody in this room. There's not a whole lot of open, undeveloped space in the city of Melrose. We're pretty dense. And so the um, uh, the direction that the committee took was to work with the city and rely on the city and the planning department and Department of Public works to identify city owned parcels that could be potential candidates for development of a police station of the size that is required. The last thing worth noting is also that we were cognizant of the cost premiums that exist, uh, just given where Melrose is located within the I 95 belt. And also that costs, um, supply chain costs and construction costs. Everything have increased significantly since the pandemic. Those two things fall outside of the control of the city and obviously way outside of the committee. So with that, I'm gonna turn it to my colleague Emmanuel, who can, um, talk about what we arrived at.

▶ 40:45 Speaker 9: Thanks, Eugenia. Emmanuel, Andra. And, uh, I just want to say that this, this committee is very appreciative, um, of the funds allocated last fall for, uh, to first to, um, collaborate with Dorian, with the, the architects. And since December until last month, we collaborated with them. And what you see here today is some of that that work. Um, some of the aspects of our optimal solution for the buildings, uh, renovate, rebuild, and expand, um, the increase of growth square footage. This facilities that we have today are about a third of the, the size they should be for a, a city like Melrose. Uh, this buildings, as Virginia said, have we have to bring these buildings up to code. We're talking about, uh, Americans with Disabilities Act. Uh, we're talking about building infrastructure, building inside infrastructure, uh, adequate space. Um, and one good point of this, uh, recommendation is that we eliminate the need for costly land acquisition. We do not have to spend months, if not years, finding land, negotiating land and spanning and affording that land.

▶ 42:05 Speaker 9: So, um, our proposals for four buildings within seven years, uh, is starting with Central Fire, which is the, the oldest building, 1895, as a genius, said, historic building. We're constrained. We can't expand the building towards City Hall. We can't expand it towards, uh, Memorial Hall. Uh, we try to fit as much as possible within this building, within the interior of this building. And the best way to explain it is trying, is saying that we try to fit 50 pounds of programming into a 30 pound building. Um, we added a little bit of space, uh, an addition towards the back is much needed and the, the fire department will, will lose a few parking spaces. Uh, but the rest of the needs, as the genius said, are relocated through, uh, uh, engine two, engine engine three, uh, in engine two at Thermon Street. That is a complete demolition and new construction. We basically have to almost, uh, more than triple the size of the facility for the needs of that, uh, facility. Also, the needs that are being relocated from Central Fire Engine three, another demolition and complete new construction. And finally, but less, but not least, the police station, uh, the police station can remain in the current location for a little longer while, uh, a new police station is built at a new site, a new location, and the preferred location, the most viable location, uh, identified by the city during this, uh, effort was the Ripley School. And it's a facility that we shared on our first public session. Um, this is just the beginning. This is pre-design. I want to be very clear after this, after funding is allocated, there is one 12 months of design where this proposal can be refined and developed, refined and, and developed into construction documents that can be bid and built. So this is just the beginning. Um, next slide. Next and final slide, uh, for me is the total, uh, cost for this effort, which is, these are not 20, $23 amounts. We, uh, forecasted when every single one of the three phases would start in 2000, uh, 20, 20, 27, 20 29, 20 30. And we escalated those costs to those dates. So what you see here, a th $130 million, these are total project costs escalated to the, to the finish line in 2030. Um, about $36 million for the new police station. About $27 million for the renovated central fire. $32 million for engine two and 35. About $35 million for engine three. Um,

▶ 44:59 Speaker 9: the original cost estimate for this four buildings was about $138.7 million. We as a committee, we already gone through a value management exercise where we reduced the total cost by 6%. So $130 million is after our value management exercise, where in coordination with post chiefs, we agreed that perhaps, uh, we could let go of the idea of having a fi, a detached firing range, uh, behind the new police station. And, um, also eliminating one maintenance pay at engine two at Mont, it's painful to lose that, but, uh, it, it was a negotiation that we, we had with the chiefs to, uh, reduce the, the total amount to $130 million.

▶ 46:05 Jeff McNaught: So then we come to the next slide. My name is Jeff McNaught, by the way. Um, we come to the next slide, which is how do we pay for this? And, um, Emmanuel mentioned that the cost of the project, or estimated cost of the project is 130 million. Um, it's important, I'm gonna repeat again what he said. That there will be an additional year of refinement going over the pre-design plans to come up with final de design plans. So, um, this is paid for through a debt exclusion. And for anyone who doesn't know what a debt exclusion is, the concept is simple. Um, but you gotta go to the public to, to get them to pass it. And that's not so simple. So, um, in this case, um, it's no different than any other than the middle school was 21 years ago. And the city of Melrose, and you might hear a lot of people refer to that and say, oh, wasn't the middle school done about five years ago? No, it was done 21 years ago. And that's about to fall off the books. And that's an important point for the public to know, uh, in a few years time that will fall off the books. So, but a debt exclusion is you go to the voters and you raise money for a specific purpose. And if the voters vote for it, um, what it does is it results in a temporary increase in, in your property taxes. And temporary can mean somewhat long term. In this case, it will mean 30 years. Remember the example I just gave you, the middle school was built 21 years ago. Seems like it was yesterday. So, um, what I don't wanna lose sight of is, um, we show on this slide that it would cost about $875 a year for the average household in the city of Melrose, uh, to help pay for these stations to be reconstructed and renovated. That comes out to about $73 a month. Now the average assessed house in Melrose is $750,000. That's where we came up with that number. Um, we can talk more in questions if you wanna know how that, how that shakes out. But the math is in the table. You can see different ranges, um, ranging from 130 million on down. Um, and again, uh, I remind everyone that this is gonna be refined. So 130 million is not likely, not your final number. Um, that's all I'm gonna say about that slide. We look forward to your questions. Um, let's

▶ 48:41 Speaker 2: This out. All right, so in conclusion,

▶ 48:44 Jeff McNaught: I'm sure you're all happy to hear those two words. Uh, in conclusion, allow me to remind you that the first of these four buildings was constructed in 1895. The last was constructed 60 years ago in the 1960s. We are well past time to modernize our police and fire facilities. And this situation is urgent. Staffing equipment, vehicles and standards have changed to respond to increases in call volumes and the evolution of public safety. The facilities that house our first responders have not. Decades and decades of underinvestment and deferred maintenance have led us to where we are today. We cannot kick the can down the road any longer. And I'll say that this problem is not unique to Melrose, but the state of our disrepair is very unique to Melrose. Our firefighters are sleeping and cooking with rodents surrounding them. Roof leaks are irregular occurrence. The police perform multiple duties in just a couple of rooms because that's all they have to use. There's no doubt that our buildings do not allow for our first responders to work in environments that are up to the standards they should be. And all four buildings are in such bad shape. The re that reconstruction and renovations must be done concurrently. We have seven years to fix what we began building in 1895. Think about that. There are no longer any quick fixes at the community's disposal for facilities that are outdated, undersized, unhygienic, non code compliant, and incapable of supporting 21st century police and fire programming or the high quality community services. These departments strive to provide our public safety buildings require a comprehensive, durable solution that meets current space needs while accommodating future department growth, larger apparatus and the evolution of fire safety and policing for the next 50 years.

