ORDER-2023-16 : Authorizing a Bond for the purchase of landscaping equipment necessary to run Mt Hood Golf Course

Transcript (~42 min @ 17:12)

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

▶ 17:08 Speaker 7: Good evening, Madam chairman and members of the council just a little background on this request.

▶ 17:17 Speaker 7: as you probably already know we

▶ 17:22 Speaker 7: we have to put the RFP out for a bit every year every five years three years depending on what it is. You guys were kind enough to bump it out to five year term this this time around we've had some difficulty with responses the current contract. We have what golf management company expires on December 2012, December 31 2022 because of some internal issues that they have with the health of some of their principles. They are not bidding on the contract again, and they've been up there. I think it's 10 or 15 years and they've done a wonderful job as far as you know generating revenues for the city of Melrose. We've put the contract out to bid twice and had no responses. Some of the feedback that we've gotten was that in this current economic climate that a lot of companies are afraid or at least hesitant. to put in a bid because of the fact that they would have to lay out the capital to acquire the landscaping equipment in order to run the Landscaping piece of the Mount Hood Golf Course. What we're asking to do is is going to accomplish two things one. The contract is back out to bid and maybe we can eliminate some of the concerns for some of the bid is if we're allowed to purchase the equipment for the 563,000 through the bond process and number number two. If we have no bidders and we have to run it ourselves. We're going

▶ 19:03 Speaker 8: to need the equipment. Anyway, fortunately the

▶ 19:05 Speaker 7: way I look at it mismata is provided the The bonding rates and the payments and it is something that I believe is a commission. We can handle the 3.5% is very favorable. Frankly if we had waited another. Two days. We probably would have got a higher rate. But at the same time. I think that this is the most prudent way for the park commission to in the Melrose Enterprise fund to handle the situation that we're currently faced with the payments on the bonds will not come out of the not proposed to come out of the city budget. It would come out of the Mount Hood Enterprise fund which what confident it would work favorably for everybody.

▶ 19:57 Speaker 2: Thank you. counselors questions counselor karmchatie

▶ 20:05 Manjula Karamcheti: I'm new to the management of golf courses. Is it typical that the management company wouldn't have their own equipment and generally uses equipment that is purchased by the city or by the golf course.

▶ 20:18 Speaker 7: Normally in the last I think I've been the 10 of 15 years. I can't remember anymore as I'm getting older but at the same time every single contract we've had is the management company provides their own equipment. The problem is now is the feedback we're getting we've put it out to bid twice. We've had no bidders. So in one of and we've contacted the bid as in one of the primary components of the lack of bids is the fear that the economic climate that we have. Now the capital outlay for a private company to put out the 563,000 we're asking for to get the equipment is something they're not willing to do so, it's been a detriment an extreme detriment for us to get bit is And as a I think I said if we get stuck running it through the city, we're going to need the equipment anyway, so I think what's the objective here is that if we can acquire the equipment through the bonding for us, it'll be a more favorable contract for for third parties, but number one and number two as a safety net. will at least have the equipment to run the golf course, which is

▶ 21:38 Speaker 7: always a profitable Venture for the city and it's it covers a lot of different things.

▶ 21:46 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it a little bit because if the contract management company doesn't provide the equipment What are we paying for just the labor?

▶ 21:59 Speaker 7: No, what happens is they have to they they have to within the RFP that we put out. They then have to operate the golf course, we'll provide them with the equipment. They have to operate the equipment maintain the equipment. But then at the same time, it's a less of a cost a capital cost to the potential bits is what it

▶ 22:21 Speaker 9: is and they don't already have the stuff.

▶ 22:24 Speaker 7: No, they would have to acquire. Equipment to run the Melrose Mount Hood operation right now. We did actually it's a good question because in the sense, we asked the current management company if you guys are leaving is there anything you know, we can buy the stuff. Yeah and leave the stuff for can we make a deal? But they they operate the current management company operates their own private companies up in New Hampshire and they're going to take the good stuff with them and

▶ 22:54 Speaker 8: leave us with or at least

▶ 22:55 Speaker 7: negotiate with that says to the stuff that's not going to work. We looked at it and we think this is the most prudent way to go.

