Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2026-06-04

Appropriations & Oversight Committee-Budget Hearing

This meeting starts at 0:00 in a recording that covers several meetings.

Attendance

Jason Chen present · At-Large; Cal Finocchiaro present · Ward 6; Bradley Freeman present · President, Ex Officio; Maya Jamaleddine present · At-Large; Manjula Karamcheti present · Ward 1; Elizabeth Kowal present · At-Large; John Obremski present · Ward 2; Christopher Park present · Ward 3; Kimberly Vandiver present · Vice Chair; Ryan Williams present · At-Large

Agenda

Minutes

Appropriations & Oversight Committee Thursday, June 4, 2026, 6:00 PM City Council Chamber, 1st Floor 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Kimberly Vandiver Vice Chair Jason Chen Cal Finocchiaro Maya Jamaleddine Manjula Karamcheti Elizabeth Kowal John Obremski Christopher Park Ryan Williams William Bradley Freeman President, Ex Officio Devin Romanul Chair Meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Vandiver at 6:03 PM Chair Romanul was in remote attendance Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Kim Vandiver Vice Chair Present Jason Chen At-Large Present Cal Finocchiaro Ward 6 Present Maya Jamaleddine At-Large Present Manjula Karamcheti Ward 1 Present Elizabeth Kowal At-Large Present John Obremski Ward 2 Present Christopher Park Ward 3 Present Ryan Williams At-Large Present William Bradley Freeman President, Ex Officio Present Member Devin Romanul Chair Present-Remote Attendance II. MINUTES APPROVAL 1 Appropriations & Oversight Committee Budget Hearing June 1, 2026 6:00 PM Motion to Approve the minutes made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and minutes were approved RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams III. PUBLIC COMMENT When: Jun 4, 2026 06:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Appropriations & Oversight Committee-Budget Hearing Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://cityofmelrose- org.zoom.us/j/96549671189?pwd=GekHdGu6NiSY3Wt2l7xGRQNRTp5ANL.1 Passcode:478466 Webinar ID: 965 4967 1189 Motion to Open public comment made by Councilor Williams at 6:06 PM Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams Comments on the floor: Finn McSweeney, 160 W Wyoming St, supports the Ell Pond Park plan with 3 reservations. First, he cautions against the "easy button spending" trend of the city since it has a tax base willing to pass overrides, and the city needs to be fiscally responsible with that money. Second, some local youth sports are in support of turf fields and think it will improve access to fields, and Finn disagrees. Third, he states that turf fields are disgusting, smell bad, and get very hot. He is opposed to them since there is growing concern about the side effects of them and the increased injury rates from them. Susan Grossberg, 98 E Wyoming Avenue, spoke about the Ell Pond Park plan and expressed her concern about turf fields and their dangerous chemical carcinogenic materials. She is opposed to installation of turf fields and requests that the city does not install them. Peter Walter, 287 Swains Pond Avenue, expressed support for the Conservation Commission's appropriation request for pond management. He supports keeping them healthy for the public to walk around and enjoy their beauty. 2 Paul Morgan, 295 Swains Pond Avenue, expressed that the ponds are a great resource and requested that the city focuses on better maintenance and management of them. He hopes the council votes in favor of that appropriation. Sheri Qualters, 41 Albion Street, is a member of Zero Waste Melrose and requests that no artificial fields are included in the Ell Pond Park plan. She and the group hopes the design can include focus on grass instead of artificial turf. Mark Garipay, 71 Mooreland Avenue, supports the Ell Pond Park plan appropriation request and hopes that council approves it. This vote is only to advance the design to the next phase where discussion will occur on the exact design, number of fields, field type, walking path, etc. At this time, this appropriation request does not include a final decision on the field material. It is a much-needed project that has been discussed and considered for many years, and now is the time to move it forward. There were no comments via Zoom Motion to Close public comment made by Councilor Finocchiaro at 6:25 PM Seconded by Councilor Karmcheti All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams IV. APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY26

A. (ID # 2026-1175): An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) to DPW- Admin/Engineering Department (#401) in the amount of $710,000 for design and permitting of Ell Pond Park. Mayor Jen Grigoraitis, Elena Proakis-Ellis, DPW Director, Jim Donohue, Park Commission member, and Brandon Kunkel, Weston & Sampson Consulting, presented the Ell Pond Park plan. The project has been in development for six years and includes improvements to fields, walking paths, wetland areas, and accessibility features. Councilors expressed support for the project overall but raised questions about equity in field access, the decision-making process for choosing between natural or synthetic turf, and the potential for phased implementation. Elena emphasized that the park project is not an athletic teams project only, but a holistic approach including wetland restoration, walking paths, and environmental improvements based on community feedback. The administration strongly recommended proceeding with the full $710,000 design and permitting process rather than segmenting it, as this would be more efficient and necessary for regulatory approval. Several councilors expressed concerns about the cost and timeline, with some suggesting a more phased approach focusing on immediately fundable elements like walking paths and ADA compliance, while others trusted the process and supported moving forward with the comprehensive design. The council discussed concerns about whether the new field would be grass or turf, with many councilors expressing worry about potential health risks and increased risk of injuries to children from turf. The mayor and Park Commission chair explained that while they personally favor grass, final decisions rest with two regulatory bodies (Park Commission and Conservation Commission) and cannot 3 guarantee grass will be used. They assured the council that community feedback will be a key part of the field material decision when that time is reached further along in the design phase. Motion to Recess to start the Public Hearings made by Councilor Williams at 7:55 PM Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and meeting was recessed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams Meeting was reopened and back in session at 8:09 PM They discussed maintenance of current fields and drainage issues, and explained that irrigation system replacement for the current fields would cost approximately $60,000 and be funded through a state earmark. Councilor Williams made a motion to amend that the order include "that no funds may be expended or used on the design of synthetic turf as part of this appropriation." Seconded by Chair Romanul No vote taken immediately Motion to Recess made by Councilor Karamcheti at 8:47 PM Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro Motion passed 10-1 and meeting was recessed RESULT: ACCEPTED AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: Bradley Freeman Meeting was reopened and back in session at 8:52 PM During the recess, it was clarified by the legal department that free cash appropriation requests cannot be amended; you can only vote yes or no. Councilor Williams withdrew his motion to amend and final vote was taken. Motion to Recommend made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro Motion passed 9-2 RESULTS: ACCEPTED TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul 4 NAYS: Ryan Williams, Kim Vandiver

B. (ID # 2026-1176): An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) to DPW- Highway Department (#422) in the amount of $400,000 for Lebanon Street TIP project design. DPW Director Elena Proakis-Ellis presented the free cash appropriation request. This will be for drainage issues on Lebanon Street and work will start on the project this summer, which will involve public engagement, before the Mass DOT engagement review period. Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None

C. (ID # 2026-1177): An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) to DPW - School Facilities Department (#402) in the amount of $20,000 to update school signage. DPW Director Elena Proakis-Ellis presented the request, which is similar to the bike rack request earlier this year, and stated that no specific signs are targeted yet for the project. Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Williams All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Motion to take out of order Item ID #2026-1170 made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti 5 All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams

D. (ID # 2026-1251): An Appropriation from Sewer Retained Earnings (account 6000- 319000) to Sewer Equipment (account 604413-551002) for the down payment on a Vactor Truck. Elena Proakis-Ellis, DPW Director, explained that this will fund a $200,000 down payment on a new $610,000 Vactor truck to replace the current 11-year-old vehicle that requires costly repairs. The funding will be structured as a financing arrangement rather than lease-to-own, with annual payments of $90,000 over 5 years to maintain predictable sewer rates. Motion to Recommend made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None V. DEPARTMENT BUDGET PRESENTATIONS A. Department Presenter Department of Elena Proakis-Ellis, Public Works DPW Director, Jim (DPW) Troup, Deputy Director 401 PW Admin & Engineer 402 PW Facilities 422 PW Highway 423 PW Snow 6 433 PW Sanitation 475 PW Parks & Forest 485 PW Automotive 491 Cemetery 441 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund #6300 411 Sewer Enterprise Fund #6000 451 Water Enterprise Fund #6100 Department 401 PW Admin & Engineer Elena Proakis-Ellis, DPW Director, presented the $30.5 million budget, highlighting key changes including restored positions from FY26, increased street sweeping costs due to higher bids, and new recurring capital items of $500,000 for building repairs and $25,000 for water meter replacements. Councilor Williams commented that it is difficult to tell what are truly recurring expenses versus free cash requests with a department showing expenses in both Capital Outlay and the operating budget. Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Jamaleddine All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 402 PW Facilities Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 422 PW Highway Councilor Kowal mentioned that traffic-calming is a massive issue for the city and thought $50,000 7 was too low to spend on this. The money will cover curb ramps, crosswalks and flashers, solar radar speed feedback signs, and pilot projects. Elena is comfortable with the $50,000 since so much of her capital needs are covered with the override. Councilor Karamcheti commented that traffic-calming is still a problem on Franklin Street due to the busier nature of the area as the city increases the apartment buildings there. Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 423 PW Snow Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Jamaleddine Seconded by Councilor Kowal All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 433 PW Sanitation Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 475 PW Parks & Forest Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Williams All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams 8 NAYS: None Department 485 PW Automotive Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Kowal Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 491 Cemetery Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Jamaleddine Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 441 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund #6300 Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Kowal All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 411 Sewer Enterprise Fund #6000 Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 451 Water Enterprise Fund #6100 9 Motion to Approve made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Motion for 5 Minute Recess made by Councilor Karamcheti at 10:25 PM Seconded by Councilor Park All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Meeting was reopened and back in session at 10:30 PM B. Department Presenter Information Tom Smulligan, Technology (IT) CIO/IT Director 155 Information Technology (IT) 930 Dept Equipment Planning & Lori Massa, Community Planning Director Development 175 Planning & Community Development Health Anthony Chui, Health & Human Services Director 511 Health 2659 Health Revolving Account 10 Inspection Al Talarico, Building Services Commissioner 241 Inspection Services 2658 Inspectional Services Revolving Account Department 155 Information Technology (IT) Tom Smulligan, CIO/IT Director, explained the focus on improving security, upgrading infrastructure, and reducing reliance on cloud fees, with specific attention to refreshing equipment for schools. Councilor Park inquired about capital outlay costs, and the CIO clarified that while current spending is high due to catch-up needs, future costs are expected to decrease as equipment cycles are managed more effectively. Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 930 Dept Equipment Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Williams All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Motion to Move Department 175 to End of Budget Schedule made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Williams All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None 11 Department 511 Health Anthony Chui, Health and Human Services Director, presented the Health Department's budget, highlighting their regional partnerships and plans to strengthen animal control and add a floating school nurse position. Councilor Jamaleddine proposed adding a social worker or case manager to the city staff and Anthony said that he is looking into that. Currently the city works closely with the part-time social worker at the senior center. Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Williams All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 2659 Health Revolving Account Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 241 Inspection Services Al Talarico, Building Commissioner, discussed Inspectional Services Department activities, including permit issuance and inspections, and requested budget restorations for essential services. City code enforcement is a priority of the mayor, which would involve the Health Department more frequently than the Building Department to do the enforcement of the city codes. Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 2658 Inspectional Services Revolving Account Motion to Approve made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro 12 All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Department 175 Planning & Community Development Lori Massa, Planning Director, explained that the department's role is to protect and enhance the quality of life in Melrose. To accomplish this mission, OPCD provides long-range planning, manages select capital improvement projects, recommends and implements zoning amendments, creates GIS maps and spatial analysis, applies for and administers grants and community development programs, and implements special projects. They have a budget increase of 2.9% for step increases and COLA adjustments for salaries. Discussion occurred over how much of their workload is taken up by permitting. They had fewer zoning board cases because of their recent zoning re-codification, so that helped to reduce their workload a bit, but with other projects requiring personnel to be redirected, it is increasing again. Due to the number of free cash requests for studies, it was discussed if adding another general purpose planner to the staff would be a good idea. It would definitely help, but would be costly due to having to pay that person benefits. The recent override also helped to stabilize their department. Motion to Move the Bottom Line made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Kowal All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None Motion to Move Item ID# 2026-1202 to the top of the next list made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Williams All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None VI. APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY27