▶ 50:59 Jeff McNaught: The benefits and trade-offs of meeting these needs must be balanced against deep consideration of costs and prospective impacts on Melrose taxpayers after 18 months of collaboration that included diving deeply into the details of the previous committee's report,

▶ 51:18 Jeff McNaught: an effort thoroughly assessing department needs, developing cost projections based on preliminary designs and closely examining prospective tax impacts. This committee has reached consensus that upgrades and modernization

▶ 51:36 Speaker 2: are imperative. In some cases,

▶ 51:40 Jeff McNaught: as Eugenia mentioned, these facilities could become dangerously unsafe without significant capital investment. Delayed action will only bring increased costs for future replacement and pose additional risk to the wellbeing of our police and fire personnel, leave residents vulnerable in emergency situations and further undermine the ability to meet the community's needs efficiently and effectively.

▶ 52:09 Jeff McNaught: The you you have all been very supportive when we've been here, uh, the two times prior and we hope that that support continues after we leave here tonight. Thank you.

▶ 52:22 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you all. Thank you for the very detailed presentation and accompanying reports. Um, I have in the queue for questions, president Gita, followed by Councilor Carm Shady

▶ 52:33 Jen Grigoraitis: President. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for that presentation and for all of your work for the past 18 months. It's really exciting to have a plan for us to think about and talk about and take action on. I just wanted to make a point of clarification for everyone that what's happening tonight is just an informational discussion that the council actually needs a request from the mayor in order for us to actually act, just so no one's confused, um, by what's happening. And before I asked my questions about the presentation, I just wanted to note that I think we as a community need to have a separate conversation about the repeated, um, it failures around the phones. That is not the first time this has happened. I don't think we can wait until a new building is online in 2027 to address that. So I just wanna put that out there. Um, I was hoping that Chief Fowler could talk a little bit about, I know it's in the report, but the response around, um, how the pillars of 21st century policing enable us to move the police station out of the central part of the city. I know that's a question I've heard from some residents. So just for the folks that are tuning in from home, if you could talk a little bit about that.

▶ 53:39 Speaker 1: Uh, yes. So, you know, the, the, the choice of the Ripley School is, was the best of the choices that we had. And, you know, if this was a perfect world, I'd love to us to stay exactly where we are right now because it's in the middle of the town. I, I said it before, I love when I have to go get a coffee. I walk out to my office and I get to see people. I, you know, it's just, it's very convenient. It's convenient for us, it's convenient for the, for the public. But having said that, even the location being on, uh, that would be the southerly side chief. Yes. 'cause last time you corrected me on that. Um, box 2 7 2, we are much different the way police operate than the fire department operates. So being centrally located is not as crucial as it once was back in, say the forties or fifties when people didn't have, um, vehicles. Certainly no internet, no cell phones. But the major difference is police officers are assigned different sectors. So the only time in theory, uh, when our officers are in the building, it's when they're writing a report, change of shift, roll call, stuff like that. But once they get their assignments, the city's broken up into three different sectors. Sector one, two, and three. So that officer assigned to sector one is in sector one for his eight hours, a her eight hours, same thing with two, same thing with three. So they're assigned, actually, if you want to think about it, many, um, areas to cover. So you just, we break the city down and we mobilely patrol. We don't take calls from the station. We don't get, I don't have exact numbers on me, but we don't get a lot of foot traffic even though we're central located, we don't get many walk-ins. And if they do, they're coming in for maybe a copy of a report or thankfully nothing like coming and reporting an emergency where it's like, oh my God, if we weren't on West Foster Street, we would've missed that call. You know, someone's gonna pick up the phone. So I, I will say that, you know, I would prefer if we could stay in the middle of the city, but it's certainly not a detriment to the way we're gonna operate.

▶ 55:40 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. Um, following up on the Ripley as a location, a few things just that I think we need to factor into the discussion is one that building is Melrose Public Schools and is currently on, there's a lease in, um, for the Seam collaborative to be there. So I think understand, I would appreciate at some point looking at the mayor, understanding, um, how the public, the school committee is engaged in this process and then also recognizing there's a, you know, some revenue that will need to, a loss of revenue that will need to be addressed. And then I know that report mentions, um, recommendations for a site survey and review of geotechnical boundaries for the Ripley property. Um, is that something that DOR and Whittier would provide or is that something that the city would provide? I know there's, um, some question around the fact that part of the Ripley is actually cited on cemetery land and we need to kind of come up with a solution for that.

▶ 56:34 Speaker 6: Uh, great question and I know Emmanuel can answer the second part. The first part though, to your point about conversations that need to occur, it's our understanding that, uh, the mayor's office, the school department, the cemetery commission and the planning department are already in those conversations. And so, um, while we are not privy to what they are, those are underway and there's been a proactive approach taken to getting some of these answers that you raise. Um, though, just to underscore what Chief Foller said, the Ripley School, you know, it's an imperfect solution and an imperfect situation, but it's the only city owned parcel that's large enough to accommodate the space required. Um, and then Emmanuel, I know you have points about the geo, uh, technical or Yeah, the technical stuff. Yes.

▶ 57:22 Speaker 9: So there are additional services that need to happen, uh, to learn more about the site. Uh, we thought during the pre-design effort wasn't the right time to do that. Um, uh, but the city is can, uh, um, start, uh, those services. It's, uh, geotechical service, which will, uh, verify the soil conditions and verify the presence or not of ledge on the slope portion of the site. Uh, boundaries, uh, topographic, uh, contours. That work can be done now or the city can wait until design starts to initiate that, those services.

▶ 58:03 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay. But you believe those are services, the city we would contract for those or that's something we do in-house, yeah. We'd contract no contract. I'm seeing Denise and Alina. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, and then,

▶ 58:13 Paul Brodeur: Um, president, if you wanna hear a little bit about the Sure. Ley situation just Into a mic. Yeah. From The, from the, um, from the, well, I don't speak for the school committee yet. I do have, um, a pretty well-informed perspective, uh, in terms of the building itself and the, the loss of revenue that building is dying, that one of the reasons why that is an attractive choice is because that facility, um, like many of the ones we're talking tonight, is at the end of it, its useful time. The collaborative understands that at best we will finish out the current lease. We would like to probably shorten that up a little bit and have had conversations about that. But, um, that building in, uh, is not salvageable or I shouldn't say it that way, but the amount of money that we would need to put into that building to make it a functioning building well into the future far exceeds the value of the building itself. So that was part of things of the school committee. Uh, again, I don't wanna speak for them, I don't recall if we've taken a formal vote, uh, but understands the value proposition of no longer maintaining that as a school property.

▶ 59:32 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay. And of re of eliminating the lease with sea. Yeah. Thank you.

▶ 59:38 Jen Grigoraitis: I'll just ask one more question and then I'll turn it over. Um, the, for the, um, fire stations, there was mention in the report of both the, I think you said 65% of our calls are E M Ss. Um, and so are we planning to add a second ambulance bay to any of the renovated buildings or is that just a, is that a definite thing to increase our capacity or is that just a suggestion?

▶ 1:00:03 Speaker 8: Uh, increasing the, the size of the building would a, a add additional bays. Okay. Which could be used for a multitude of things, but yes, we could fit an ambulance in another district. Right now it's currently at headquarters and, um, e m s is very challenging this time. Um, I don't know what the future's gonna hold, but, uh, some departments are exploring, um, adding ambulances to, uh, non ambulance fire department and the ones that have 'em are looking at operating, uh, multiple ambulances because you just can't rely on the, uh, private e m s anymore. Okay.