▶ 23:02 Manjula Karamcheti: Can you just share then like what will be purchased because I don't think we had a list. There's a park.

▶ 23:11 Speaker 7: It's you talking about lawn mowers you're talking about.

▶ 23:16 Speaker 7: Like I'm not even sure like backhoes that type of stuff there was a lot of there is like a hundred forty pieces of equipment that I saw and I can't even operate my own lawnmower. So I'm probably the wrong guy to ask about what what was on that list, but there's quite a bit of equipment for sure trucks, you know that type that type of thing. It's all geared towards operating the

▶ 23:44 Speaker 7: maintenance of the golf course.

▶ 23:47 Manjula Karamcheti: Would never be a situation where somebody who did bed had all of the equipment already that we would then have

▶ 23:54 Speaker 7: extra. We've tried it twice and they've come back and said and this we've we've put it out to bit twice. We've had no bidders. and we've contacted the folks who had pulled packages of the RFP and asked him or What's the concern there was a couple of concerns, but the primary one was the capital of lay on the equipment. They didn't want to do it. So we're thinking this might make it more attractive and maybe we make it up in the rain in the revenue share at that point.

▶ 24:25 Speaker 8: Okay, thank you. Thank you.

▶ 24:28 Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm just for I have counselor Stewart then counselor Eccles and counselor jamaladin. So we'll

▶ 24:35 Robb Stewart: start with counselor Stewart. Thank you madam chair. Thank you for being here tonight.

▶ 24:41 Robb Stewart: So just a clarification what we were brought in order to extend the contract from I believe was three years to five years and that was re put out to bid has that has the deadline for that process been reached or is that still October 5th, October 5th? Yeah, we have not received any bids yet. But the deadline is oktober fifth. We've had

▶ 25:03 Speaker 7: Council still we've had more activity as far as companies pulling the packages the rfps. We've seen a little a little more interest anyway, and that was the other component that we got on the feedback when we didn't get the first two was the way it's always worked in the past is we give them a five-year contract. But after three years, we could terminate the contract if we weren't satisfied with the performance some of the feedback we got was the it was too risky for a lot of folks and a lot of its economic driven at this point in time. So the five years was They're enticement. We thought was great and we appreciate the fact that you approved, you know, the extension on the on the

▶ 25:51 Speaker 8: contract length. This is

▶ 25:52 Speaker 7: the other component the acquisition of the equipment that I think

▶ 25:57 Speaker 10: We're hoping we'll make it work.

▶ 26:02 Robb Stewart: Do you think of extended it further it would further entice them? Seven years, for example, I think I I

▶ 26:07 Speaker 7: would think so, but at the same time we've had discussions with the city solicitor and with the IGS office, I don't think we can I think there is this some limits. I think five years is the max what we can do at least from what I've the discussions and I have discussed it with the ig's office directly and For whatever reason it's got to match up five years is the max.

▶ 26:37 Robb Stewart: Have you talked to other? city-owned golf courses and what they

▶ 26:43 Speaker 7: do quite a bit Joan Bell who does a wonderful job for us at the at the park commission at Mount Hood has probably talked to six to ten other golf courses on how they they've operated and how they've done it. The thing is the timing is such that right now our contract is up. In the past other things would have worked. We never had to buy the equipment before or even considered doing that before but right now it just seems like we're in a vortex in the sense that people are afraid to spend private companies or afraid to bid on things that And they're not sure they're going to get their money back on so.

▶ 27:27 Robb Stewart: It's a it's a bit of a trap though. If we because once we get into the capital gain game, we're kind of stuck in it, right?