A. (ID # 2026-1205): An Appropriation in the amount of $8,461,623 to fund the Fiscal 2027 Sewer Enterprise Fund budget. 13 Motion to Conjoin Items ID# 2026-1205, #2026-1206 and #2026-1207 made by Councilor Williams All were in favor and Items were conjoined RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams Motion to Approve the orders as conjoined made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None

B. (ID # 2026-1206): An Appropriation in the amount of $6,702,788 to fund the Fiscal Year 2027 Water Enterprise fund budget. Motion to Approve as Conjoined made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None

C. (ID # 2026-1207): An Appropriation in the amount of $3,639,322 to fund the Fiscal Year 2027 Solid Waste Enterprise fund budget. Motion to Approve as Conjoined made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council 14 AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None

D. (ID # 2026-1208): An Appropriation in the amount of $126,652,797 to fund the Fiscal Year 2027 General Fund Operating Budget. Motion to Hold made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Williams All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None

E. (ID # 2026-1212): Reauthorization of the revolving fund table for Fiscal Year 2027. Motion to Hold made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None VII. APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY26 CONTINUED

A. (ID # 2026-1164): An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) to the Planning Department (#175) in the amount of $75,000 to hire a consultant for technical assistance to update the City’s Housing Production Plan (HPP). Lori Massa, Planning Director, explained the need to update the Housing Production Plan and the request for free cash to hire a consultant since the Planning Department lacks sufficient staff to complete the work. The current plan expires April 2027. Councilors expressed concern over the cost, stating that most of the required work is mundane tasks and finding another way of completing it could save the city money, and questioned the practical value of the plan itself. The plan appears to be merely a guideline, not a blueprint to be followed, when cases occur where it is set aside for convenience for developers. It was made clear that not every project that the planning board or the zoning board sees is going to be one that's identified in the housing production plan. The city currently has temporary Safe Harbor Status, which expires in September 2026. A current updated Housing Production Plan is necessary to reach the Safe Harbor Status. It was stated that this is a cottage industry, it is effective, and it is a priority. 15 Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Chair Romanul All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None

B. (ID # 2026-1165): An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) to the Planning Department (#175) in the amount of $70,000 to hire a consultant for technical assistance to update the Downtown Parking Study. Lori Massa, Planning Director, explained the request for free cash to complete a downtown parking study. The last one was completed in 2012 and the mayor's office and planning office are receiving multiple complaints about the current lack of available parking, with many of the complaints coming from merchants. Councilors expressed that this is premature, since changes are coming to the area with the relocation of the police station, which would eventually open up some spaces. They also argued the issue was better addressed through enforcement rather than doing a study, since it is unlikely that the study would produce more parking spaces. Many of the current spaces are being taken up by overnight permitted vehicles from apartment and condo buildings, then not moving their cars during the daytime. Enforcement of the permits is needed to alleviate the problem. Councilors believe this study is only being requested to address the complaints being received, without any solution. Motion to Reject/Not Recommend made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro Motion passed 9-2 RESULTS: APPROPRIATION REQUEST REJECTED/ NOT RECOMMENDED TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: Bradley Freeman, John Obremski After Councilor Williams' Motion to Reject, it was explained that this meant the appropriation would be sent back to city council with a recommendation to reject or deny. If you vote yes on a recommendation to deny, you are denying the appropriation. If you vote no on a recommendation to deny, you are saying you approve the appropriation. Regardless of how this comes out, when it goes to full council, we will vote again. 16

C. (ID # 2026-1170): An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) in the amount of $150,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust (#8270). Lori Massa, Director of Planning & Development, and Amy Tireney, Chair of the Affordable Housing Trust, presented their request. This money would help them to leverage outside state and federal funding. It's a small fraction of the city's free cash, and it's their opinion that it's what the residents would expect since the city has put affordable housing in its master plan. It was shown that the trust is ready to deploy the money with their guidelines and applications in place. Other surrounding communities are debating and some approving free cash requests to fund their own affordable housing trusts and this is typical practice. The trust does not need a specific level of funding to trigger extra grants. It was noted that this is not the most effective way to solve the affordable housing crisis in the Boston region with the need for another 250,000 units in general. Other methods can be used, such as zoning to allow more ADU's, and to just increase the number of units in general. The trust already has $513,000 in it. It was explained that this request is a small step to move the needle since having funding in the trust helps with the challenge of attracting developers to Melrose. Even though Melrose has 15 buildings going up with 25% of them targeted as affordable, the trust says Melrose still has an affordability issue. Some councilors expressed concern and discomfort with using taxpayer money to fund this trust. When final vote was taken, 7 councilors voted in favor and 4 against. This will pass to city council for final vote at the next meeting. Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Jamaleddine Seconded by Councilor Williams Motion passed 7-4 RESULTS: ACCEPTED TO: City Council AYES: Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, John Obremski, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Elizabeth Kowal, Christopher Park

D. (ID # 2026-1202): An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) in the amount of $37,000 to the Planning Department (#175) for treating the Towners, Swains, and Ell Ponds. Ingrid Winkler, Conservation Agent, explained the free cash request for continued pond management and restoration efforts at the three ponds, which are managed by the Conservation Commission. Those are Ell Pond, Swains Pond, and Towners Pond. This would provide necessary funding to advance permitting, treatment, and restoration efforts, and hopefully avoid more significant ecological and financial impacts in the future. Sonar and fluoridone treatments, as well as hydro raking were discussed. Motion to Approve made by Councilor Williams Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] 17 TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None VIII. ORDERS

A. (ID # 2026-1291): Vote to establish the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District Lori Massa, Planning Director, explained that the Benjamin Lynde House was recently put on the market for sale, which caused the community and the Historic District Commission to try to take action to save the house on this lot. The Historic District Commission studied the site and wrote a preliminary study report in order to pursue designating this property as a single building local historic district. The local historic district is a really strong way of protecting a property in its current state. It was stated that the Council actually put together the first demo delay ordinance that sort of led to the conversation around the potential for what else could happen to historic properties. They would not recommend having these single building local historic districts pop up all over town. A constituent asked that we advocate for signage regarding the Lynde family's history to slavery, and creating this local historic district is not a celebration of the family or of slavery in any way. It was clarified that the family did own slaves, but none resided on this exact property. Councilors expressed concern about hurt feelings in the way that this property was protected and to get ahead of this process in the future. Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Jamaleddine Motion passed 10-1 RESULTS: ACCEPTED TO: City Council AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: Christopher Park IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn made by Councilor Williams at 12:27 AM Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and the meeting was adjourned 18 City Auditor CITY OF MELROSE AUDITOR’SCity Hall, OFFICE 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 Fax - (781) 662-2182 Free Cash Orders for Fiscal Year 2026 “Free cash” is a term used to describe any remaining, unrestricted funds from the previous fiscal years. After it is “certified” by the state, free cash use requires a recommendation from the Mayor and an appropriation from the City Council. More information on free cash is available on the state’s website (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/free-cash). Council Order Item APPRO Balance of Free ID Amount Cash Dep/Fund Description Status Certified $5,558,450.00 2026-612 $20,020.00 5,538,430.00 Dept - 162 Poll Pads and a label Printer Approved Fund - 2026-614 $50,000.00 5,488,430.00 2543 Melrose Cultural Council Approved Chamber and City Event 2026-615 $25,000.00 5,463,430.00 Dept - 121 Support Approved 2026-1147 $170,000.00 5,293,430.00 Dept - 423 Sidewalk Plow A&O 2026-1148 $880,000.00 4,413,430.00 Dept- 931 DPW Vehicles A&O 2026-1149 $865,000.00 3,548,430.00 Dept-931 DPW Snow and Ice Deficit A&O Fund - 2026-1150 $244,944.00 3,303,486.00 1620 School Department A&O 2026-1151 $10,000.00 3,293,486.00 Dept- 422 Bike Racks A&O 2026-1145 $9,000.00 Dept - 141 Tax Impact Notices Mailing Submitted 3,284,486.00 2026-1164 $75,000.00 Dept - 175 Housing Production Plan Submitted 3,209,486.00 2026-1165 $70,000.00 Dept - 175 Downtown Parking Study Submitted 3,139,486.00 2026-1169 $30,000.00 Dept - 543 Welcome Home Veterans Sign Submitted 3,109,486.00 Fund – 2026-1170 $150,000.00 Affordable Housing Trust Submitted 2,959,486.00 8270 Boiler replacement and HVAC 2026-1171 $50,000.00 Dept – 693 Submitted 2,909,486.00 controls 2026-1172 $12,193.20 Dept- 300 Vape Detectors MVMMS Submitted 2,897,292.80 2026-1173 $72,180.00 Dept - 300 MHS Band Uniforms Submitted 2,825,112.80 Basketball & Lacrosse 2026-1174 $44,296.32 Dept-300 Submitted 2,780,816.48 Uniforms, Scorer table 2026-1175 $710,000.00 Dept- 401 Ell Pond Park Design Submitted 2,070,816.48 2026-1176 $400,000.00 Dept - 422 Lebanon TIP Project Submitted 1,670,816.48 2026-1177 $20,000.00 Dept - 401 School Signage Submitted 1,650,816.48 2026-1178 $3,000.00 Dept - 162 Census Mailer Submitted 1,647,816.48 *The first three appropriation requests listed were approved at the 4/6/26 City Council meeting. As requests are submitted by the administration and approved by the City Council, the table above will be updated accordingly and shared with subsequent orders. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Administration–Engineering–Water–Sewer–Facilities Parks–Forestry–Highway–Sanitation–Cemetery–Fleet CITY OF MELROSE City Yard, 72 Tremont Street Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., BCEE Director of Public Works Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone – (781) 665-0142 E-mail: eproakis@cityofmelrose.org MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Melrose City Council From: Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., Director of Public Works cc: Kerriann Golden, CFO/Auditor Lauren Grymek, Chief of Staff James Troup, Deputy DPW Director – Administration & Finance Jay Coy, Acting City Engineer Date: April 28, 2026 Re: Ell Pond Park Improvements Project Design – Free Cash Request The Department of Public Works requests $710,000 to advance the design of the Ell Pond Park Improvements Project. The complete project has currently been brought to 25% design as part of a federal earmark focused on stormwater improvements (Phase 1). This funding request for $710,000 will bring the entire park design to near-completion (approximately 90%) and will bring the next phase of improvements to bid-ready documents. A phasing plan will be developed during the design phase. The proposed funding also covers permitting for the entire park project. Elements of the Ell Pond Park Improvements Project are as follows: • Improvements to the East Knoll, West Knoll, and Cabbage Patch fields to improve playing surfaces and increase uptime • Addition of a multi-use path around the perimeter of the park (approximately 0.75 mile loop), along with better interior path connections and connections to new fitness areas • Off-road pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure parallel to Lynn Fells Parkway, since on-road options are limited in this vicinity for safety reasons • Restoration of wetlands and improvements to water quality and habitat at the inlet to Ell Pond from the Parkway near Melrose Street. • A pedestrian bridge over the wetlands providing an in-park connection to the Crystal Street tennis courts and adjacent park area with added aesthetic benefits • Complete rehabilitation of the Crystal Street tennis courts and improvements to the Lyons tennis courts as needed • Addition of an accessible path to the top of the knoll, providing access to the knoll memorials to visitors of all abilities • An outdoor classroom area that can be used by students of the middle and high school complex as well as other user groups Ell Pond Park Design – Free Cash Request April 28, 2026 Page 2 • Improvements to the boat launch into Ell Pond, providing better access to active recreation • Repaving and restriping of the knoll parking lot • Maintenance of the existing dog park • Improved access to view and sit near Ell Pond The conceptual design for the park improvements was developed based on significant public input during the Ell Pond Feasibility Study project phase. Beginning in 2020, the Ell Pond Park Working Group, consisting of representatives from the City’s Parks, DPW, Conservation, and Planning Departments, as well as the Melrose Park and Conservation Commissions, has guided the conceptual design development. This group continues to oversee the design process and will lead the public outreach activities for this next phase of design, along with our consultants from Weston and Sampson. The Ell Pond Park Improvements Project was identified as the top ranked project in the City’s recent Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Initiating the final design is the next phase in the implementation of this project. Ell Pond Park is a valuable amenity for the City, and the proposed project will help it reach its full potential, offering amenities for a wide variety of park users for years to come. The Department of Public Works hereby requests $710,000 of free cash to advance the design of the Ell Pond Park Improvements Project. The funds will be deposited into a dedicated account set up by the Auditor’s Office and will be managed by the Department of Public Works, in conjunction with the Parks Department. Thank you for your consideration of this important community project. ELL POND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2026 CITY OF MELROSEAGENDA 1 Project History Project Schedule and 2 Project Goals 3 25% Design Plan 4 Stormwater Management Opinion of Probable 5 Construction Cost Estimate 6 Question and Discussion 1 PROJECT HISTORY INCEPTION PHASE 1 PROJECT WHAT’S NEXT?