▶ 1:00:41 Jen Grigoraitis: And then my last question is, um, the, you know, I think you've all made very clear the state of these current buildings, um, and how, you know, perilously close to the edge. We are, but nobody's gonna move into a new facility until 2027. Is there a plan for how we either improve conditions temporarily, or how we at least prevent them from getting worse while we continue to have personnel in some of the buildings? I know it's being phased, but can you talk a little bit about who goes where when?

▶ 1:01:12 Speaker 9: So the, the cost that you see for this effort does not include maintenance of these facilities until they are replaced. Uh, that is not something that we added in, uh, that we considered because that is, you know, those are funds that the city should be implementing no way, you know, one way or the other. So that was not part of our, of our effort.

▶ 1:01:34 Jen Grigoraitis: And is there an estimated either best practice or recommended number from Do Whittier for once these facilities come online, how much we should be budgeting for maintenance of them going forward?

▶ 1:01:45 Speaker 9: No, that's, no, that is a good question for the design phase. And I think that design phase would allow, uh, the designers to answer that question. 'cause you, one thing you don't want is to build new buildings that can't be maintained, that can't be serviced later.

▶ 1:02:01 Jen Grigoraitis: Right. We don't wanna be here again. Right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you,

▶ 1:02:05 Speaker 3: Madam Chair, councilor, car Shady.

▶ 1:02:07 Manjula Karamcheti: Um, first I just wanna say thank you to the committee of 11 who did all this work. I have found it, I've just been so impressed by it and also inspired by it for a variety of reasons. But I think the commitment, the time, energy, the thoughtfulness in terms of your work together, but also the community engagement. I think I've said it before, but I truly believe it's a model for how we should be working together, um, and how we should be communicating and engaging with the community. So thank you for that. Um, to me, there's no question of need. I feel like months ago you made that very clear and that theme has been consistent. So no question about need. The time is now. Something needs to happen. Absolutely. Um, so I think my com my questions are pretty basic and in some way, shape or form. You've already answered them in the report, but just for the sake of clarity and for the questions constituents, um, have asked me, I just wanna kind of re-ask these questions, um, so they can surface, um, outside of all of the information that you shared. Um, and President Grigoraitis, I think already started with asking about the Ripley School. Um, but I've definitely gotten questions about location of the police station as well. And I think many of us do think of that central location model for the police station. I'm just wondering if you could share what other city properties were considered, um, and sort of a little more, or again, um, sort of why the Ripley School? 'cause I think there are constituents who think there are other spots in the city that might be good spots and sort of the why. Yes, and the why not others. For example, I will give you one. I have constituents that have sort of brought up the space by the salt shed by D P W, sort of in that area, particularly because it would be closer to the schools and in a crisis situation, being closer to the schools would be something that constituents would be interested in. So that is a long-winded question. Um, but if you could share a little bit more about that, I'd appreciate it.

▶ 1:04:20 Speaker 9: Yeah, I can start with that. Uh, there were two other locations that we looked at very briefly. Uh, one being keeping the police station where it is and perhaps recommending that the two residences to the right of the station be purchased or, uh, but even with that investment, uh, the lot with two added lots would not be big enough for what the police needs. Um, the second option was the Beeb School. Uh, it's about a one acre lot when you ignore the, the ledge and, uh, the, the, the changing level between, uh, foster Street and, and the, the back street. Uh, not big enough for the police station. So those are two. And then there were, you know, the three months, uh, street locations that were just looked briefly, no particular lot, just, uh, a desirable, uh, roadway. But, uh, difficult lots were, um, the hazardous materials that may exist in some sites that with underground storage, it's something that we don't even want to recommend because it can be extremely costly.

▶ 1:05:25 Speaker 4: Thank you. That's so helpful. Really appreciate that. Um,

▶ 1:05:30 Manjula Karamcheti: chief Collina, I don't wanna leave you out of just sort of appreciate that. The big question that I've received, and I have no expertise to be able to answer it, was understanding the need for the three fire stations, given the size of Melrose being four square miles. And I did hear that response rate, we, we are doing great because of personnel, but also because of those three stations. But if you could speak to that a little more. 'cause that has sort of been another thing I think constituents have asked about, particularly in a possible cost savings, is because we are a small city, might we consolidate

▶ 1:06:10 Speaker 8: Size wise, we may be a small city, but, um, uh, the residents, the structures, all those things where we're a very dense city. We have more multiple family, uh, dwelling units in Melrose and Stoneham Wakefield than Redding, I believe, combined. And that's what we serve. Um, the fire stations are location driven to impact response times, and we're hitting our margins year after year after year. Not by a lot, but we're, we're over. And, um, altering that, you know, it's a mathematical question equation. It would to obviously impact response time and it would go down. Um,

▶ 1:06:57 Speaker 8: and I don't know how much you're really gonna be saving, you know, uh, because then you're gonna have wear and tear on apparatus responding. Um,

▶ 1:07:07 Speaker 8: so anyways, that's, that's the question I always, it's, it's all response driven.

▶ 1:07:12 Speaker 6: I would add also that, uh, 'cause this question came up at a recent public meeting and someone who happens to live within very close proximity to two fire stations sort of noted that, or suggested that if one of them closed, they would still be very close to the other one. And I think that, um, given what Chief Kalina has noted about popula population density grade crossings, um, and also in the report we talk about how that density is especially concentrated, uh, in the world that I live in and some of my neighbors live in, where there are a number of, uh, multifamily units, apartment complexes, so on and so forth, in an area that's bisected by the train tracks. The, I think we have to be very careful that we think about what is in the best interest of the community as a whole, and how we make sure these services reach everybody that's on each edge of town as opposed to just what is located in the center of town. And so it's a, I would not, if I were to take my co-chair hat off for a moment and just say, as a constituent, I would not want to be the counselor that suggests a particular ward does not need to have timely fire service. Mm-hmm. Um, so it is a safety issue. It is very much response time driven. It is, uh, reflecting, uh, the way that Melrose is laid out. And the third thing is, it's also consistent with what our surrounding communities are doing. There is no neighboring community that is comparable, that is trying to figure out how to close a fire station. Everybody is figuring out if they have more than we do. They're trying to figure out how to maintain them. And in one exa one instance where they had more and they closed them, they're now trying to figure out how to bring another one online. So, um, I think it is, um, not accurate to assume that there are cost savings associated with eliminating a particular building. And it's a better approach to think about how to meet the needs of the community comprehensively over time.