▶ 27:35 Speaker 6: It is in a sense. But how do you get out is my

▶ 27:37 Speaker 7: point? Right? No, I I know I get it and that was a consideration a discussion. We had amongst the commission members. But if at least if we have no bidders in the city in it's been discussions in the 15 years. I've been on the commission about whether or not the city could run the golf course on its own you can't do it without the equipment. So at least as a fallback position, if everything evaporates, there's no bid is this time around at least we'll have the equipment acquiring the equipment is difficult and we were fortunate enough to you know line somebody up. Who who who I think can get us the equipment to run the you know before next spring comes, so I think that

▶ 28:25 Speaker 7: It could be a trap but at the same time we own the equipment and we could get a benefit from it. We did the benefit back we could get is through the contract for sure

▶ 28:34 Robb Stewart: is the equipment new or used.

▶ 28:36 Speaker 8: No.

▶ 28:38 Speaker 7: Not all of it. I shouldn't say that. I don't know that for sure Council. I think most of its new.

▶ 28:48 Speaker 7: there may be some small pieces that will refurbished of something of that sort.

▶ 28:56 Robb Stewart: So 140 pieces we're going to store this. It's a lot

▶ 29:00 Speaker 7: of equipment. It's the same the same with the same equipment that they have up in Mount Hood now they stored on say yeah, it's just replacing what what the golf management company who's leaving is going to take their equipment and go we're going to put the same equipment in the same places. There's plenty of room up there. Okay.

▶ 29:18 Speaker 6: Okay, that's right. Thank you.

▶ 29:23 Jack Eccles: Counsel Echols, thanks. Thank you. Both for being here. I think you kind of alluded to it before and I know it might be hard to speculate with no bids in hand, but would we theoretically get a break on the contract for the because we own the equipment like right now theoretically golf management is paying Debt Service or you know paid up front for all their equipment. And so would we would we potentially just be eating this in the sense that we pay the same or more for operating the golf course and then we pay the debt service on this you would be

▶ 29:55 Speaker 7: would be paying The Debt Service on this and we wouldn't get any benefit. But if we don't do it, right, we don't we don't get the revenue. You know, I think they're at a million five already. so far this year you can't get a tea time in Mount Hood, unfortunately and it's

▶ 30:17 Speaker 10: it wouldn't be the way to go.

▶ 30:19 Jack Eccles: So yeah, so kind of just is what it is. We're gonna have to eat that. All right, and then are we prepared to run it with no bid, you know.

▶ 30:28 Speaker 7: No, in my opinion to be honest with you know, we'd have to we could do it. There's no question. It's been a discussion we've had for years and years and years about whether the city should take it in-house but I think to be Union issues I think to be that'd be all sorts of different issues. But at the same time could we do it? Yes, we could do it if we had to

▶ 30:53 Jack Eccles: And then one last question, it's just I'm not expecting a list in Hand of what we need. But a presumably someone has come up with this list. We have that there's

▶ 31:01 Speaker 7: definitely a list that I know I can call Jones tomorrow and have it sent around you. You have Catherine has

▶ 31:08 Jack Eccles: it. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Thank you.

▶ 31:13 Maya Jamaleddine: Counselor jamaladin, thank you madam chair. Thank you for being with us tonight. So we are purchasing hundred and forty pieces. Honestly

▶ 31:23 Speaker 8: my counsel. I'm sorry.

▶ 31:27 Speaker 7: That was my memory from the list that I saw I could be wrong on that and Miss. Amada

▶ 31:34 Maya Jamaleddine: says she has the list. Yeah, and we don't know if all of them are new or refurbished like we don't know the percentage I do not know. Okay, and who will be responsible of repairing those equipment?

▶ 31:50 Speaker 7: That would be the management. Whoever whoever wins the bid would be responsible for maintaining the equipment that we let them use.

▶ 32:00 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay, and that would be for five years.

▶ 32:04 Speaker 7: during the term of the contract for

▶ 32:07 Maya Jamaleddine: Sure, and then after five years. With whoever we would renew the contract. They will also be automatically responsible of that no matter what the status of those equipments. Like. My question is are we going to expect and few years that we're going to be asked to replace those equipments?