2020-2022 FEBRUARY 2025 NOVEMBER 2025 TODAY Ell Pond Feasibility Study and Ell Pond Park was Ell Pond Park Stormwater Ell Pond Park 25% Design Complete Preferred Master Plan awarded $1M EPA/ Management Project Kick-Off for City Funding Application Federal Earmark grant for stormwater improvement. Preferred Master Plan (2021) City Working Group and Weston & Sampson Team at A Site Current 25% Parks Design Illustrative Plan Assessment and Evaluation Meeting in December, 20252022 FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Public Engagement Takeaways Why are people coming to Ell Pond Park? Courts: Field use and walking. Average condition, accessibility, and satisfaction. Fields: What is desired? Average condition, accessibility, and satisfaction. Better drainage of fields. Poor drainage. More seating. Improved walking paths and trails. Improvements to pond and waterfront. CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 1 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 3 2022 FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SURVEY STATISTICS Key Concerns and Challenges Current usage of the park Q2: Are existing sports and recreation facilities at Ell Pond Park (fields and/or courts) Q3: Check any site features and/or facilities that you or your family use sufficiently meeting the needs of your organization or program in terms of (Check all that apply). Refer to the site map above. availability and performance? Top usage: most are coming for fields or walking If NO, why? A total of 487 people participated in 49% 19% the survey. 14% Poor 9% 5% 5% Lighting Needs Field Drainage Better Problems Courts Non-sports Need Turf Fields Restrooms Programming Repair Wanted Wanted 2022 FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SURVEY STATISTICS Most Desired Improvements Q12: In relation to this master planning effort, please identity other facility or site improvements that would help to meet the needs of you, your family and/or site improvements that would help to meet the needs of you, your family and/or other Melrose residents. 23% 19% Improved Clean pond/ path/trails waterfront improvements2022 FEASIBILITY STUDY PREFERRED CONCEPT CABBAGE PATCH SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD (315’ x 150’) EAST KNOLL NATURAL TURF FIELD (1: U11-U12 SOCCER, 225’ x 165’ OR 2: U9-U10 SOCCER, 165’ x 105’) WETLAND REHABILITATION CRYSTAL STREET INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL & TENNIS COURTS STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS TERRACED LYONS TENNIS WORKOUT POD BLEACHER PARKING LOT (3 TOTAL) BLEACHER SEATING COURTS SEATING ENTRANCE SEATING PAVILION & SEATING LYNN FELLS PARKWAY WWI MEMORIAL CRYSTAL STREET WWII MEMORIAL FLAG MEMORIAL KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL TREMONT STREET OVERLOOK DECK/OUTDOOR CLASSROOM W/ TERRACED WALL SEATING WEST KNOLL WEST KNOLL NATURAL TURF FIELD ATHLETIC TURF FIELD DOG PARK WETLAND BRIDGE (U9-U10 SOCCER, 150’ x 120’) (1: U13-U19/HIGH SCHOOL SOCCER, W/ DOUBLE FENCE CROSSING 330’ x 210’ OR 2: U11-U12 SOCCER, ENTRANCE 210’ x 150’) ONE-WAY POND ACCESS DECK OVERLOOK/ PARKING LOT LEWIS MONK LITTLE ELL POND TRAIL & FISHING ACCESS (128 SPACES INCLUDING LEAGUE FIELD BIKE PATH W/ EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE 5 HC SPACES) (200’ FOUL LINES, BOAT 200’ CENTER OUTFIELD) LAUNCH DEPRESSED LAWN AREA MEMORIAL BENCH EXISTING RAIN FOR STORMWATER RETENTION (3 TOTAL) OVERLOOK RAIN GARDEN ELL POND GARDENS PARK SEATING & LOOP PATH W/ BOARDWALK CROSSING & EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE 0’ 60’ 120’ 240’ 2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT SCHEDULE AND GOALS 2025 2026 2027 NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR Project Kick-off Record Documents Review, Survey and Site Analysis 25% Design Plans RDA, Subsurface Investigation WE ARE HERE City Stakeholders Meetings 50% Design Plans NEPA, NOI Permitting The project schedule is catered towards the EPA grant funding deadline. The design team is to design the entire park to 25% and then continue the phase 1 stormwater 100% Design Plans improvement design and engineering through permitting and construction. The City plans to bid for construction Bidding services in February 2027 and commence the Phase 1 work in April 2027. Construction Starts3 25% DESIGN PLAN Lyons Tennis Melrose Veteran’s Memorial Melrose High Crystal and Pickleball Middle School School Street Tennis Court Court (2026 Improvement) West Knoll Wetland Multi-Use Cabbage Patch East Knoll Field Restoration Path Field Fields (1: U13-U19/High School (1: U11-U12 Soccer, 225’ x (315’ x 150’) Soccer, 330’ x 210’ or 2: 165’ or 2: U9-U10 Soccer, U11-U12 Soccer, 210’ x 150’) 165’ x 105’) LYNN FELLS PKWY West Knoll Field (U9-U10 Soccer, 150’ x 120’) Memorial Knoll Lewis Monk Field Lighting Installation Dog Outdoor Wetland (2026 Improvement) CRYSTAL ST. TREMONT ST. Park Classroom Bridge Fitness Fitness Multi-Use Overlook Terrace Terrace Path Deck ADA Paths Fitness ELL POND Boat Ramp Boardwalk Terrace 0’ 60’ 120’ 240’BIRDSEYE PERSPECTIVE - FULL BUILDOUT Lyons Tennis and Pickleball Fred Green Melrose Veteran’s Memorial Melrose High Court Memorial Middle School School (2026 Improvement) Field Cabbage Patch Morelli Field Field (315’ x 150’) Wetland Crystal West Knoll Multi-Use West Knoll Restoration Street Tennis Field Path Field East Knoll Court Fields CRYSTAL ST. LYNN FELLS PKWY TREMONT ST. Fitness Terrace Outdoor Wetland Lewis Monk Fitness Overlook ADA Paths Dog Classroom Bridge Field Terrace Deck Park Lighting Memorial Boat Installation Knoll Ramp Boardwalk (2026 Improvement) Fitness Terrace ELL PONDENVISION AN INCLUSIVE PARK WITH DIVERSE PROGRAM P.E. Biking Class Birding Tennis Hiking Tennis Field Football Water P.E. Hockey Access Picnic Jogging Class Pickleball Soccer Soccer Parking Fishing Soccer (136 spaces) Fitness CRYSTAL ST. LYNN FELLS PKWY East Knoll West Knoll Fields Baseball Field Dog Park Fitness TREMONT ST. Outdoor Biking Fitness Classroom Water Scenic Hiking Water Water Biking Water Access Vistas Access Access Access LEGEND Jogging Picnic Canoe/ Hiking Fishing Fishing Fishing Passive Program Kayak Scenic Memorial Jogging Active Recreation Vistas Fishing Birding Water Recreation ELL POND Infrastructure Scenic VistasCIRCULATION DIAGRAM LEGEND Park Entrance Existing Gravel Path Primary Circulation (Multi-Use Path) Multi-Use Boardwalk Secondary Circulation Vehicular Circulation ELL POND Tertiary Circulation Parking & Emergency Vehicle AccessTOP OF MEMORIAL KNOLLMULTI - USE PATH4 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE DIAGRAM - PHASE 1 Cabbage Patch Field LYNN FELLS PKWY West Knoll East Knoll Fields Fields Memorial Knoll Dog Park CRYSTAL ST. TREMONT ST. Bit Alt 1 LEGEND D Manhole Perforated Pipe 100’ Buffer Zone Beehive Grate Bioretention Area 15’ No Disturb Zone ELL POND 12” HDPE Drainage Pipe FEMA Flood Zone EL 49.9 NAVD88 0’ 60’ 120’ 240’STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE DIAGRAM - FULL BUILD OUT Cabbage Patch Field LYNN FELLS PKWY Wetland Restoration West Knoll East Knoll Fields Fields Memorial Knoll Dog Wetland Park Bridge CRYSTAL ST. TREMONT ST. LEGEND Perforated Pipe Wetland Restoration Area D Manhole Field Under Drain 100’ Buffer Zone Beehive Grate Field Collector Pipe 15’ No Disturb Zone ELL POND 12” HDPE Drainage Pipe Bioretention Area FEMA Flood Zone EL 49.9 NAVD88 0’ 60’ 120’ 240’5 25% DESIGN PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE • PHASE 1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS Total Design and Construction Cost: $1,175,000 • 90% DESIGN FOR FULL BUILD OUT AND BID READY DOCUMENTS FOR PHASE 2* Total Design Cost: $710,000 • PHASE 2* THROUGH COMPLETION ESTIMATED AT $12.5 MILLION (excluding inflation and environmental remediation cost if applicable) * The specific components of Phase 2 and future phases will be determined during the design phase. 25% DESIGN PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PHASE 2 THROUGH COMPLETION ESTIMATED AT $12.5 MILLION LYNN FELLS PKWY TRAIL CABBAGE PATCH $1.6M FIELD $1.5M LYNN FELLS PKWY PARKING LOT WETLAND CRYSTAL $1.1M REHAB ST. WEST KNOLL EAST KNOLL $596K TENNIS $2.9M $1.9M COURT MEMORIAL $676K KNOLL $461K POND EDGE TRAIL DOG PARK $1.5M $136K WETLAND BRIDGE CRYSTAL ST. TREMONT ST. $589K OUTDOOR CRYSTAL ST CLASSROOM PASSIVE $146K RECREATION ELL POND AREA $270K (excluding inflation and environmental remediation cost if applicable) 0’ 60’ 120’ 240’25% DESIGN PLAN Lyons Tennis Melrose Veteran’s Memorial Melrose High Crystal and Pickleball Middle School School Street Tennis Court Court (2026 Improvement) West Knoll Wetland Multi-Use Cabbage Patch East Knoll Field Restoration Path Field Fields (1: U13-U19/High School (1: U11-U12 Soccer, 225’ x (315’ x 150’) Soccer, 330’ x 210’ or 2: 165’ or 2: U9-U10 Soccer, U11-U12 Soccer, 210’ x 150’) 165’ x 105’) LYNN FELLS PKWY West Knoll Field (U9-U10 Soccer, 150’ x 120’) Memorial Knoll Lewis Monk Field Lighting Installation Dog Outdoor Wetland (2026 Improvement) CRYSTAL ST. TREMONT ST. Park Classroom Bridge Fitness Fitness Multi-Use Overlook Terrace Terrace Path Deck ADA Paths Fitness ELL POND Boat Ramp Boardwalk Terrace 0’ 60’ 120’ 240’ QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION THANK YOU! CITY OF MELROSEDear Members of the City Council, I am writing in my role as Chair of the Melrose Park Commission in support of the request to appropriate $710,000 in free cash to advance the design of the Ell Pond Park Improvements Project. Over the past several years, the city, through a collaborative process involving DPW, the Parks Department, the Park Commission, the Conservation Commission, and members of the public, has developed a thoughtful and comprehensive vision for Ell Pond Park. The proposed funding represents an important next step in moving that vision from concept toward implementation. From the perspective of the Park Commission, one of the most important aspects of this project is the planned improvement of the East and West Knoll fields and the Cabbage Patch field. These fields are heavily utilized by Melrose residents through high school athletics, youth sports organizations, and recreational programming. Soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, football, and other youth sports programs collectively serve a large and growing number of children and families throughout our community. At present, the condition of the East and West Knoll fields has deteriorated significantly. Drainage issues and the overall condition of the playing surfaces frequently render the fields unusable following rain events and have made it increasingly difficult to sustain healthy grass growth. The current state of the fields also limits the city’s ability to safely and reliably accommodate the growing demand for athletic field time. This is not simply a recreational issue. Access to youth and school sports provides meaningful physical, mental, and social benefits for participants across a wide range of ages. As participation in youth athletics continues to grow, it is important that the city maintain and improve the public facilities that make those opportunities possible. Failing to invest in these fields risks limiting access for current and future participants and places increasing strain on the rest of the city’s athletic field inventory. Importantly, the Ell Pond Park Improvements Project is broader than athletic field improvements alone. The project also includes enhancements that will benefit the community more generally, including completion of the walking path around Ell Pond, improved accessibility throughout the park, improvements associated with the veterans memorial area between the knoll fields, environmental and stormwater improvements, and additional opportunities for passive recreation for residents of all ages. The proposed appropriation is for completion of the formal design and permitting work necessary to position the city to pursue future funding opportunities and advance the project in phases over time. While this funding does not itself construct the improvements, it is a critical and