▶ 1:09:17 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you so much for providing that clarity. I think that's so important and I really appreciate it. Um, I think the final piece that I just wanted to, it's a question, comment and, uh, I'll own that. Um, but just in thinking about the debt exclusion and the property tax and sort of, you've again explained it so beautifully, and I just am thinking about, you know, one of the things I always say, if Melrose wants nice things, we need to pay for them. And I stand by that. But I also know that we have individuals in our community who are on fixed incomes, um, regardless of the property assessment of their homes. Um, the money coming in is, is stable and consistent and doesn't change with, um, the rates increasing. And so I'm wondering if you had some of those conversations and if you could share some of your thinking, and I just, for all of us to be thinking about how we're gonna support our Mel Rosens who are lower income, who are fixed income, where the increase would be a significant impact to them. Just as we're thinking about all Mel Rosens,

▶ 1:10:28 Speaker 6: I'm happy to start that and any of my colleagues can jump in. I will say that, um, it was our experience throughout this process that the public, the members of the public who did engage overwhelmingly stated that they understand the need for these investments. They broadly support them. And the questions they had, they weren't, they were some of the questions you've asked, but it was actually a desire to make sure that they could really understand that the process was transparent and that engagement would be ongoing. We didn't encounter anybody who said, um, you know, it's just too expensive, so we're not gonna do it. What we heard repeatedly was it is an expensive proposition. I need assurance that it's going to be done well. And I recognize this is not happening in a vacuum, and we have multiple public buildings that are going to need to be addressed in multiple public, uh, projects that are gonna have to be considered. And so again, it's an, what we received was an invitation from the public to continue that conversation, uh, and think through how this fits into an overall plan, um, for the city and the future investments that need to be made here. For our part, you know, the most that we could provide at this time was an assessment of what we think the cost impacts will be given the information we have. And you've seen that. And we also wanna reiterate what we've said already, which is, you know, should this move forward to a vote and the public decides that it would like to see that it approves a debt exclusion, then that design period is where this conversation continues. And we really get to refine numbers and get to more precise costs, more precise timelines, and a more precise, uh, understanding of what the impact will be on, on residents. But, um, we didn't, we didn't, we definitely considered that throughout, throughout. I dunno if others wanna add to that. I'll flush that out a little bit. Mm-hmm.

▶ 1:12:30 Paul Brodeur: That's why this is hard, right? 'cause we, there's only, there are very few tools in the toolbox. And with respect to the override efforts that have and, and debt exclusions that've done in the fast, I think it would be helpful to not lean too heavily on this idea that they're not divisive, because you may remember it that way, but that's not true because these are, as you said, these are hard things because property taxation and problem fighting against my own cause here a little bit, but property taxation is regressive. And that is the tool we have in our toolbox. So within some limitations we've provided to, we've tried to provide some property tax relief for truly low, low-income seniors. We've tweaked and perhaps there's more work to do around some of our fee structures, water, sewer, trash, whatever the case may be. Um, but the fundamental challenge is that, is that we have to ask people that might not have the ability to pay, or that the, that the amount they'll pay is not tied to their ability to pay. That we need, we need the money. It's a, it's, um, but for a council to say other situations, you know, we're in a terrible situation and I, I don't mean to be doom and gloom, but that is the system of taxation in Massachusetts. There is no, it's certainly in the time that we will need to build these buildings, that's not gonna change. So it just, it, it just, I think to, uh, to geo Eugene's point, um, the best thing we can do is, is demonstrate the value proposition why we need it. And I'm not, so, I mean, I have a hard time, I had a hard time with the last override on the doors when folks said, you know, I really can't afford this. And they meant it. They weren't, you know, they, they made a good case. And honestly, the right thing for them to do for them is to not vote for because you shouldn't vote yourself out of the city. But I do think it is a value proposition. Um, we will probably have a significant debate about whether or not our taxes are low compared to other communities. I think they are. But you know, what folks worry about is what they're paying, not what the person in Belmont is paying. And that makes, and that makes a lot of sense. Um, so there's no way to, you know, there's no way to sugarcoat this. It's, and it's true of a lot of things in, in, in this city and in other cities where when you've got two and a half percent to play with and you want to build a new house, you want to build a new park and you start to think about significant capital investments, it, it's pretty challenging. But, you know, it does get to the point where, where you have no choice. I respectfully suggest that's where we're at in terms of addressing the public safety buildings.

▶ 1:15:39 Manjula Karamcheti: I will just conclude by saying the need is clear. And I hope as a community we move forward. And I also hope that we can continue to think about creative ways to support our constituents who are in, uh, more of a financial situation where this makes it hard for them. I think both things can be true and all of it can move forward. So thank you so much again for your time. Thank you

▶ 1:16:04 Speaker 3: Councilor Ella.

▶ 1:16:05 Christopher Cinella: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you guys are gonna hear this all night. Thank you for all that you've done and continue to do. 18 months is a long time. A lot of time away from your family, so thank you. Um, I guess, um, Mr. Mayor, a question for you. What, and I'm in full support of this as is, um, or however it comes to us. Yep. I don't know how that works. That's my question. What's the timeline? When can we as a body expect to get the order? Because we're, we're in August in a week, and then it's, we've got committee, the thing back and forth discussions. You gotta go to market to the community with this.

▶ 1:16:43 Paul Brodeur: So I'll work backwards. Um, I believe it stated in the report that, um, the clerk needs 35 days of notice in order to put this, to organize an election to put this on the ballot. Obviously with the November election coming up, there is some economy of scale of trying to put it on that ballot. I think that's probably, um, the wisest thing to do. But I should be clear about this. The, that is not the role of these folks. For better or worse, that is our role. And so that is, that is the time parameter. I will put something down, I'm not exactly sure what it's gonna say. It's actually fairly simple. Most of the language is required by statute. The, the language isn't much of a, isn't much of of a debate. It, the, it's the, you know, what projects are going into it at, at what level, essentially. And then, um, whatever I put down is subject to essentially whatever the council wants to do or thinks in the best interest of the city and their constituents to do so. Um, say I put down this exact plan, um, with that deadline in mind, you're free to do all of it or to do none of it, or to essentially to chop it up. So you could theoretically put 4, 3, 2, or one questions in any way you want. Um, I, I, I will not telegraph too much. I think. I think one question is, uh, the smartest and quite frankly, the fairest way to go. I don't think it's necessarily a great idea to pit these projects, uh, against each other because the need is there, uh, for all of 'em. But that is the, you know, the longer short is, it will be up to you as a body and me to settle up on the, on the date and the nature of what's included in the question.

▶ 1:18:52 Christopher Cinella: And then from that point too, we need a marketing strategy. You'll have to, like, I'm assuming a mailer or something to the, that

▶ 1:18:59 Paul Brodeur: Is a, For That becomes a bit of a trickier question because the, it gets a little bit weird. Um, again, think back to the override to a certain degree. The, the, the city itself really is not supposed to advocate for engage in the political process. Um, but the city can supply information. So the city can't do a mailer. We can have a website with facts, um, that, that kind of already exists. Um, but the campaign piece is, is a little bit tricky, unlike, uh, the middle school debt exclusion where there was a very big constituency. And, you know, there's nothing like young parents to motivate a political process. And, and, and politicians, um, uh, I haven't said this to my, to my friends in the backyard. I think it will take, um, a lot of work by a lot of people. But I'm hoping that the men and women of the, of both the police department and the fire department can, can lean into this, uh, a bit as well as, you know, concerned citizens. Hopefully some of y'all, some of the members of the, of the committee to, to do that work.

▶ 1:20:18 Speaker 6: So, so if I could just put a finer point on it. This report does conclude the work of this committee, as the mayor said, uh, it falls to him to craft language to then present to this body to decide if it wants to put it to the public, including the language and the timing. Um, and with regard to the launch of a campaign, um, you know, I think that part of the reason why we were so, um, you know, why we took so seriously, the need for public engagement is because we wanted, we recognize this is gonna go to the public for a vote. And I think there are many people who have come forward who've indicated a desire to stay engaged. And so you're invited to help launch a campaign, I think a campaign led by the public. But, uh, the thing that I have to, I just really want to double down on is the success of this endeavor. And the continuation of this conversation has to include the public, it has to include police and fire. It has to include city council and the mayor's office. And no matter what the timing is, that does not change. And so this is really an invitation to the public to remain engaged and to help lead that process going forward. 'cause this is, you know, it's a relay. We're, we're passing the baton now to keep this moving forward. So, um, I just wanna reiterate that I also note that, and we say it in the report, all of our analysis was based on the idea that this would go to a ballot to the vote in November. And a delay in that timing would require revisiting some of these cost estimates. Um, and so that's just that bears repeating because I think, um,

▶ 1:22:07 Speaker 6: it's not, it's not an excuse to delay for a significant amount of time, but I think it does at least allow for some flexibility in a little bit of wiggle room in the immediate term in terms of the timing of final language and where it moves.