▶ 32:33 Speaker 8: At some point maybe I wouldn't anticipate

▶ 32:34 Speaker 7: that but yeah, I mean we do it now on smaller equipment that we as the Enterprise fund. Like we replace equipment in the in the kitchen quite a bit. We've done that quite a few times, but I would think that yes that if we own the equipment we would be responsible for it. They'd be responsible for the maintenance. But the replacement of many equipment I would anticipate would be

▶ 33:03 Maya Jamaleddine: the population the Enterprise and those equipment will be used only at that Golf Course. since and does it change because we now own it does it change like other like can it be used somewhere else?

▶ 33:19 Speaker 7: I don't know the answer to that. I would suppose it could be but at the same time, I mean the DPW in the in the Mount Hood Golf Course of you know. Shared things over the years, you know when we had the tremendous snow storms a few years back DPW did a lot of stuff from Mount Hood in the private golf management company in Golf management. They were reciprocated. So

▶ 33:47 Speaker 5: Yeah.

▶ 33:51 Maya Jamaleddine: My other question, but we don't have we're not certain that if we purchase those equipments that we will be able to find a new like have new contract there is not but if

▶ 34:05 Speaker 7: we don't find a new contract, at least we'll have the equipment that we can operate it.

▶ 34:11 Maya Jamaleddine: Ourselves so let's say we could not find a new contract. Yes. Do we have a plan on who's going to operate those equipments? No.

▶ 34:20 Speaker 7: We've had some discussions. We don't we're not sure at this point in time how it would work privately if the city took it in house. It would be a entirely different discussion that

▶ 34:33 Speaker 8: we have and I've had discussions with the

▶ 34:34 Speaker 7: mayor I've had discussions with drone and we have some ideas, but we're hoping to never gets to that point.

▶ 34:43 Maya Jamaleddine: So and correct me if I'm wrong with it be possible to. to ask like the new contractors that we can supply you with equipment if like Indigent contract if you Make this contract with us. We will promise to supply you with those equipment and then we can purchase those equipment or do we have to have it in?

▶ 35:12 Speaker 8: No, it has to be under the

▶ 35:16 Speaker 7: State Building laws the way that this contract has been put out there, you know through the central register on

▶ 35:24 Speaker 8: the 30b.

▶ 35:28 Speaker 7: Chapter 30 view of the general laws It has to be delineated as to how we're doing it and what we've done so far as in provided that we can get the approval of what we're talking about here today. Then in fact, that's how the equipment will be provided.

▶ 35:48 Maya Jamaleddine: Prayed that this is like I don't have I could not find a certain. Or solid answer or solid plan and I feel that this is too risky for us. I'm afraid that we are now facing the issue of having a contractor but adding those equipment and we don't have a plan on who's gonna operate them or we're not sure who's gonna if we're gonna have a bed that we're adding more issue. to the problem that we are facing so that's my

▶ 36:22 Speaker 7: totally understand it. But if if you don't operate the golf course, we're not going to generate the revenue and without the equipment and we see this at least as a commission. That's why we're asking for this consideration is if in fact

▶ 36:38 Speaker 7: we think that this is the best way to get qualified bidders to come forth and take it over and again as a safety net. If in fact we get no bitters the golf course still has to be operated and if it's run by the city, we'll gonna need the equipment and what

▶ 36:57 Speaker 7: the bond rates is favorables. They seem to be at three point five. If we were waiting longer, it's probably.

▶ 37:04 Speaker 8: Almost my opinion.

▶ 37:07 Speaker 5: Thank you.

▶ 37:10 Speaker 2: Okay, just gonna go over the list of who I have next. I've present snella councilor Garipay counselor Williams and councilor Karim JD for the second time. We counselor Stewart so president snella.

▶ 37:23 Christopher Cinella: I was gonna make a motion to recommend.

▶ 37:28 Speaker 11: second on discussion

▶ 37:31 Leila Migliorelli: motion to recommend me by President. Snella second and by counselor McMaster on discussion

▶ 37:37 Speaker 2: Okay. Council Williams you had your hand up where you questions first. Okay your turn. That's a

▶ 37:43 Ryan Williams: couple more questions. Is the cash just for the purchase of the equipment or Does it include maintenance fuel labor?

▶ 37:53 Speaker 7: Parts no, I think I'm looking at it here. It is just for the purchase of the equipment. Is that something

▶ 38:01 Speaker 11: that the contractor would have previously?