necessary step toward implementation. Ell Pond Park is one of the city’s most visible and heavily used public recreational spaces. Advancing this project represents an investment not only in fields and infrastructure, but in the health, accessibility, and quality of life of the Melrose community for years to come. Thank you for your consideration and continued support of our public parks and recreational facilities. Sincerely, Jim Donohue Chair Melrose Park Commission From: Gretchen Kruger <president@melroseyouthsoccer.org> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:29 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: Letter of Support from MYS-Ell Pond Park Design Subject: Letter of Support – Ell Pond Park Improvements Project Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing on behalf of Melrose Youth Soccer to express our strong support for the proposed funding to advance the design of the Ell Pond Park Improvements Project. Access to safe, reliable, and high-quality playing fields is one of the most pressing challenges facing youth sports in our community today. The current conditions at the West Knoll, in particular, significantly limit its usability. Poor field conditions frequently render the space unplayable, especially during and after periods of rain. As a result, games and practices for hundreds of players each season are routinely displaced and funneled onto an already overburdened set of fields across the city. This strain has real consequences. We simply do not have enough playable field space to support the number of children who want to participate in soccer and other sports. Field availability constraints force difficult scheduling compromises, reduce practice time, and limit the overall quality of the experience for our players. This past spring underscored the severity of the issue. Due to limited field capacity, we were unable to host high school–aged teams within our local programming. That is a significant loss—not only for player development, but for maintaining engagement and community connection among older athletes who still want to play. The proposed improvements to the East Knoll, West Knoll, and Cabbage Patch fields would directly address these challenges by increasing field durability, improving drainage, and extending usable playing time throughout the season. These upgrades are critical to ensuring that our fields can support consistent, safe play for all users. At its core, this project is about inclusion. Every child who wants to play should have the opportunity to do so. Right now, field limitations are one of the primary barriers preventing that goal. Investing in Ell Pond Park is an investment in access, equity, and the health and well-being of our community’s youth. We strongly support the Department of Public Works’ request for funding to advance this project and respectfully urge its approval. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued support of Melrose’s youth. Sincerely, Melrose Youth Soccer Melrose Public Schools Administrative Offices 360 Lynn Fells Parkway, Melrose, MA 02176 Phone: 781-662-2000 V/TTY FAX: 781-979-2112 CARI BERMAN KEN KELLEY Superintendent Deputy Superintendent cberman@melroseschools.com kkelley@melroseschools.com May 21, 2026 Dear Members of the Melrose City Council, We are writing in our respective roles as the Superintendent of Melrose Public Schools, the Principal of Melrose Veterans Memorial Middle School and Melrose High School, and the Athletic Director for Melrose High School, in support of the free cash appropriation request of $710,000 to advance the design of the Ell Pond Park Improvements Project. We appreciate the collaborative process the city has led over the last several years – with the Department of Public Works, the Parks Department, the Park Commission, the Conservation Commission, and members of the public – to develop a comprehensive vision for Ell Pond Park. Advancing the project design with this appropriation builds on the work and planning completed to date and is critical to realizing these improvements. A redesigned Ell Pond Park has great potential for the Middle School and High School to expand education beyond the walls of the buildings: an outdoor classroom component would provide opportunities for hands-on instruction and learning; and the potential for a boat launch would support extracurricular activities and clubs (fishing, recreation activities, etc.) by allowing students to fully take advantage of water access. MVMMS Wellness Classes recently started a fishing unit on the shores of Ell Pond. The Wellness Classes could expand their outdoor programs on the weather proof fields. The project would also provide opportunities for student-athletes, adding much needed space and scheduling capacity for practices, scrimmages and games. This past school year we had over 1,200 students register for an athletic team. As youth and school-based sports continue to expand in our community, growing demands for usable field spaces often come into conflict with seasonal weather limitations that often close the West and East Knoll fields. The project, when completed, would make our fields more reliable and weather-durable, and also improve the overall offerings of Melrose’s athletic facilities to be more in line with surrounding towns. Families and community members could enjoy the active and passive recreation activity opportunities while practices and games are being played. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Jason Merrill Stephen Fogarty Cari Berman Cari Berman, Superintendent Jason Merrill, Principal Stephen Fogarty, Athletic Director Melrose Public Schools Melrose Veterans Memorial Middle Melrose High School School and Melrose High School From: Ryan Sullivan <rpsully.rs@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:56 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: Letter of Support from Melrose Youth Lacrosse re: Ell Pond Park Design Dear Members of the Melrose City Council, We write to you today on behalf of Melrose Youth Lacrosse to express our support for the proposed funding to advance the design of the Ell Pond Park Improvements Plan. We believe this investment represents a meaningful and lasting commitment to the health, safety, and athletic development of our youth and the wider Melrose community and we respectfully urge the Council to move forward with this important initiative. Improved Playing Surfaces and Safety for Our Youth Players The safety and well-being of the Melrose community of athletes and their ability to compete in both recreational and competitive athletic environments should be one of our highest priorities. Natural grass fields, while traditional, are highly susceptible to uneven wear, bare patches, and muddy conditions that significantly increase the risk of injury. Artificial turf provides a consistent, well-cushioned, and level playing surface that reduces the likelihood of trips, falls, and impact-related injuries. Modern turf systems are engineered with advanced infill materials designed to absorb impact and support healthy play. Our children deserve to compete and practice on surfaces that give them every advantage — and every protection. Longer Seasons and Availability During Inclement Weather One of the most significant limitations of natural grass fields is their vulnerability to weather conditions. Rain, snow, and freezing temperatures can render grass fields unplayable for days or even weeks at a time, disrupting practice schedules, postponing games, and shortening entire seasons. Artificial turf drains efficiently and withstands a wide range of weather conditions, allowing our youth athletes to continue training and competing with minimal interruption. Extended playing seasons mean more time on the field, more skill development, and more opportunities for our youth players to benefit from organized athletics. Additional Surfaces for All Youth Sports Organizations The demand for quality athletic field space in Melrose continues to grow. Our city is home to a vibrant and diverse collection of youth sports organizations — from soccer and lacrosse to football and field hockey — all of which are competing for limited field availability. Artificial turf fields can sustain far heavier use than natural grass without deteriorating, effectively increasing the total usable field capacity across our community. This means more scheduling flexibility, less conflict between organizations, and greater access to quality playing surfaces for every child in Melrose, regardless of the sport they love. Additionally, these surfaces can be marked with a host of dimensions spanning a wide range of sport requirements, granting our community more versatility in how and where to schedule games, practices and other community events. We see these benefits first hand with the use of Fred Green and Pine Banks facilities and how they support multiple athletic and recreational events. Offering additional facilities to a wider range of athletic teams and recreational uses will only improve the programming Melrose can offer our residents. We recognize that this investment requires thoughtful planning and fiscal consideration. However, when weighed against the long-term benefits — reduced maintenance costs, durability, expanded usage, and the safety and enrichment of our children and community — the conversion of East Knoll, West Knoll and Cabbage Patch to artificial turf represents a wise and forward-thinking use of city resources. Communities across the region have made this transition and have seen the positive impact it delivers year after year. We thank the City Council for your continued dedication to making Melrose a wonderful place to raise a family and grow as a community. We respectfully ask for your support in moving this proposal forward and look forward to seeing our youth sports programs thrive on improved athletic facilities. Respectfully, _______________________________ Melrose Youth Lacrosse League Ryan Sullivan Melrose Youth Lacrosse Board Member & Coach Rpsully.rs@gmail.com From: J Schulz <jacobaschulz@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 5:46 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: Side Walk Plow and Ell Pond Hello all, I think the city needs a new sidewalk plow and to use them more often in the winter. Myrtle Street has many elderly and young parents with strollers that use the sidewalks all year long, and the sidewalk plows rarely come down the street. If they do, they only do one side. The corner of Vine and Myrtle was four feet high this past winter forcing people into the street. I also fully support spending the money on the Ell Pond plan so that we are ready to apply for grant money. Ell Pond could be the heart of the city, and is currently a mess. A plan would be the first step towards galvanizing the city toward the glory that could be. Thank you, Jacob Schulz 158 Myrtle. May 5, 2026 Dear Members of the Melrose City Council: On behalf of the Veterans Advisory Board, we respectfully submit this letter in strong support of the administration’s request for a free cash appropriation in the amount of $710,000 for the design and permitting of Ell Pond Park. Ell Pond Park serves not only as one of Melrose’s most treasured public spaces, but also as a sacred place of remembrance dedicated to honoring the service and sacrifice of our nation’s veterans and Gold Star families. The Memorial Knoll, centrally located within the park, stands as a lasting tribute to generations of Melrose residents who answered the call to serve our country. The memorials located throughout the park reflect the courage, sacrifice, and patriotism of those who served in defense of our freedoms, including: - The World War I Memorial honoring the 32 Melrose residents who gave their lives during that conflict. - The World War II Memorial featuring symbolic elements inspired by the national memorial in Washington, D.C., including the Atlantic and Pacific wreaths, water feature, and the historic “Kilroy Was Here” engraving. - The Korean War Memorial commemorating the six Melrose residents