▶ 1:22:24 Christopher Cinella: Right. Um, my last question, I think it was mentioned that there was a meeting with the cemetery commission, and I know that there's something with the land. Is that been resolved? Is that gonna hold anything up? What's the status on I know my, my father and my uncle are right at the wall, and they don't mind the police station going in. Certainly

▶ 1:22:44 Paul Brodeur: Nothing, nothing on that side of the wall Okay. Will, will be affected. And we've, we've had those meetings. We have more, we have more work to do.

▶ 1:22:54 Speaker 1: Thank you.

▶ 1:22:56 Speaker 3: Councilor Gepe.

▶ 1:22:58 Mark Garipay: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you all for all your hard work. Uh, most of my questions were asked, but I did have one or two questions. Um, in the final report on the poli, on the Ripley Ripley, uh, site, it states measuring two point, uh, just over two point acres of the lot, um, is where the police station will be situated. Is that, is that just a ripley It's, it talks about the Ripley lot. Is that the ripley lot or is that the Ripley plus the cemetery land?

▶ 1:23:33 Speaker 9: Just a Ripley plus. The, the stretch that is the part, the, the, the driveway of the Ripley school, which is actually part of the, the cemetery.

▶ 1:23:43 Mark Garipay: Okay. So it's false. They just, in here it just talks about Ripley. So I just wanted some clarification on that. Um, 'cause I believe the cemetery owns all the frontage all the way up to Forest Street and goes in as a, as kind of like a, kind of like a pie. Um, okay. And then, um, one other question I have is regarding, and this may be one for maybe a next meeting regarding the, um, debt exclusion. Uh, you had mentioned that if an order came down and I support believing the voters should vote, alright, so I will, whatever comes down, I'll, I'll vote to put it, put it on, on a ballot. Um, my question is, right now we're saying $130 million. Um, if that is the number that comes down and it goes to the voters, and then we have a design study in 12, 12 months, could that price be more than 130 millions? Like, is that, is 130 that would be at that exclusion amount? Is that the final amount? Or when they go to the design stage? Could that be, could that be more money?

▶ 1:24:45 Speaker 2: The cost of the projects?

▶ 1:24:46 Speaker 9: So design would take about one year, so 12 months. We're assuming that if there is a, a passage of this effort in November that you could, the city could start a design contract with the designer end of Jan, end of December, early January. Um, right now it's in our pre-design effort, we included, uh, very conservative, uh, allowances and contingencies. Um, we, the, we did our best right now to estimate all the way to 2030. We are very conservative in our contingencies and allowances. Uh, that is not to say that, uh, if, if there's an increase in square footage or if there's some other pandemic era impact, uh, to construction costs, that the, the cost would not go up. We can't, I can't guarantee that. But right now, with the, being the, the in-house architect in our group working with the professional architects of do with your, we feel very good about our, um, estimate of $130 million. Okay. Very good. And, and in our cost estimates, you can see all the, uh, the soft costs, right? Just to design this, we take an enormous, uh, amount of professionals, uh, not just the architect. Uh, we included project costs, we included change order, uh, contingencies, project contingencies. Uh, we started with a hundred, uh, $850 per square foot just to identify the construction costs. And we added almost a, a 40% increase to get to the, the total project costs. So we feel really good about one 30 is of what we know today, is a really conservative estimate.

▶ 1:26:37 Mark Garipay: If I, I think it's based on the Department of Revenue, but the last override, if it goes over one 30, we can't just, we have to go back to the voters for one line. Correct? Yeah. Okay. Um,

▶ 1:26:50 Mark Garipay: and I understand we're in a, we're in a different world right now. I mean, we've seen it with a number of other projects, salt Shed, Memorial Hall Library, all the costs have gone up considerably over what was estimated. So, um, I, I hope that number's good. So thanks. And

▶ 1:27:10 Speaker 9: One, one final point of clarification. We included 5%, uh, inflation between now and 2030. It it may be a little less in out years. Uh, but yeah, we, we, we were conservative. Uh, I definitely agree. I, I, I, we, we came here in, in, uh, for our presentation back in October where, uh, there was more money being asked for the library. And, you know, I was in the room at the time. It's like, this is not something that this committee is open to, to have for the, for the public safety facilities. We wanna do this, get this right, and not have to come back and ask for more money. So we were very conservative in our numbers.

▶ 1:27:48 Mark Garipay: Okay, thank you. Thanks for all your work.

▶ 1:27:51 Speaker 3: Vice chair Jamal Ledine. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all.

▶ 1:27:57 Maya Jamaleddine: I wanna echo my colleagues and the mayor for thanking every and each one of you. It's, uh, definitely, uh, a lot of work and dedication was put in this, uh, project, and it's obviously very well done. So thank you. Uh, all, um, for, um, I just wanna name, uh, upfront that I am in favor of this. Uh, I think it's the least that we can do is to keep the people that keep us safe, actually safe. Uh, but also I wanted to name as a D e I ambassador and, um, an advocate. The, um, feel that this is the vu from the first, uh, first time we had, uh, uh, we did this. Um,

▶ 1:28:45 Maya Jamaleddine: the one thing just to make sure that every box has been checked, uh, as we are doing this, the people that, um, actually are unable and live are unable to afford this and live from paycheck to paycheck, uh, probably are working three to four jobs and are unable to attend those. Um, uh, unfortunately, those events to speak up, we're probably tired. So I just wanna make sure that as we are executing this project, uh, we are keeping their voices because they're counting on us, uh, to make sure that we are not excluding them from this community, and that we are not making it harder and harder for them to stay with us. Uh, right now it's already hard. Uh, so as we are doing that, I wanna make sure that we keep space for them with us. And between us, I can afford that. I know many of us in this room can, but there is some cannot do that. So how can we make sure that as we are advocating for the safety of, um, um, those buildings and the people that keep us safe, that we are also keeping those people with us. Um, we spoke before, mayor, and you mentioned that definitely there is no override that is fully inclusive. Um, and,

▶ 1:30:16 Maya Jamaleddine: and that's the truth, unfortunately, um,

▶ 1:30:21 Maya Jamaleddine: we are gonna do it, I hope, but how can we make it with a less harm for those people?

▶ 1:30:31 Maya Jamaleddine: So I know I am included in this question, and I, I hope I can find that answer. But as we are planning for this, I hope we keep some plan for those that are not able to speak up. Mm-hmm. So, thank you. I, I don't have questions. I, I'm just, just all set. That's okay. I'm just asking for, uh, this to be included, so thank you. Thank you,

▶ 1:30:57 Speaker 3: councilor Williams.

▶ 1:30:59 Speaker 5: Thank you. Um, and thanks to everybody on the committee.