▶ 38:05 Speaker 7: They would show up with their own equipment. Yeah, so they fueled it up the gas though, you know, they the maintenance part of it if that's what you're asking me come. Yeah, they would have to guess it up. They would have to we'll give them the equipment to utilize it the golf course to make it, you know operational and okay, no profitable, but they would have to take care of the rest of it. That's part of the RFP that we brought up.

▶ 38:29 Ryan Williams: We just passed a or well, we didn't pass it. But the city just implemented an electric first policy right in parks department took advantage to some of this. Have any of the equipment? In this Bond the list that you have assuming that if we voted yes on this the list would just get executed is any of the stuff Electric?

▶ 38:49 Speaker 8: I'm not sure. I'm not

▶ 38:52 Speaker 7: sure but in the past I know we've had issues with.

▶ 38:59 Speaker 7: With lawn mowers and stuff being like like noise. There was noise with the neighbors and stuff and that and that's part of something that everybody has to comply with I think in the RFP don't hold me to it, but that's what I remember.

▶ 39:18 Ryan Williams: for the people who are watching and for people who you know, don't really follow the Enterprise fund that closely how much of the course is revenue exits the Enterprise fund and is available to the city in terms of

▶ 39:31 Speaker 11: projects or supporting

▶ 39:34 Ryan Williams: goals that the city has at the community has versus how much of it is Senate kind of self-contained in the Enterprise fund and just goes right back into the operation of the

▶ 39:43 Speaker 7: golf course, right? I know right? I think it's a chapter 44 b or whatever the Enterprise fund statute is.

▶ 39:52 Speaker 7: The revenue generated at Mount Hood has to be utilized at Mount Hood. Several years ago with the refurbishment of the Fred Green Field the folks here in Melrose many you involved probably

▶ 40:08 Speaker 8: but petition the

▶ 40:09 Speaker 7: legislature for home rule petition to have an exception to that rule so that the bonds associated with the refurbishment of the Fred Greenfield down at the high school. Could be paid with revenues from the golf course at Mount Hood. It was a big deal at the time because of the fact that that's not what the law says. You can't do it. So we got an exception to that. So a good portion of how Fred Green is maintained how it was developed how the baseball field down there how everything at the high school complex was developed and it's currently maintained. We got an exception from the legislature so that the Enterprise fund does fund that that's the only outside source that they expand money on

▶ 41:01 Ryan Williams: for Miss Armada What happens to this debt service if the golf course stops operating in the revenue goes away in three years?

▶ 41:13 Speaker 11: Be responsible for pain City pays for the debt. Okay.

▶ 41:18 Ryan Williams: And I wanted to follow up on counselor Jamal Dean's question because I wasn't I just didn't I couldn't get my head around it.

▶ 41:27 Ryan Williams: Why can't we make either a new bid request? Can we make a new bed request that includes this? For why can't we just I don't know structure this currently to say. If the bitter accepts the terms that would include the bond request. then the city the park Department comes before the city council and if if it passes then the big triggers and it happens within X weeks, you know 90 days or 30 days or something.

▶ 41:58 Speaker 7: Because a 30 beat it doesn't allow you to do that. We put it out twice in that vein. With the bitters accept the responsibility of the equipment and we've had no betters. We're looking at this is an incentive to do, you know, the the latest offering request for proposals is such that. What kind of handicapped honestly Council we can't go back to the bidders and say hey can we negotiate this it we're not allowed by the public building lost to do it. I said

▶ 42:36 Ryan Williams: Another question and it just flew out of my head if you give me just a heartbeat. I can grab it.

▶ 42:47 Speaker 8: Sorry back to ask you. All right.

▶ 42:51 Speaker 2: Thank you councilor Williams. Um

▶ 42:55 Mark Garipay: Counselor garpy question. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Garland for being here Mr. Mata. Thank you. Just want to thank the park commission for I've been to a couple of the park commission meetings over the summer as a liaison and just thank them for the due diligence tweaking the bids every time we've sent out to rfps. We've got we've got no responses and The meetings at our what I was at. They definitely were. Making sure that we got the best deal for the city. And I just want to thank you for that. Now. There's some question there was a question regarding what happens in five years. If the revenues not there over the last five or ten years. Would you have to know the number of rounds of golf? I mean if we've been consistent if we gradually grown as Revenue increase especially during way.