who made the ultimate sacrifice during the Korean conflict. - The Vietnam Reflection Area, providing a peaceful and respectful setting for remembrance and reflection. - The Student Respect Garden, designed to inspire future generations through messages of honor, service, respect, and civic responsibility. - The Gold Star Families Memorial, dedicated to the families who endured the immeasurable loss of a loved one in military service to our nation. Additionally, the memorial trees planted throughout the knoll stand as living tributes to Melrose residents lost in war, ensuring their legacy continues for generations to come. The Veterans Advisory Board strongly supports the proposed design and permitting process, particularly the effort to improve and maintain safe and equitable access throughout all areas of the park. Of special importance is the inclusion of ADA-compliant access to the Memorial Knoll and Gold Star Families Memorial so that veterans, seniors, individuals with disabilities, families, students, and all members of the public may continue to visit, reflect, and participate in commemorative events without limitation. Preserving and improving access to these memorial spaces is essential not only for today’s residents, but for future generations who will look to Ell Pond Park as a place to learn about sacrifice, service, patriotism, and community remembrance. The Veterans Advisory Board respectfully urges the City Council to support this appropriation request and thanks the Council for its continued commitment to preserving these important memorials and public spaces. Sincerely, Melrose Veterans Advisory Board City Auditor CITY OF MELROSE AUDITOR’SCity Hall, OFFICE 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 Fax - (781) 662-2182 Free Cash Orders for Fiscal Year 2026 “Free cash” is a term used to describe any remaining, unrestricted funds from the previous fiscal years. After it is “certified” by the state, free cash use requires a recommendation from the Mayor and an appropriation from the City Council. More information on free cash is available on the state’s website (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/free-cash). Council Order Item APPRO Balance of Free ID Amount Cash Dep/Fund Description Status Certified $5,558,450.00 2026-612 $20,020.00 5,538,430.00 Dept - 162 Poll Pads and a label Printer Approved Fund - 2026-614 $50,000.00 5,488,430.00 2543 Melrose Cultural Council Approved Chamber and City Event 2026-615 $25,000.00 5,463,430.00 Dept - 121 Support Approved 2026-1147 $170,000.00 5,293,430.00 Dept - 423 Sidewalk Plow A&O 2026-1148 $880,000.00 4,413,430.00 Dept- 931 DPW Vehicles A&O 2026-1149 $865,000.00 3,548,430.00 Dept-931 DPW Snow and Ice Deficit A&O Fund - 2026-1150 $244,944.00 3,303,486.00 1620 School Department A&O 2026-1151 $10,000.00 3,293,486.00 Dept- 422 Bike Racks A&O 2026-1145 $9,000.00 Dept - 141 Tax Impact Notices Mailing Submitted 3,284,486.00 2026-1164 $75,000.00 Dept - 175 Housing Production Plan Submitted 3,209,486.00 2026-1165 $70,000.00 Dept - 175 Downtown Parking Study Submitted 3,139,486.00 2026-1169 $30,000.00 Dept - 543 Welcome Home Veterans Sign Submitted 3,109,486.00 Fund – 2026-1170 $150,000.00 Affordable Housing Trust Submitted 2,959,486.00 8270 Boiler replacement and HVAC 2026-1171 $50,000.00 Dept – 693 Submitted 2,909,486.00 controls 2026-1172 $12,193.20 Dept- 300 Vape Detectors MVMMS Submitted 2,897,292.80 2026-1173 $72,180.00 Dept - 300 MHS Band Uniforms Submitted 2,825,112.80 Basketball & Lacrosse 2026-1174 $44,296.32 Dept-300 Submitted 2,780,816.48 Uniforms, Scorer table 2026-1175 $710,000.00 Dept- 401 Ell Pond Park Design Submitted 2,070,816.48 2026-1176 $400,000.00 Dept - 422 Lebanon TIP Project Submitted 1,670,816.48 2026-1177 $20,000.00 Dept - 401 School Signage Submitted 1,650,816.48 2026-1178 $3,000.00 Dept - 162 Census Mailer Submitted 1,647,816.48 *The first three appropriation requests listed were approved at the 4/6/26 City Council meeting. As requests are submitted by the administration and approved by the City Council, the table above will be updated accordingly and shared with subsequent orders. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Administration–Engineering–Water–Sewer–Facilities Parks–Forestry–Highway–Sanitation–Cemetery–Fleet CITY OF MELROSE City Yard, 72 Tremont Street Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., BCEE Director of Public Works Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone – (781) 665-0142 MEMORANDUM E-mail: eproakis@cityofmelrose.org To: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Melrose City Council From: Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., Director of Public Works cc: Kerriann Golden, CFO/Auditor Lauren Grymek, Chief of Staff James Troup, Deputy DPW Director – Administration & Finance Jay Coy, Acting City Engineer Date: April 28, 2026 Re: Lebanon Street Transportation Improvement Project Design – Free Cash Request The Department of Public Works requests $400,000 toward the further advancement of the design of the Lebanon Street Transportation Improvement Project (TIP). This project involves the reconstruction of Lebanon Street from Grove Street to the Malden City limit, extending the prior TIP project on Lebanon Street, which covered the corridor from approximately Main Street to Grove Street. The TIP program is federally funded and funnels to municipalities in eastern Massachusetts through the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in coordination with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). The final construction project, slated to begin in FY29, is estimated to cost over $10M and will be funded by the federal TIP program. The DPW has been working on the planning and design of this project with consultants from Stantec since 2022. Since that time, we have expended approximately $540,000 to complete preliminary planning, conduct meetings with MassDOT to ensure the project meets their eligibility criteria, perform survey, and complete design up through the 25% design stage. The remainder of design and construction services which the City is required to fund will cost approximately $1.07M, of which $200,000 has already been allocated through a past road bond. At this time, we propose to fund an additional $400,000 using available free cash, to bring the project through the 75% design stage. The remainder of funds will be derived from a combination of future Chapter 90 allocations from the state and future road bonds, to bring the project to bid-ready design, permitting, and construction administration. Ultimately, with this investment, the City will take advantage of over $10M in construction funds provided by the federal government. The Department of Public Works hereby requests $400,000 of free cash to further advance the design of the Lebanon Street TIP project. The funds will be deposited into a dedicated account set up by the Auditor’s Office and managed by the DPW. Thank you for your consideration of this important project. City Auditor CITY OF MELROSE AUDITOR’SCity Hall, OFFICE 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 Fax - (781) 662-2182 Free Cash Orders for Fiscal Year 2026 “Free cash” is a term used to describe any remaining, unrestricted funds from the previous fiscal years. After it is “certified” by the state, free cash use requires a recommendation from the Mayor and an appropriation from the City Council. More information on free cash is available on the state’s website (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/free-cash). Council Order Item APPRO Balance of Free ID Amount Cash Dep/Fund Description Status Certified $5,558,450.00 2026-612 $20,020.00 5,538,430.00 Dept - 162 Poll Pads and a label Printer Approved Fund - 2026-614 $50,000.00 5,488,430.00 2543 Melrose Cultural Council Approved Chamber and City Event 2026-615 $25,000.00 5,463,430.00 Dept - 121 Support Approved 2026-1147 $170,000.00 5,293,430.00 Dept - 423 Sidewalk Plow A&O 2026-1148 $880,000.00 4,413,430.00 Dept- 931 DPW Vehicles A&O 2026-1149 $865,000.00 3,548,430.00 Dept-931 DPW Snow and Ice Deficit A&O Fund - 2026-1150 $244,944.00 3,303,486.00 1620 School Department A&O 2026-1151 $10,000.00 3,293,486.00 Dept- 422 Bike Racks A&O 2026-1145 $9,000.00 Dept - 141 Tax Impact Notices Mailing Submitted 3,284,486.00 2026-1164 $75,000.00 Dept - 175 Housing Production Plan Submitted 3,209,486.00 2026-1165 $70,000.00 Dept - 175 Downtown Parking Study Submitted 3,139,486.00 2026-1169 $30,000.00 Dept - 543 Welcome Home Veterans Sign Submitted 3,109,486.00 Fund – 2026-1170 $150,000.00 Affordable Housing Trust Submitted 2,959,486.00 8270 Boiler replacement and HVAC 2026-1171 $50,000.00 Dept – 693 Submitted 2,909,486.00 controls 2026-1172 $12,193.20 Dept- 300 Vape Detectors MVMMS Submitted 2,897,292.80 2026-1173 $72,180.00 Dept - 300 MHS Band Uniforms Submitted 2,825,112.80 Basketball & Lacrosse 2026-1174 $44,296.32 Dept-300 Submitted 2,780,816.48 Uniforms, Scorer table 2026-1175 $710,000.00 Dept- 401 Ell Pond Park Design Submitted 2,070,816.48 2026-1176 $400,000.00 Dept - 422 Lebanon TIP Project Submitted 1,670,816.48 2026-1177 $20,000.00 Dept - 401 School Signage Submitted 1,650,816.48 2026-1178 $3,000.00 Dept - 162 Census Mailer Submitted 1,647,816.48 *The first three appropriation requests listed were approved at the 4/6/26 City Council meeting. As requests are submitted by the administration and approved by the City Council, the table above will be updated accordingly and shared with subsequent orders. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Administration–Engineering–Water–Sewer–Facilities Parks–Forestry–Highway–Sanitation–Cemetery–Fleet CITY OF MELROSE City Yard, 72 Tremont Street Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., BCEE Director of Public Works Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone – (781) 665-0142 E-mail: eproakis@cityofmelrose.org MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Melrose City Council From: Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., Director of Public Works cc: Kerriann Golden, CFO/Auditor Lauren Grymek, Chief of Staff James Troup, Deputy DPW Director – Administration & Finance Scott Enos, Facilities Manager Date: April 28, 2026 Re: School Signage – Free Cash Request The Department of Public Works requests $20,000 to purchase and install signage at the Melrose Public School buildings. Several years ago, the DPW Facilities Division conducted a survey of prinicipals to identify signage needs on their campuses. A handful of items were addressed at that time where a funding source was available, but the majority of signage improvements were unable to be implemented due to budgetary constraints. The DPW plans to initiate an updated survey of principals and will visit each school site to confirm current needs. The proposed budget will fund the highest priority needs at each school. The Department of Public Works hereby requests $20,000 of free cash for school signage. The funds will be deposited into a dedicated account set up by the Auditor’s Office, and spending will be managed by the DPW. Thank you for your consideration of this project. WATER AND SEWER RATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF MELROSE Ken Truesdale, Resident Representative, Chair Melrose City Yard, 72 Tremont Street Kathryn Armata, Treasurer/Collector Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Kerri Golden, CFO/Auditor Elizabeth Kowal, City Council Representative Telephone - (781) 665-0142 Jim O’Loughlin, Resident Representative Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., Director of Public Works Jay Coy, Acting City Engineer MEMORANDUM To: Melrose City Council From: Water and Sewer Rate Advisory Committee cc. Mayor Jen Grigoraitis James Troup, DPW Lisa Patterson, DPW Jennifer Rosa, DPW, Water and Sewer Committee Clerk Date: April 8, 2026 Re: Summary of FY27 Water and Sewer Rate Orders The Water and Sewer Rate Advisory Committee, consisting of the members listed above, respectfully submits the following water and sewer rate recommendations for FY27. They are recommended by unanimous