▶ 1:31:02 Ryan Williams: I wanna echo counselor, um, Karen Chetty. She said that this is a great model, right? And I think it is, um, going forward, I think there's a little bit of trust here that we need to offer that members of the council, members of the community need to offer. Because in this city, we have actually a lot of infrastructure needs. And this is to my experience, the first time that we've really taken a serious look at a major infrastructure need and provided a real detailed, really professional, really respectable, um, look at the needs, uh, and the costs associated with them. And I would not reject the work of that committee by refusing to support the initiative to, to have this put on the ballot, right? So I would support putting this on the ballot. I'm gonna get that out of the way. Um, I have, you know, I have some trepidation with the mechanism for funding. I want to ask why a debt exclusion, right? Why, why target a debt exclusion for this and not look to grow a portion of the city's budget, and then use that budget to pay for the debt exclusion? That's what they did in Medford. They didn't do an override. They paid for the police station out of the city's budget.

▶ 1:32:17 Speaker 7: Okay. Answer that quickly. No capacity,

▶ 1:32:19 Ryan Williams: No capacity in the city's budget currently. But why not seek to grow the city's budget and raise all ships and then use some of that funds to, to offset the cost to the,

▶ 1:32:30 Paul Brodeur: Uh, because this is, because historically for when, when folks do have, um, a capital need to try to keep capital and operating somewhat separate, um, this is a little bit more straightforward, and frankly, it tends to be a little bit easier to pass.

▶ 1:32:50 Speaker 6: And just to add to that, i, a debt exclusion is the mechanism that exists for precisely this reason in the state of Massachusetts. Uh, in order to increase revenue, uh, excuse me, in order to increase tax revenue to serve a very specific and discreet purpose for a very specific amount of time, with lots of opportunities for accountability and oversight in how those dollars get expended, I think, um, it would be wonderful if Melrose could find a way as a community to grow its revenue and have an even larger budget. And there are a number of things that need to be addressed within the community. Um, not just public safety buildings. However, we don't have time to get that creative with financing when it comes to building these buildings and rebuilding and renovating and reconstructing these buildings. So, just given the time that we're at and the, um, you know, the time that it's gonna take to get these buildings online at this moment, and this time, debt exclusion is the tool that, it's the tool for the job, and we should take advantage of that tool. Uh, the other thing I would note is that it's 21 years ago this year that the conversation first started about the middle school. And at that time, the discussion was, we need to figure out what to do with our school. Um, it's gonna take a debt exclusion. We should embark upon a process to figure out how to make that happen. And that process took about three years, and the project got started, and that debt service hit the books in 2008. So we are right there at the same trajectory, the same pace, the same timing for public safety buildings, the differences, this conversation first started six years ago and did not reach resolution. And we restarted the process and took another two years to get to where we are today. So, um, I flagged that because debt exclusion is how you pay for it. Time is of the essence. We really don't have a lot of time to waste, and we are on a compressed timeframe to try to do a pretty ambitious amount of work in a pretty tight amount of time to get to the buildings and the facilities that we need.

▶ 1:35:13 Paul Brodeur: I gotta gonna do one more thing. Yeah. Um, you, you've mentioned, um, trust and faith and the virtue of the debt exclusion. Jean essentially already said this, but it's that money is absolutely segregated, cannot be used for any other purpose. And well, I tend to have perhaps a little bit more faith in government than, than the average cynic. It is very powerful to be able to say, when someone says, how do I know it's not, you know, 10 years from now, you're not gonna dot, dot, dot, dot. That's how, you know, and I, I mean, I get where you're coming from in terms of the, you know, the concept and being able to be, uh, maybe a little more flexible, a little bit more agile. Um, but t Eugene's point in a nutshell is debt solutions, capital needs.

▶ 1:36:13 Ryan Williams: And I, I want to reflect for a moment on the, the wall that we're up against. And I, I, I agree that we're up against it, right? I toured the fire station five years ago in the police station, you know, right, right before I ran for city council the first time. So I saw it then. I imagine it's even worse now, right? Um, and I know that a lot of my colleagues around the horseshoe are really tired of being up against the wall of deferred maintenance and bad decisions and, uh, overdue costs and things like that. Um, and so I, I, you know, I, I'm, I'm glad that we're looking at this and giving a realistic price tag and putting the realistic timetable down for what it's gonna cost this community to have what it wants. I hope we do that same kind of thing for the other needs that we have, and that we don't defer the maintenance on, uh, the Hoover School, which was built in 1960, or the Winthrop School, which was built in 1912 for another 40 or 50 years or whatever. I mean, they probably collapsed if they were diverted that long. But, um, that's, that's what I mean when I say trust, right? I love what I see here and the people around the table and the work that's been put in. And I, I hope that after this is concluded, that we immediately take the next step on what the future mm-hmm. Of some of those other projects look like. Um, and I had a couple other very specific questions. When we're looking at the estimates, are these inclusive of potential sustainability features? Are we, yeah. Tell me a little bit about that.

▶ 1:37:32 Speaker 9: Yeah, absolutely. We're designing these buildings for the next 50 years. So, you know, these are, um, sustainable building buildings, buildings that will be here for many generations. And we're Massachusetts just enacted a new, uh, energy code. So yeah, we'll be meeting those, those new codes.

▶ 1:37:51 Ryan Williams: Cool. Very good. Um, gas plan for gas in the building.

▶ 1:37:57 Speaker 9: Um, the cost that we have right now, consider gas as, as a source. We are using, um, um, fuel sources at the moment, uh, with the intent in the near future 10, 15 years to convert to electric if there's, uh, enough power on the grid. Uh, so yes, we are looking for the, the, the Massachusetts, uh, forecast by 2050 to be completely electric. Okay. Very good. So the cost estimates that we have right now are, are considering gas that can be electric very quickly.

▶ 1:38:29 Ryan Williams: Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, with the Ripley location, it's obviously going to be a big shock, right? To some members of the community to have a big police station, uh, break ground and be constructed. Uh, you're kind of lucky there that half of that street border is some commercial properties, you know, repair shop and maybe they'll get a lot of business, right? You know, but, um, you do have a couple neighbors across the street, and so I know that we will do this, but I just wanna put the, the statement out that collaboration with the ward counselor, with the cemetery commission, with the local residents there, with all the stakeholders involved, is just gonna be absolutely critical because, um, with all of these projects, they're gonna be just as, you know, disruptive as, as any apartment building would be. So, um, I know that we'll continue to work closely with people in that. Do we have any sense that the Lebanon Street trip tip project, the road reconstruction project, will be affected by this, or delayed by this in any way? Does anybody know? We gotta know. Shouldn't be. We gotta know from the director of public Works. That's good enough for me.

▶ 1:39:30 Speaker 7: That's Good enough. Yeah, I can make something up. Yeah. Yeah,

▶ 1:39:32 Ryan Williams: It's right there. That's good. That's fine. Of course. That's fine. Nope, it's all good. That's great. Um, and I have, I have one last question about the, I have one last question about the debt service. On the debt service sheet, we have $131 million, and I, I wish that Mr. LaRusso was here with us tonight. We have $131 million in,

▶ 1:39:54 Ryan Williams: um, in bonds, uh, total cost of bonds for column C,

▶ 1:40:01 Ryan Williams: but then we have $52 million in bonds for d and blah, blah, blah, and so on and so forth. And when we get to the end of it, the total projected debt service is $253 million. So the, the way, and I haven't been through a debt exclusion before, so for me, for the public, the debt exclusion ballot question would potentially, if approved across the board, say debt exclusion of up to 131 or whatever the budget number is, or will it say 253 because of the debt service and the interest payments and things like that.