▶ 43:51 Speaker 7: Is gone quite a bit up the costs have gone up but at the same time.

▶ 43:56 Speaker 8: the revenues I and again

▶ 44:00 Speaker 7: I'm not sure. Exactly what it is as of the end of August, but it was like a million five what I remember in a million five five years ago was a great great number at that time. the fall has been good weather and we don't hit two million often, but I think one one point eight we had and the revenue that that generates, you know to cover.

▶ 44:26 Speaker 8: multiple things throughout the city is you

▶ 44:30 Speaker 7: know primarily, you know down at the high school those bonds, but at the same time To operate the course and you know, there were other costs that we pay back to the city indirect costs. We pay, you know payment low taxes, you know over the years depending on how it's going the negotiate those but there's a lot of money that goes back to the city caucus from Mount Hood.

▶ 44:57 Speaker 8: and frankly

▶ 44:58 Speaker 7: We just can't let it go dormant. It is some of

▶ 45:02 Mark Garipay: that money to the recreation department.

▶ 45:05 Speaker 7: I know not so much. We can't we can't okay do that but the recreation department Works hand in hand with

▶ 45:15 Speaker 8: What's they get a lot of freebies out

▶ 45:17 Speaker 7: of Mount Hood is for us. You know the the golf. The golf lessons go and the various events of Frank runs through the recreation department. So

▶ 45:25 Mark Garipay: I think you know we find ourselves do we ever want to go out and buy equipment? Now but I think I think we're in a position here that if we don't do something now with the bids out that to some of the 31st when everyone's preparing for the start of golf season to hit the ground running, I think. It's good. I think it's what I think it would it's what has to be done at this point. So golf

▶ 45:51 Speaker 7: revenues in was generated in Mount hoodie keeps going this way unlike a lot of things that we have going on in this city of country and private business right now. So for whatever reason people like the gulf and if they play with me once they'll probably quit but that's okay, but

▶ 46:12 Speaker 8: it's

▶ 46:15 Speaker 7: it would be a shame just not put our best foot forward

▶ 46:19 Mark Garipay: and see what we can do. And there's there's no other golf courses between here and Boston and a lot of people come out of Boston. Because it's a quick ride to to a nice course well capped. Well run. The place is jammed.

▶ 46:29 Speaker 7: It's always jammed.

▶ 46:33 Speaker 3: Thank you one of the questions.

▶ 46:37 Speaker 2: Anyone else for the first time? counselor Stewart

▶ 46:42 Robb Stewart: Thank you manager. Just under discussion Madam chair, I think. Concerts Lamont jamaladyne hit it on the head in terms of what my concerns are as well. Is that without guarantee without letter intent without any plan even on the plan b It's concerning to me that we're going to wait a million dollars in capital. On what I'm hearing to be as a hope, and I haven't heard. a definitive plan for if the if we cannot secure a contract with a vendor and I'm not getting the sense that it's a done deal. So that's that's where I'm. I'm taking pause in supporting this right now and and I need stronger affirmation that there's a plan in place a plan B if you will. If we're going to outlay a half million dollars. And then we can't find the people of the resources or we you know, and the equipment sitting idle and we're still in a bind. So that's my fundamental concern here

▶ 48:00 Speaker 7: and it's a it's a legitimate concern that we've had to. We will put a staff together and do it if we have to but at the same time the preference is to have the the private. Third party run the golf course as they've done forever. We wouldn't we wouldn't have a choice. We can't leave a dormant. We would have to bring in folks. We would just have to work out the details of that the details being whatever Union issues we have that type of stuff the folks who were working up there now Council, Would stay there I think in a heartbeat. I mean there's a couple of the guy who runs Mike. Mike Ford who runs the Maintenance part of it is a Melrose folk, and he'd love to stay and you know, I think we could do it, but I just I you know. I don't want to commit to you that I know all the answers at this point in time, but it can be done. There is no question. It can be done. It would have to be done because you cannot leave that Golf Course big, you know dormant at this point in time.