vote of the committee. The FY27 revenue requirements for the water and sewer enterprise funds can be met using the FY26 water and sewer rates, with no increases to either volumetric rates or base fees. The FY27 rates benefit from modest increases in the MWRA water and sewer assessments and lower debt repayment obligations in FY27 in the sewer fund compared to FY26. The sewer assessment has only increased moderately due to continued reductions in sewer flows resulting from the City’s ongoing efforts to remove extraneous flows (groundwater infiltration and rainwater inflow) from the sanitary sewer system. As you may recall from prior years, we target reserve fund balances of 10% of annual operating expenses for each fund. Based on the budgeted revenue requirements for FY27, the reserve funds are presently at just over 10% of each fund’s operating budget, thus no transfers are recommended into the water and sewer reserve funds for FY27. Water and Sewer Rate Advisory Committee Recommendations Page 2 April 8, 2026 Thus far in FY26, water use has met or exceeded our projections in last year’s rate model. As a result, the water and sewer enterprise funds are projected to have sufficient revenue to cover expenses as we come to the close of FY26. Therefore, we are not recommending any retained earnings be used this year to cover revenue shortfalls. With no proposed changes to the water and sewer rates for FY27, the recommended rates are shown below, matching FY25 and FY26 rates. Proposed FY27 Water and Sewer Rates Proposed FY26 Volumetric Rates Water (per 100 cf) Sewer (per 100 cf) Tier 1 $8.32 $12.25 Tier 2 $11.15 $15.43 Proposed FY26 Base Fees (meter size) Water (per meter) Sewer (per meter) 5/8” $20.33 $26.38 3/4” $20.33 $26.38 1” $20.33 $26.38 1.5” $79.53 $103.58 2” $123.93 $161.48 3” $227.53 $296.58 4” $375.53 $489.58 6” $745.53 $972.08 $20.33 2nd Meter Fee -- ($50.00 if not upgraded) In addition to these rates, the Committee respectfully recommends the following: 1. No transfers to reserves from either water or sewer free cash for FY27, as noted above. 2. A free cash allocation from the Sewer Enterprise Fund in the amount of $150,000 for a downpayment on the replacement of the City’s Vactor truck. No free cash is requested from the Water Enterprise Fund at this time. 3. No recommended changes to ordinance language in Section 228, Water, Sewer, and Drains pertaining to rates. The Water and Sewer Rate Advisory Committee submitted a memo in April 2025 related to water and sewer discount programs. Our committee is continuing our work evaluating options for the future of these programs. Although we are not making any recommendations at this time regarding acting on the items covered in the memo, it is attached hereto, for the information of the City Council, especially for the benefit of new members of the Council. We appreciate your consideration of these items and are happy to answer any questions you may have. We look forward to continuing the important work of our committee in FY27 to provide fiscally responsible and sustainable water and sewer rates for the Melrose community. CITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 20272 FY2027 ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 51 SALARIES 604411 511000 S & W 565,649.70 600,052.00 600,052.00 430,482.19 600,052.00 666,070.00 11.0% 604411 512000 PT S&W 21,357.50 15,900.00 15,900.00 4,440.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 .0% 604411 513000 OVERTIME 12,760.63 26,433.00 26,433.00 20,133.48 26,433.00 26,433.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 599,767.83 642,385.00 642,385.00 455,055.67 642,385.00 708,403.00 10.3% 52 CONTRACTUAL 604412 521500 POSTAGE 17,732.12 18,000.00 18,000.00 15,000.00 18,424.36 18,000.00 .0% 604412 522000 TELEPHONE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 604412 522500 ELECTRIC 33,805.70 24,000.00 24,000.00 26,636.93 25,194.76 35,000.00 45.8% 604412 524002 CONSTRUCT 157,385.28 45,000.00 45,000.00 156,097.31 201,447.31 45,000.00 .0% 604412 525204 CONSULT 2,599.99 5,000.00 5,000.00 3,775.68 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% 604412 525307 CODE RED .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 604412 525406 DEA 210.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 630.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0% 604412 527302 REPAIRS 54,104.89 45,000.00 45,000.00 44,575.00 90,497.00 45,000.00 .0% 604412 527331 BRAZILST .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 604412 527701 PUMP STA 30,283.19 45,000.00 45,000.00 53,668.46 58,461.75 45,000.00 .0% 604412 528600 AUDIT SERV 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% 604412 529000 PROF SERV 5,534.29 25,000.00 25,000.00 213,402.95 231,403.37 25,000.00 .0% 604412 529200 MWRA ASSES 6,926,272.00 6,860,838.00 6,860,838.00 6,145,229.70 6,860,838.00 6,930,395.00 1.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 7,237,927.46 7,080,338.00 7,080,338.00 6,669,016.03 7,503,766.55 7,160,895.00 1.1% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 604412 530500 OFFICE SUP 355.98 1,000.00 1,000.00 944.50 1,630.23 1,000.00 .0% 604412 531000 GAS & OIL 32,901.19 15,000.00 15,000.00 8,106.67 15,000.00 15,000.00 .0% 604412 532000 CLEAN&DISF 2,150.32 6,695.00 6,695.00 .00 6,695.00 6,695.00 .0% 604412 533500 TOOLS 6,330.75 9,500.00 9,500.00 9,946.76 11,300.74 9,500.00 .0% 604412 535000 SAND&GRAVE .00 4,500.00 4,500.00 .00 4,500.00 4,500.00 .0% 604412 535501 CLOTHING 3,475.02 3,800.00 3,800.00 3,537.14 3,800.00 3,800.00 .0% 604412 535504 GLOVES 750.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% 604412 535509 SAFE EQUIP .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 800.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% 604412 535800 PATCHING 2,923.81 8,750.00 8,750.00 240.70 9,790.92 8,750.00 .0% 604412 536000 CEM&CONCR 3,394.28 7,500.00 7,500.00 .00 8,850.72 7,500.00 .0% 604412 536100 PIPES&FITT 2,845.04 13,621.00 13,621.00 5,000.00 20,775.96 13,621.00 .0% 604412 536310 WAT METERS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 25,000.00 .0% 604412 536320 EQUIP PTS 22,624.85 20,125.00 20,125.00 9,495.41 21,182.90 20,125.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 77,751.24 93,491.00 93,491.00 39,071.18 106,526.47 118,491.00 26.7% 54 OTHER CHARGES 604412 540700 SEMINARS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:34 Page 1 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 20272 FY2027 ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 604412 540704 PROF DEVEL 1,125.73 4,000.00 4,000.00 2,813.54 4,431.00 4,000.00 .0% 607512 549102 MUNI INT 16,607.08 10,329.00 10,329.00 10,329.78 10,329.00 5,351.00 -48.2% 607522 549100 PROJ DEBT .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 17,732.81 14,329.00 14,329.00 13,143.32 14,760.00 9,351.00 -34.7% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 604412 551073 CONSTRUCT 105,455.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 604413 551002 PW VEH&EQU 35,960.13 80,000.00 80,000.00 18,089.87 83,180.35 90,000.00 12.5% 609313 551054 SEWER TRK .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 141,415.13 80,000.00 80,000.00 18,089.87 83,180.35 90,000.00 12.5% 56 MISCELLANEOUS 607112 565000 MUNI DEBT 445,752.00 369,578.00 369,578.00 369,578.00 369,578.00 374,483.00 1.3% 607112 565002 DEBT CITY .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 445,752.00 369,578.00 369,578.00 369,578.00 369,578.00 374,483.00 1.3% TOTAL SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND 8,520,346.47 8,280,121.00 8,280,121.00 7,563,954.07 8,720,196.37 8,461,623.00 2.2% GRAND TOTAL 8,520,346.47 8,280,121.00 8,280,121.00 7,563,954.07 8,720,196.37 8,461,623.00 2.2% ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Kerriann Golden ** Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:34 Page 2 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 20272 FY2027 ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT WATER ENTERPRISE FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 51 SALARIES 614511 511000 S & W 983,826.74 999,530.00 999,530.00 831,348.52 999,530.00 1,066,629.00 6.7% 614511 511099 PY SALARY .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614511 512000 PT S&W 16,797.50 15,900.00 15,900.00 3,840.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 .0% 614511 513000 OVERTIME 55,670.56 64,838.00 64,838.00 55,560.40 64,838.00 64,838.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 1,056,294.80 1,080,268.00 1,080,268.00 890,748.92 1,080,268.00 1,147,367.00 6.2% 52 CONTRACTUAL 614512 521500 POSTAGE 17,732.08 18,000.00 18,000.00 15,377.00 18,424.39 18,000.00 .0% 614512 522000 TELEPHONE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 522302 WAT STUDY .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 522310 WTR IMPROV .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 522401 HYDRANT .00 32,500.00 32,500.00 30,000.00 62,500.00 32,500.00 .0% 614512 522500 ELECTRIC 26,826.62 17,713.00 17,713.00 14,026.11 17,713.00 20,500.00 15.7% 614512 522600 GAS HEAT 3,073.45 5,110.00 5,110.00 3,544.55 5,110.00 5,110.00 .0% 614512 524002 CONSTRUCT 14,536.75 54,000.00 54,000.00 41,850.35 80,023.25 54,000.00 .0% 614512 524005 SLAYTON RD .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 525204 CONSULT 6,054.88 18,500.00 18,500.00 11,698.71 18,500.00 18,500.00 .0% 614512 525307 CODE RED .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 525350 DR/BC SVC .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 525406 DEA 210.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 630.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0% 614512 527104 LEAK DET 12,200.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 13,000.00 17,800.00 17,500.00 .0% 614512 527202 WAT REPLAC 2,890.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 81,400.00 96,110.00 50,000.00 .0% 614512 527203 RESIDENT2N .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 527204 METER UPGR .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 527302 REPAIRS .00 46,500.00 46,500.00 46,500.00 46,500.00 46,500.00 .0% 614512 527400 BACKFLOW 15,878.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 5,005.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 .0% 614512 527701 PUMP STA 16,908.70 25,000.00 25,000.00 29,227.18 34,498.30 25,000.00 .0% 614512 527900 METERLEASE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 528600 AUDIT SERV 11,491.98 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% 614512 529000 PROF SERV 36,133.49 40,000.00 40,000.00 73,621.98 50,625.73 40,000.00 .0% 614512 529200 MWRA ASSES 3,865,069.00 3,762,588.00 3,762,588.00 3,386,329.20 3,762,588.00 3,895,071.00 3.5% 614512 529205 MALDEN99 7,119.98 25,000.00 25,000.00 6,500.00 26,823.38 25,000.00 .0% 614512 529210 SAFE DRINK 7,373.50 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 4,043,498.43 4,152,411.00 4,152,411.00 3,758,710.08 4,277,216.05 4,287,681.00 3.3% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 614512 530500 OFFICE SUP 387.23 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,860.62 1,630.23 1,000.00 .0% 614512 531000 GAS & OIL 32,911.18 22,750.00 22,750.00 8,106.67 22,750.00 22,750.00 .0% 614512 533500 TOOLS 8,905.86 12,500.00 12,500.00 14,100.01 14,323.70 12,500.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:35 Page 1 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 20272 FY2027 ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT WATER ENTERPRISE FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 614512 535000 SAND&GRAVE .00 3,605.00 3,605.00 .00 3,605.00 3,605.00 .0% 614512 535501 CLOTHING 7,232.02 9,150.00 9,150.00 5,085.49 9,150.00 9,150.00 .0% 614512 535509 SAFE EQUIP 136.99 2,000.00 2,000.00 .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% 614512 535800 PATCHING 8,639.77 25,235.00 25,235.00 10,000.00 31,344.60 25,235.00 .0% 614512 536100 PIPES&FITT 36,151.93 62,000.00 62,000.00 32,381.28 63,613.48 62,000.00 .0% 614512 536300 HYDRANTS 25,000.00 40,800.00 40,800.00 34,306.77 40,800.00 40,800.00 .0% 614512 536310 WAT METERS 18,440.28 5,000.00 5,000.00 6,053.52 5,000.00 25,000.00 400.0% 614512 536320 EQUIP PTS 28,748.51 27,250.00 27,250.00 21,081.73 29,137.07 27,250.