▶ 1:40:31 Speaker 7: Stay tuned. Okay.

▶ 1:40:35 Ryan Williams: Those are all my questions. Thank you very much.

▶ 1:40:38 Paul Brodeur: A couple, a couple points of good news, because like we are, you know, got some information about this tomorrow. It's actually, it might be on the website now. We are putting, just so you know, millions of dollars into the schools this summer, in part because of school building assistance before they shut down the rapid prepare program. Um, and, and, you know, work like that, the police, the police and fire radio thing, um, is absolutely a concern. And that's why you all approved almost a million dollars to, to bring that up to speed. And with the, you know, yes, we have seen some pretty horrific outages, some due to infrastructure plus lightning strikes. And that's probably not gonna be where, unfortunately, that appears to be the new normal. But, you know, the long rollout of the ge the, the new generator and that backup work, um, which is money we invested quite some time ago, and with supply chain and some other stuff has been a problem. Um, but work is being done on some sort. It's not nev, you know, never ever and always, but no, the history certainly is not terrific. But to the point, you know, there's only so much maintenance you'd do on a building that was built in 1895 before you gotta go, it's over. True. You know,

▶ 1:42:01 Speaker 6: I think it's also worth considering, you know, our facilities and our D P W and the, um, custodial services at Police Inspire. They're doing a lot of work to keep those buildings up and running and they're putting significant money into, you know, doing what they can. But to the mayor's point, you can only, you know, gorilla Glue and Sea Clamp a building for so long, and then you gotta actually build something. And I think, uh, I don't wanna speak for D P W, but, um, it's probably, it would probably be welcome by them to be able to consider how to use some of those dollars that have been put towards, um, some of the maintenance work mm-hmm. To put towards other projects. Or, for example, in the report we referenced, you know, nearly $150,000 in ARPA funding that was used to support the build out of, um, space at engine two to accommodate a piece of apparatus and air conditioning to provide a modicum of comfort in central fire. Those are one time federal dollars that went to good use. But it's a conversation I know you all have been part of before when it comes to how we apply one time funding to you to support other investments and, you know, what could we have done with those dollars versus what did we choose to do? So going forward, this solution that has been presented here, yes, there will be ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with new buildings, but, um, it will hopefully not be the same as what it is right now. And that will free up some other resources to support other work in the community.

▶ 1:43:43 Speaker 3: Okay. Councilor McMaster. Thank

▶ 1:43:45 Shawn M. MacMaster: You, Madam Chair. Thank you for everyone's work, um, throughout this entire process. Um, Mr. Andrada, you uh, mentioned the detached firing range. I read about that in the report. I didn't catch what you said in your presentation about, about it though. Can you repeat that?

▶ 1:44:00 Speaker 9: Yes. So the, the pre-design solution that during with your, uh, developed included a small firing range behind the new police station at a cost of about $4.2 million if we escalate until, you know, when it's done in spring of 2025. Um, and it's a convenience to have a firing range for training purposes. And, and, you know, it's, it definitely make that the police station perfect. The optimal solution that we're proposing eliminates the firing firing range as a cost saving measure. So the same happened with the maintenance bay At engine two, we're supposed to have an additional bay for maintenance purposes, an office, we eliminated that to save some money so that we would come here with a, a, not $138 million, 138.7, but $130 million.

▶ 1:44:58 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you. I thought I heard that and I just, I wanted to just double check on that Chief ala, where, um, do officers qualify now? Where did, where do they go?

▶ 1:45:06 Speaker 1: So, uh, wherever we can find, we were fortunate to go up to Andover Private, a private facility because someone knew somebody. Um, it's getting increasingly difficult for all chiefs, uh, to find firing rangers that will host the, their goal would, for me would be if the M P T C was, was able to find a centralized location where all agencies across the state could go for free. Uh, I don't think that's gonna happen. So it's, it's really who you know and how quickly you can call that person to get a week booked because it takes, for a small agency like us, relatively small, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a week long booking to get all our offices trained. So, you know, I know a couple offices behind me don't agree with my concession to give up that $4.2 million firing range. And their arguments are absolutely correct. If we had that, it, it's just convenient, we could also lease it, we could make money off of it. But I'm also real a realist to know that my opinion as the chief is more important things in that building that we need to have. I kind of made the decision that the firing range is more of a want than a need, but it, it is a potential problem. Counsel, you are correct. 'cause it's hard to find places to go to train

▶ 1:46:25 Paul Brodeur: Counsel, Do you mind if I ask you a question? Does, does the sheriff, the folks in the Middlesex Sheriffs, I assume some subset of those folks have to qualify yearly, much like the police do. Do you all have a

▶ 1:46:38 Shawn M. MacMaster: Mobile command? What's that? Mobile command training center? Mm-hmm. Um,

▶ 1:46:45 Shawn M. MacMaster: chief four, having offices travel to another, uh, community. Um, what does that look like in terms of costs over time, backfill, anything like that? Is it, I mean, we're not on the,

▶ 1:46:57 Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. I, I, we've had this discussion during I think one of the budget hearings possibly of somewhere else. So, you know, not to get too far off topic, but there's, you know, it could be upwards of 56 hours per officer were mandated to train for, uh, to, to be certified, et cetera, for in-service training, firearms, I believe, correct me if I'm right, it's, it's, it might be 16 hours, 12 or 16. So we shoot twice a year and then we do an additional week of training, which we did last week at the high school, which was active shooter training, uh, with munitions. But, um, the actual firearms, we need to do a real qualification, which we didn't hand over. Then we do another round of shooting, which is sort of, I don't want to say it's sort of like extra, it's required, but you don't have to do a full qual. So it, the cost is, it's a lot. 'cause we have to send people to go and it, we take 'em off shift. So if they're off shift, they either get overtime or if we take them off shift, we now have to backfill that overtime. So one way, one way or the other, we're paying for it. Now, if we had the firing range, there's creative ways you could do it on shift with cooperations, with unions and so forth and pull 'em off, train 'em, they go back on the street. There could be some costs. Well, there definitely would be cost savings on that. Will it add to $4.2 million? Not in the first five years or so, but, you know, throughout the life of it, maybe through rentals, leasing and saving on the cost measures, you could break even at some point. For sure.

▶ 1:48:30 Shawn M. MacMaster: And is there a utilization cost chief to go to Andover? Are we being charged to use the space? I

▶ 1:48:36 Speaker 1: Don't, I don't know the answer to that. I think, uh, I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that. Okay. If it is, it's minimal. Generally what I've seen through past experience. If someone's a member there and they know someone and they want to donate the use of the facilities to the town, that's usually what what happens.

▶ 1:48:53 Shawn M. MacMaster: Okay. Um, next question is for both chiefs. Um, it relates to dispatch. Can you help me understand how a consolidated dispatch wouldn't improve operational efficiency? I just, I'm not sure I can be convinced of that. So just help me un help me understand that. Sure.