▶ 49:03 Robb Stewart: So with all the anticipated potential additional costs, so we're going to have the capital outlay as consulate William pointed out. There's going to be maintenance of this equipment and when you're talking 140 pieces of equipment on an annual basis and some of this equipment I assumes fairly large. Yeah. It's no small. And if we're going to be bringing in a separate. Third party Union which I would imagine would be. Fairly significantly higher than a contractual agreement that we currently have. That's

▶ 49:40 Speaker 7: the case. I don't know that to be the case, but I'm just anticipating you know that.

▶ 49:47 Robb Stewart: Do you think we'd still run a profit is my question do you think we'd still run a profit at absolutely no question about it.

▶ 49:54 Speaker 7: The place sells itself. It's a beautiful Golf Course people have beaten down the doors on the weekends. They get in there during the week that the marketing program that they haven't had to do for the last three years the private company runs it now every one of the items on our agenda every month is what are you doing for marketing and they've been saying for two two three years nothing we don't have to people are just coming up here.

▶ 50:21 Speaker 8: and

▶ 50:23 Speaker 7: it's just The rates of favorable we take care of the sea residents. as far as you know, you know the the rates go for memberships for the residents and I think that

▶ 50:42 Speaker 7: you just can't let it go. Scale it can be done. There's no question. It's not the preferable way to do it. But we've had discussions that we think we could put the right people in place if we had to

▶ 50:55 Robb Stewart: Okay, and so I've played there myself and and I know it's one of golf course, but I don't want to our decision to be guided by the fact that it's a beautiful golf course and you know, we have to have you guys right. Oh, you know, it's it really comes down to me on the finances. And if the finances make sense that we can support this then I'd be okay to support it, but I don't have any numbers in front of me and all the time in the order the

▶ 51:21 Speaker 7: numbers are in the order as far as as far as what the payments will and they're a pittance compared to what the revenues have been for the city over the last couple of years.

▶ 51:32 Robb Stewart: Okay. Yeah, I only have one number in front of me. It's 562,000 and I and you have a bonding schedule that I yes. That's

▶ 51:38 Speaker 7: that's what I'm going by okay, the bonding schedule payments more than comfortable for the revenues with

▶ 51:47 Speaker 6: the what the Mount Enterprise fund for sure. Okay. All right. Thank you.

▶ 51:52 Speaker 2: counselor Carmen Shady councilman McMaster. Thank you Hatcher.

▶ 51:59 Shawn M. MacMaster: If the past is any indication of the future, I think if there's one multiple member body in the city that is capable of coming up with a solution to a very difficult problem a dilemma. It's the the Parks Commission. We have five members on there who many if you look at their years of service in totality we're talking about Decades of experience time and time again, they've come through for the city of Melrose with positive tangible and lasting impacts. They are appointed and they do this work. They have the subject matter experts. I trust their judgment and I'm in a position this evening where I'm comfortable even with the uncertainty and the good points of my colleagues have made moving forward to support this which I plan to do. Thank you madam chair.

▶ 52:48 Speaker 2: counselor karmchatie

▶ 52:49 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you madam, chair and discussion. I do see Mount Hood as a valuable asset to the Melrose Community. I started taking golf lessons myself there this summer aside from not seeing very many people of color. It's really enjoyable. I'm a pretty good at driving these days, but I think what I want to understand and I actually think it's for the treasurer. I mean it is in terms of this Bond The 563,000 of which we need to purchase this equipment. Can it be used anywhere else and just to be perfectly transparent and I think it's important for people at home to understand. We have teachers working without a contract in the Melrose Public Schools. Our teachers are some of the most underpaid in the state of Massachusetts. So I just think it's important to clarify that the money that we're asking for in this Bond really can only be used for this as opposed to this 463,000 could be going for teachers could be going to Paras could be going to substitutes things like that. I think that's important to clarify. You

▶ 54:02 Speaker 11: cannot do that when you borrow your boring for a specific purpose. It goes into a specific account on a general ledger. And it is paid out of there. I'm sorry.