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 166,553.77 211,290.00 211,290.00 132,976.09 223,354.08 231,290.00 9.5% 54 OTHER CHARGES 614512 540700 SEMINARS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614512 540704 PROF DEVEL 2,745.74 6,000.00 6,000.00 4,125.10 6,431.00 6,000.00 .0% 617512 549102 MUNI INT 16,045.00 10,710.00 10,710.00 10,710.00 10,710.00 8,960.00 -16.3% 617522 549100 PROJ DEBT .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 18,790.74 16,710.00 16,710.00 14,835.10 17,141.00 14,960.00 -10.5% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 614512 551073 CONSTRUCT 18,255.43 .00 .00 76,789.51 76,789.51 .00 .0% 614513 551002 PW VEH&EQU .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 614513 551082 RELOCATION .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 18,255.43 .00 .00 76,789.51 76,789.51 .00 .0% 56 MISCELLANEOUS 617112 565000 MUNI DEBT 1,128,850.00 980,890.00 980,890.00 980,890.00 980,890.00 1,021,490.00 4.1% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 1,128,850.00 980,890.00 980,890.00 980,890.00 980,890.00 1,021,490.00 4.1% TOTAL WATER ENTERPRISE FUND 6,432,243.17 6,441,569.00 6,441,569.00 5,854,949.70 6,655,658.64 6,702,788.00 4.1% GRAND TOTAL 6,432,243.17 6,441,569.00 6,441,569.00 5,854,949.70 6,655,658.64 6,702,788.00 4.1% ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Kerriann Golden ** Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:35 Page 2 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 20272 FY2027 ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT SOLID WASTE ENTEPRISE FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 52 CONTRACTUAL 634332 522700 TRASH DISP 776,767.77 850,000.00 850,000.00 696,571.99 876,571.99 867,000.00 2.0% 634332 522710 TRASH/RECY 2,132,964.17 2,233,920.00 2,233,920.00 1,678,304.68 2,300,955.83 2,323,277.00 4.0% 634332 522712 REC CONTA 137,405.12 261,170.00 261,170.00 284,218.48 374,889.88 261,170.00 .0% 634332 522713 REC EVENTS 84,521.20 65,000.00 65,000.00 64,991.09 69,315.12 65,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 3,131,658.26 3,410,090.00 3,410,090.00 2,724,086.24 3,621,732.82 3,516,447.00 3.1% 54 OTHER CHARGES 637512 549102 MUNI INT .00 41,928.00 41,928.00 .00 41,928.00 37,875.00 -9.7% 637522 549100 PROJ DEBT 34,195.80 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 34,195.80 41,928.00 41,928.00 .00 41,928.00 37,875.00 -9.7% 56 MISCELLANEOUS 637112 565000 MUNI DEBT .00 77,100.00 77,100.00 .00 77,100.00 85,000.00 10.2% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS .00 77,100.00 77,100.00 .00 77,100.00 85,000.00 10.2% TOTAL SOLID WASTE ENTEPRISE 3,165,854.06 3,529,118.00 3,529,118.00 2,724,086.24 3,740,760.82 3,639,322.00 3.1% GRAND TOTAL 3,165,854.06 3,529,118.00 3,529,118.00 2,724,086.24 3,740,760.82 3,639,322.00 3.1% ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Kerriann Golden ** Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:36 Page 1 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 112 CITY COUNCIL 51 SALARIES 011121 511000 S & W 62,887.48 72,595.00 72,595.00 57,287.90 72,595.00 73,746.00 1.6% TOTAL SALARIES 62,887.48 72,595.00 72,595.00 57,287.90 72,595.00 73,746.00 1.6% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011122 520500 ADVERTIS 2,302.00 300.00 300.00 1,910.00 300.00 3,000.00 900.0% 011122 521000 PRINTING 206.00 700.00 700.00 790.00 700.00 700.00 .0% 011122 523100 EXPENSES 11,000.00 11,000.00 11,000.00 9,737.46 11,000.00 12,000.00 9.1% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 13,508.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 12,437.46 12,000.00 15,700.00 30.8% TOTAL CITY COUNCIL 76,395.48 84,595.00 84,595.00 69,725.36 84,595.00 89,446.00 5.7% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 1 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 121 MAYOR 51 SALARIES 011211 511000 S & W 335,222.26 345,726.00 345,726.00 296,506.71 345,726.00 377,019.00 9.1% TOTAL SALARIES 335,222.26 345,726.00 345,726.00 296,506.71 345,726.00 377,019.00 9.1% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011212 521000 PRINTING 456.76 750.00 750.00 584.64 998.00 750.00 .0% 011212 523100 EXP ACCT 7,026.69 7,000.00 7,000.00 6,063.19 7,000.00 7,000.00 .0% 011212 525401 WEBSITE .00 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 12,000.00 33.3% 011212 529000 PROF SERV 486.90 4,000.00 4,000.00 9,029.05 9,500.00 6,000.00 50.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 7,970.35 20,750.00 20,750.00 24,676.88 26,498.00 25,750.00 24.1% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011212 540500 DUES/MEMB 22,828.00 24,500.00 24,500.00 23,780.00 24,500.00 24,500.00 .0% 011212 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 3,540.00 2,250.00 2,250.00 763.16 2,250.00 2,250.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 26,368.00 26,750.00 26,750.00 24,543.16 26,750.00 26,750.00 .0% TOTAL MAYOR 369,560.61 393,226.00 393,226.00 345,726.75 398,974.00 429,519.00 9.2% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 2 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 135 AUDITOR 51 SALARIES 011351 511000 S & W 386,437.15 407,422.00 407,422.00 347,802.58 407,422.00 343,703.00 -15.6% TOTAL SALARIES 386,437.15 407,422.00 407,422.00 347,802.58 407,422.00 343,703.00 -15.6% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011352 528600 AUDIT SERV 69,170.00 80,165.00 80,165.00 79,337.50 80,165.00 84,000.00 4.8% 011352 529000 PROF SERV 11,800.00 11,800.00 11,800.00 10,777.55 11,800.00 42,702.00 261.9% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 80,970.00 91,965.00 91,965.00 90,115.05 91,965.00 126,702.00 37.8% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011352 540500 DUES/MEMB 225.00 600.00 600.00 500.00 600.00 1,000.00 66.7% 011352 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 2,527.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 150.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 100.0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 2,752.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 650.00 1,600.00 3,000.00 87.5% TOTAL AUDITOR 470,159.15 500,987.00 500,987.00 438,567.63 500,987.00 473,405.00 -5.5% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 3 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 141 ASSESSORS 51 SALARIES 011411 511000 S & W 244,040.09 256,712.00 256,712.00 220,689.14 256,712.00 272,319.00 6.1% TOTAL SALARIES 244,040.09 256,712.00 256,712.00 220,689.14 256,712.00 272,319.00 6.1% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011412 521000 PRINTING 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 .0% 011412 523000 MILEAGE 1,029.04 1,000.00 1,000.00 35.14 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% 011412 528000 FEES 298.05 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 .0% 011412 529000 PROF SERV 3,327.75 15,900.00 15,900.00 30,793.16 31,507.99 15,900.00 .0% 011412 529300 REVAL 103,082.75 103,500.00 103,500.00 138,353.75 138,559.01 108,675.00 5.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 107,987.59 120,950.00 120,950.00 169,732.05 171,617.00 126,125.00 4.3% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 011412 530200 COPY SUP 181.70 200.00 200.00 192.02 200.00 200.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 181.70 200.00 200.00 192.02 200.00 200.00 .0% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011412 540500 DUES/MEMB 695.00 700.00 700.00 694.00 700.00 700.00 .0% 011412 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 6,339.01 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,795.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 100.0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 7,034.01 3,700.00 3,700.00 2,489.00 3,700.00 6,700.00 81.1% TOTAL ASSESSORS 359,243.39 381,562.00 381,562.00 393,102.21 432,229.00 405,344.00 6.2% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 4 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 145 TREASURER/COLLECTOR 51 SALARIES 011451 511000 S & W 419,478.42 441,481.00 441,481.00 381,753.01 441,481.00 532,737.00 20.7% TOTAL SALARIES 419,478.42 441,481.00 441,481.00 381,753.01 441,481.00 532,737.00 20.7% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011452 521000 PRINTING 9,720.05 20,000.00 20,000.00 4,713.77 20,000.00 16,250.00 -18.8% 011452 521500 POSTAGE 69,472.33 60,000.00 60,000.00 55,082.77 60,000.00 55,000.00 -8.3% 011452 521801 FOLD MAINT 1,470.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,544.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 .0% 011452 527600 OFFICE EQU 1,210.94 1,215.00 1,215.00 300.00 1,215.00 2,000.00 64.6% 011452 528002 TITLE FEES 880.39 1,260.00 1,260.00 1,105.00 1,639.61 3,500.00 177.8% 011452 529000 PROF SERV 17,788.31 14,848.00 14,848.00 3,937.59 15,961.75 15,000.00 1.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 100,542.02 98,723.00 98,723.00 66,683.13 100,216.36 93,150.00 -5.6% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011452 540500 DUES/MEMB 265.00 165.00 165.00 485.00 165.00 475.00 187.9% 011452 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 1,073.13 1,500.00 1,500.00 845.09 1,500.00 2,000.00 33.3% 011452 544100 SURETY 2,000.00 2,075.00 2,075.00 2,000.00 2,075.00 2,000.00 -3.6% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 3,338.13 3,740.00 3,740.00 3,330.09 3,740.00 4,475.00 19.7% TOTAL TREASURER/COLLECTOR 523,358.57 543,944.00 543,944.00 451,766.23 545,437.36 630,362.00 15.9% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 5 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 151 CITY SOLICITOR 51 SALARIES 011511 511000 S & W 165,764.98 148,603.00 148,603.00 128,598.75 148,603.00 171,959.00 15.7% 01151771 511000 S & W 114,306.22 119,475.00 119,475.00 103,496.50 119,475.00 123,061.00 3.0% TOTAL SALARIES 280,071.20 268,078.00 268,078.00 232,095.25 268,078.00 295,020.00 10.1% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011512 523100 EXPENSES 451.14 1,200.00 1,200.00 205.00 3,410.00 1,200.00 .0% 011512 529000 PROF SERV 33,104.27 30,000.00 30,000.00 10,332.90 31,790.00 30,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 33,555.41 31,200.00 31,200.00 10,537.90 35,200.00 31,200.00 .0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 011512 534200 BOOKS 357.00 500.00 500.00 407.00 500.00 500.00 .0% 011512 534250 ELECT MASS 3,322.00 3,850.00 3,850.00 3,816.00 4,454.00 4,152.00 7.8% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 3,679.00 4,350.00 4,350.00 4,223.00 4,954.00 4,652.00 6.9% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011512 540500 DUES/MEMB 1,300.00 2,730.00 2,730.00 1,270.00 2,730.00 2,500.00 -8.4% 011512 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 1,932.09 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,680.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% 011512 544310 PROP INS 807,504.40 884,112.00 884,112.00 891,383.40 889,764.00 968,715.00 9.6% 011512 544500 CLAIMSDED 12,013.07 10,000.00 10,000.00 2,054.97 10,000.00 60,000.00 500.0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 822,749.56 899,842.00 899,842.00 896,388.37 905,494.00 1,034,215.00 14.9% TOTAL CITY SOLICITOR 1,140,055.17 1,203,470.00 1,203,470.00 1,143,244.52 1,213,726.00 1,365,087.00 13.4% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 6 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 152 HUMAN RESOURCES 51 SALARIES 011521 511000 S & W 156,945.53 164,061.00 164,061.00 145,536.92 164,061.00 200,629.00 22.3% TOTAL SALARIES 156,945.53 164,061.00 164,061.00 145,536.92 164,061.00 200,629.00 22.3% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011522 520500 ADVERTISE 5,999.67 .00 8,000.00 12,653.84 10,357.75 8,000.00 .0% 011522 521000 PRINTING 96.96 100.00 100.00 91.00 100.00 100.00 .0% 011522 529600 ADA .00 .00 .00 10,000.00 .00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 6,096.63 100.00 8,100.00 22,744.84 10,457.75 18,100.00 123.5% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011522 540500 DUES/MEMB 539.00 519.00 519.00 574.00 519.00 519.00 .0% 011522 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 242.99 500.00 500.00 90.00 500.00 500.00 .0% 011522 543000 PHYSICAL 15,129.00 .00 12,000.00 10,790.00 10,253.00 12,000.