▶ 1:49:09 Speaker 1: Um, do you wanna take that one chief? I can

▶ 1:49:13 Speaker 8: Sure. When you say consolidated dispatch, you're talking,

▶ 1:49:17 Shawn M. MacMaster: You one dispatch center, police fire together,

▶ 1:49:18 Speaker 8: One dispatch center, police fire cross training. Yeah, so

▶ 1:49:24 Shawn M. MacMaster: There would be upfront costs. I obviously, but in terms of,

▶ 1:49:28 Speaker 8: I, I have a, uh, running a, I have a background in that 'cause I was a public safety dispatch for many years. Um, you know, it, it can work, but it's also, when it's busy, it's busy on both sides and there's a lot of confusion in the room, a lot of mist, transmissions, um, and sometimes missed phone calls. Uh, when we're busy here in Melrose, um, the police are our 9 1 1 psap, uh, answering point. They have a hard time, uh, maintaining with two, uh, call takers, um, answering all those calls when, when, you know, they can attest to it themselves and then also have to dispatch it.

▶ 1:50:12 Speaker 8: And if it's a fire, uh, doing all those components, I find it's, it's more, um, um,

▶ 1:50:22 Speaker 8: efficient and, uh, safety when you have it separated. Fire deals with fire and police, deals with police, um, because when we're dealing with an emergency and we're bringing in multiple, uh, agencies from other communities, the police work, uh, though they're at the scene too, helping us, uh, their police work and other incidences in Melrose are still going on and those phones are still ringing. So there's a lot of confusion in a, in a, in a call center, an E E C E C C, emergency Communication Center. Um, that's, I've been advocating for the police to have their, uh, center in 9 1 1 and the fire head there. Um, center, uh, additionally, I, I think an e ooc, an emergency communication center is, uh, uh, would be a fantastic addition to this community. Uh, for the reasons that what just happened this past month and a half where our systems have gone down at least three times that we know of. And, and in the fireside we were down for over 20 hours, um, with our radios out. Phones were off for about four hours before they came back up and run it. But if you had a, a redundant, uh, e O C, you would just move your staff over and open it up because it would be remote from the area that got impacted. So fire department had an issue, city hall had an issue, and, uh, Memorial all had an, an issue from the electrical, uh, surge that hit this area. If the Remont Street station had the E O C, you just open up over there. And if it wasn't the fire that had the issue, but the police had the issue, they could open up over there. But if you're gonna merge two agencies to cross train, aside from the labor issues that you would create it, it would need to be done for the efficiency of the operation and not a cost saving measure, because that's just a recipe for disaster, I find. So if you're gonna staff it properly, then it could work.

▶ 1:52:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: So is the model not a civilian dispatch right now? Do we have sworn, uh, officers and firefighters

▶ 1:52:33 Speaker 8: In dispatch the police? It's, uh, sworn officers in the fire. It's, it's, uh, firefighters.

▶ 1:52:37 Speaker 2: There's no civilian dispatch.

▶ 1:52:38 Speaker 8: No. Um, but we also use it, uh, for our female firefighters when they, um, are pregnant and they, they want to continue working, but they don't wanna, uh mm-hmm. Face the hazards of the job. It's a place for them to go, uh, for a couple of months until till the event. Um,

▶ 1:53:02 Speaker 8: yeah. So I hope that answered your question.

▶ 1:53:05 Shawn M. MacMaster: Uh, Mr. Andre, how much space is required to have two distinct dispatch centers?

▶ 1:53:12 Speaker 9: I have to double check that. We have, we do have, um, spreadsheets, uh, with the tabular information and, and the square footage I, I can get back. If you can provide

▶ 1:53:20 Speaker 2: That to the clerk, that would be great. Thank you. Um,

▶ 1:53:22 Speaker 1: Counsel, I, I, I could just, just wanna elaborate a little bit. 'cause where I came from in Medford, when we, uh, dispatched in the old station, uh, you may know the station, it was connected to the fire department. So we were able to have a joint dispatch because the stations were connected. If we were connected, that might be more feasible. It's almost like a one big central headquarters. So we had firefighters on one side, two police officers on here. When we built the new station next to Medford Police, well, actually it was about a year prior to that we went civilian. So when we moved into the Medford, new Medford Police Station, it was staffed with all civilians, dispatching both police and fire. So, I don't know the answer to this all, but when we build our new dispatch center in the police station, I would be pushing for, to have that capability to make it, to have that ability. If we ever worked it out with the labor unions in the city or somebody wanted to go civilian, you, you have that option. So you're not, you know what I mean? It should be built to be ready for that. That's what I would say for that.

▶ 1:54:31 Shawn M. MacMaster: And then just, um, a final comment, Mr. Mayor, you mentioned, uh, in your, uh, introductory remarks about the legislature and, um, other potential funding opportunities. Sure. I'm wondering about, uh, federal support, because I do think trying to offset the costs, um, will help make this palatable to the public in light of where we stand in terms of our, you know, our financial state right now. Mm-hmm. Questions about the library and the cost of the library and whatnot. Um, so I'm wondering whether or not there has been any outreach to Congresswoman Clark's office, Senator Markey, uh, Senator Warren. Mm-hmm. Um, and what, if any assistance we might be able to try to garner from them,

▶ 1:55:12 Paul Brodeur: Um, extensive outreach, and they've been, I wanna be clear, they have been, uh, very helpful, you know, have, have turned on, turned over any, every rock they can find this scale that they tend to not to until very recently do what we think of as earmarked this more like programmatic options that they will then, you know, push us towards in terms of say, energy or resiliency or whatever the case. They don't say, here's a million bucks, but go to this program. Uh, and we'll find it. Fascinatingly though, there were some legislative push around support for, you know, brick and mortar public safety in, um, the infrastructure bill and the inflation reduction Act. Uh, it didn't happen. And it seemed to me, um,

▶ 1:56:05 Paul Brodeur: kind of a natural, it's a very stereotypical response. But you have, again, various stereotypically, Democrats like to spend money and build stuff. Republicans very supportive of police and fir. And again, that is, that is way oversimplified and please don't send me an email about it. I, I get it. It's more complicated than that. Um, but there did seem to be like a natural synergy there. It's something that everyone could agree to and it didn't happen. I don't know if it, you know, was offered and rejected, but in terms of, you know, significant programmatic federal support for public safety buildings, there's basically none.

▶ 1:56:44 Speaker 2: That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

▶ 1:56:48 Speaker 3: Anyone else for a second time? Uh,

▶ 1:56:52 Leila Migliorelli: well, I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you again. Um, and, um, I think I'm glad that we've, there's been nces consensus among all of the participants in this, uh, public safety building committee where there hasn't been in prior times. I think that says a lot about the pro the project that you've proposed. Um, I think I'm concerned about ongoing maintenance of the buildings in the interim, the cost of that, but that doesn't negate the need for the project. In fact, that probably makes a greater case for why this, why we need to move forward and do something quickly. Um, just to clarify, the 35 day, um, time period that puts us sort of at October 2nd. So this is time is of the essence in many ways in that we need to kind of think about this now and deal with this now. Otherwise we're going to, you know, lose further time, further deterioration of the buildings, higher costs for, um, ongoing maintenance, um, and potentially higher construction costs as well. So, um, thank you all tonight for being here and, um, I'll entertain a motion to place this order on file. So moved. Second motion to place this order on file made by Councillor sne, seconded by Councillor Williams. Uh, anyone on discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Uh, this order will be brought to the next full council with a recommendation to place on file. Thank you all again for being here tonight. Thank you. Thank you.