▶ 54:13 Speaker 9: Can you just speak up here? No, you

▶ 54:16 Speaker 11: cannot use the bond proceeds for other than the intended purpose of the borrowing. So this is meant to buy the golf equipment. Correct. But if you only thing it can be used for if there is money left over or if we don't bond the whole thing. It cannot be used elsewhere. Yeah, I think I'm asking

▶ 54:38 Manjula Karamcheti: a different question. Okay, I think. You know, yes, this bond is appropriated for lawn equipment. However might someone go for you try to use this same bond to go towards like teacher salaries or more special education programs in schools or anything like that because that does that do you understand what I'm asking like are we talking about apples and oranges in terms of what this money could be

▶ 55:10 Speaker 7: used for? I think the difference is the payment of that Bond couldn't come out of Mount Hood Enterprise fund to pay for the teachers or any other appropriate. We can't spend the money on anything other than the golf course other than the one exception that I referenced earlier

▶ 55:29 Speaker 11: so that and this is not being paid out of the general fund. This is being paid out of the Enterprise fund, correct. So impacting the general fund at all.

▶ 55:37 Speaker 9: In theory Mount Hood is paying itself back. through the revenue great. Thank you.

▶ 55:48 Leila Migliorelli: I just have just a couple of clarifying questions myself. when you say Mount Hood Revenue pays back for Mount Hood. I just want to have that clarified for the record because you made some reference to Mount Hood revenues that come right back to Mount Hood, but then there was a secondary comment about well, then it also goes to sort of support this and that the other thing indirectly and just wanted to know if you could just clarify that.

▶ 56:18 Speaker 7: Yeah the antifa there was a statue in for some reason. I think it's 44 B. I'm not sure which chapter is of the general laws, but

▶ 56:29 Speaker 7: When you establish an Enterprise fund the revenues gendered generated like it would be with the Water and Sewer Commission that type of thing can only be utilized according to the statue for the purposes of of that particular Enterprise fund. So you can't spend if Mount Hood made 10 million dollars last year. And wanted to help out with the teachers wanted to help out with the school committee. You couldn't do it according to the Statue of the state statute. A couple of years ago in conjunction with

▶ 57:04 Speaker 8: the construction of

▶ 57:06 Speaker 7: the athletic fields down the high school

▶ 57:10 Speaker 8: the city petitioned.

▶ 57:13 Speaker 7: The legislature State Legislature, they they filed a home rule petition to ask for an exception to that rule, which allows us to pay the bonds for the Fred Greenfield for the baseball field and for the athletic fields down the high school, but you have to get specific legislature permission to do that so that other than that one exception the money generated at Mount Hood has to be spent at Mount Hood basically is what it comes down to. Okay. So if

▶ 57:45 Leila Migliorelli: Mount Hood were to make more less it just goes back to Mount Hood manhood loses it loses. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that just personally for me if I feel like with most of our orders for Capital Equipment purchases, we see a list of what the equipment is exactly what it is itemize so we know so the city knows I mean, I think it's important we did hear from one constituent. Who was we can we can provide concern that so if I know there's emotion on the table All to for passage I think you know a motion for holding until we get that information might be something to be considered as well, but we'll act upon the motion that's on the table and and go from there. So Mr. Clerk

▶ 58:30 Speaker 3: Councilor McMaster. Yes. Counselor Eccles, yes. Counselor garpy. Yes counselor gemology, no counselor Stewart

▶ 58:42 Speaker 6: No.

▶ 58:44 Speaker 3: councilor crime Shady Yes. counselor Williams no

▶ 58:52 Speaker 3: president sonella. Yes. And chair Mickey Riley. No.

▶ 59:09 Speaker 3: Five yes or no.

▶ 59:11 Speaker 2: motion passes Thank you, Mr. Gardner, Miss Amara. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Appreciate

▶ 59:17 Speaker 7: it.