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 15,910.99 1,019.00 13,019.00 11,454.00 11,272.00 13,019.00 .0% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 178,953.15 165,180.00 185,180.00 179,735.76 185,790.75 231,748.00 25.1% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 7 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 155 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 51 SALARIES 011551 511000 S & W 390,639.04 410,358.00 410,358.00 337,308.93 410,358.00 425,211.00 3.6% TOTAL SALARIES 390,639.04 410,358.00 410,358.00 337,308.93 410,358.00 425,211.00 3.6% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011552 522000 TELEPHONE 156,475.53 100,000.00 100,000.00 80,749.54 128,788.95 100,000.00 .0% 011552 522004 WAN COMMUN 13,877.41 12,000.00 12,000.00 4,199.59 16,199.59 12,000.00 .0% 011552 525105 COMP MAINT 34,999.29 29,280.00 29,280.00 32,920.10 33,919.58 29,280.00 .0% 011552 525203 NET SERVIC 2,900.00 .00 .00 .00 2,100.00 .00 .0% 011552 525301 MUNIS SUPP 123,833.50 130,343.00 130,343.00 131,241.67 132,343.00 136,860.00 5.0% 011552 525303 LICENSES 245,353.97 265,491.00 265,491.00 289,562.90 300,377.14 288,766.00 8.8% 011552 525305 IT COM NOT 6,867.13 7,417.00 7,417.00 7,317.11 7,417.00 7,417.00 .0% 011552 525309 OSDBA 3,362.80 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% 011552 525402 INTERNET 16,067.51 9,180.00 9,180.00 5,789.80 9,180.00 9,180.00 .0% 011552 529000 PROF SERV 106,251.87 105,000.00 105,000.00 120,139.76 123,882.32 105,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 709,989.01 668,711.00 668,711.00 671,920.47 764,207.58 698,503.00 4.5% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 011552 530120 COMP MISC 3,482.09 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,983.18 2,000.00 .00 -100.0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 3,482.09 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,983.18 2,000.00 .00 -100.0% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011552 540700 SEMINARS 800.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 1,565.00 3,900.00 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 800.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 1,565.00 3,900.00 2,500.00 .0% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 01155772 551097 SCHOOL IT 555,609.39 .00 525,000.00 614,969.95 226,600.61 525,000.00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 555,609.39 .00 525,000.00 614,969.95 226,600.61 525,000.00 .0% TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,660,519.53 1,083,569.00 1,608,569.00 1,627,747.53 1,407,066.19 1,651,214.00 2.7% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 8 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 161 CITY CLERK 51 SALARIES 011611 511000 S & W 253,637.53 293,212.00 293,212.00 261,316.59 293,212.00 301,754.00 2.9% 011611 513000 OVERTIME 8,791.07 11,400.00 11,400.00 1,944.26 11,400.00 11,400.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 262,428.60 304,612.00 304,612.00 263,260.85 304,612.00 313,154.00 2.8% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011612 520500 ADVERTISE -26.07 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,144.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0% 011612 521000 PRINTING 3,377.03 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,313.44 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% 011612 525109 DOG MAINT 1,523.45 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,000.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 .0% 011612 525308 AGENDASOFT .00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .00 10,000.00 17,915.00 79.2% 011612 529301 RECODE 7,912.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 8,156.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 12,786.41 26,200.00 26,200.00 12,613.44 26,200.00 34,115.00 30.2% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 011612 530501 VITALSUPPL 2,716.51 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,767.05 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 2,716.51 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,767.05 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011612 540500 DUES/MEMB 615.00 700.00 700.00 455.00 700.00 700.00 .0% 011612 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 885.60 4,000.00 4,000.00 620.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 .0% 011612 544100 SURETY 20.00 75.00 75.00 .00 75.00 75.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 1,520.60 4,775.00 4,775.00 1,075.00 4,775.00 4,775.00 .0% TOTAL CITY CLERK 279,452.12 340,587.00 340,587.00 278,716.34 340,587.00 357,044.00 4.8% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 9 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 162 ELECTION/REGISTRAR 51 SALARIES 011621 511000 S & W 3,805.10 4,569.00 4,569.00 2,953.40 4,569.00 4,569.00 .0% 011621 512000 PT S&W 80,587.83 55,000.00 55,000.00 30,562.40 55,000.00 55,000.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 84,392.93 59,569.00 59,569.00 33,515.80 59,569.00 59,569.00 .0% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011622 521000 PRINTING 16,966.64 13,000.00 13,000.00 27,951.88 13,000.00 13,000.00 .0% 011622 521500 POSTAGE 8,101.83 11,000.00 11,000.00 8,623.77 11,000.00 11,000.00 .0% 011622 525102 EQUIPMAINT 15,864.50 16,000.00 16,000.00 14,642.06 20,000.00 16,000.00 .0% 011622 529000 PROF SERV 8,089.46 10,000.00 10,000.00 2,173.65 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 49,022.43 50,000.00 50,000.00 53,391.36 54,000.00 50,000.00 .0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 011622 530506 ELEC SUPP 1,377.55 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,795.41 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 1,377.55 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,795.41 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011622 540500 DUES/MEMB 25.00 200.00 200.00 .00 200.00 200.00 .0% 011622 540600 EDUC/SEMIN .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 25.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 .00 1,200.00 1,200.00 .0% TOTAL ELECTION/REGISTRAR 134,817.91 113,769.00 113,769.00 89,702.57 117,769.00 113,769.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 10 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 165 LIQUOR COMMISSION 52 CONTRACTUAL 011652 529000 PROF SERV 387.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% 011652 529027 COMPLIANCE .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 387.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% TOTAL LIQUOR COMMISSION 387.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 11 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 175 PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOP 51 SALARIES 011751 511000 S & W 375,298.16 374,802.00 374,802.00 324,105.56 374,802.00 385,654.00 2.9% TOTAL SALARIES 375,298.16 374,802.00 374,802.00 324,105.56 374,802.00 385,654.00 2.9% 52 CONTRACTUAL 011752 520500 ADVERTISE 880.00 880.00 880.00 399.00 880.00 880.00 .0% 011752 521000 PRINTING 1,280.00 1,280.00 1,280.00 555.34 1,280.00 1,280.00 .0% 011752 528810 CONSERV 9,053.42 14,000.00 14,000.00 4,946.58 18,946.58 14,000.00 .0% 011752 529000 PROF SERV 471.78 .00 .00 .00 .00 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 11,685.20 16,160.00 16,160.00 5,900.92 21,106.58 18,660.00 15.5% 54 OTHER CHARGES 011752 540000 ENERGY 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 011752 540500 DUES/MEMB 1,654.40 1,925.00 1,925.00 1,719.80 1,925.00 1,925.00 .0% 011752 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 2,400.67 2,455.00 2,455.00 1,275.28 2,455.00 2,455.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 7,055.07 6,880.00 6,880.00 2,995.08 4,380.00 4,380.00 -36.3% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 011752 551080 CONSULT .00 .00 .00 60,000.00 .00 .00 .0% 01175772 551072 CONTR SVCS 25,000.00 .00 .00 100,000.00 100,000.00 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 25,000.00 .00 .00 160,000.00 100,000.00 .00 .0% TOTAL PLANNING & COMMUNITY D 419,038.43 397,842.00 397,842.00 493,001.56 500,288.58 408,694.00 2.7% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 12 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 211 POLICE 51 SALARIES 012111 511000 S & W 5,101,716.77 5,182,115.00 5,336,191.00 4,402,182.37 5,182,115.00 5,670,660.00 6.3% 012111 513000 OVERTIME 623,440.40 457,900.00 457,900.00 361,766.42 457,900.00 457,900.00 .0% 012111 513010 OT TRAININ 164,869.56 125,000.00 125,000.00 188,677.64 125,000.00 150,000.00 20.0% 012111 514000 COURT TIME 17,503.10 26,000.00 26,000.00 15,109.48 26,000.00 26,000.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 5,907,529.83 5,791,015.00 5,945,091.00 4,967,735.91 5,791,015.00 6,304,560.00 6.0% 52 CONTRACTUAL 012112 521000 PRINTING 1,942.12 2,540.00 2,540.00 1,099.75 2,560.00 2,540.00 .0% 012112 521500 POSTAGE 814.60 3,750.00 3,750.00 3,397.33 3,750.00 3,750.00 .0% 012112 523500 LAUNDRY 802.50 800.00 800.00 653.40 925.00 800.00 .0% 012112 525103 LEAPS 839.50 1,240.00 1,240.00 839.50 1,240.00 1,240.00 .0% 012112 525108 GENERATOR .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 012112 525202 COMP SUPP 48,145.30 60,000.00 60,000.00 47,515.72 60,000.00 67,785.00 13.0% 012112 527305 RADIO SYS 22,555.74 20,000.00 20,000.00 18,080.03 20,000.00 20,000.00 .0% 012112 529000 PROF SERV 10,540.16 10,000.00 10,000.00 9,040.65 10,025.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 85,639.92 98,330.00 98,330.00 80,626.38 98,500.00 106,115.00 7.9% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 012112 530120 COMP MISC 281.20 2,500.00 2,500.00 344.87 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0% 012112 530202 FILM SUP 617.98 590.00 590.00 547.11 590.00 590.00 .0% 012112 530501 MISC SUP 3,406.25 2,969.00 2,969.00 848.33 3,033.46 6,000.00 102.1% 012112 530505 RADAR 1,316.40 5,000.00 5,000.00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% 012112 533400 ACCREDIT 3,220.00 3,900.00 3,900.00 .00 3,900.00 .00 -100.0% 012112 534200 BOOKS 493.44 800.00 800.00 356.00 800.00 800.00 .0% 012112 535400 FOOD 233.39 500.00 500.00 201.37 500.00 500.00 .0% 012112 535500 UNIFORMS 97,581.11 73,000.00 73,000.00 60,738.36 73,400.00 73,000.00 .0% 012112 535600 NARCAN 2,023.12 2,500.00 2,500.00 794.46 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0% 012112 535700 AMMUNITION 15,150.58 12,500.00 12,500.00 2,141.14 12,500.00 12,500.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 124,323.47 104,259.00 104,259.00 65,971.64 104,723.46 103,390.00 -.8% 54 OTHER CHARGES 012112 540000 COM ENGAGE 9,699.77 10,000.00 10,000.00 8,302.15 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% 012112 540007 RECRUIT .00 .00 46,134.00 46,134.00 .00 46,134.00 .0% 012112 540500 DUES/MEMB 12,820.08 13,500.00 13,500.00 12,365.00 13,500.00 14,000.00 3.7% 012112 540702 TRAINING 24,511.80 20,000.00 20,000.00 15,124.24 20,794.00 20,000.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 47,031.65 43,500.00 89,634.00 81,925.39 44,294.00 90,134.00 .6% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 012113 551049 POL VEHICL .00 .00 .00 90,000.00 .00 .00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 13 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 012113 551100 POL EVIDEN .00 .00 .00 16,000.00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY .00 .00 .00 106,000.00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL POLICE 6,164,524.87 6,037,104.00 6,237,314.00 5,302,259.32 6,038,532.46 6,604,199.00 5.9% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 14 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 221 FIRE 51 SALARIES 012211 511000 S & W 4,877,556.39 5,201,301.00 5,201,301.00 4,501,854.16 5,201,301.00 5,328,184.00 2.4% 012211 513000 OVERTIME 1,635,358.72 489,300.00 489,300.00 719,982.70 489,300.00 513,500.00 4.9% 012211 513010 OT TRAININ 12,012.88 11,500.00 11,500.00 12,253.40 11,500.00 11,500.00 .0% 012211 515000 MUTUAL AID .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 6,524,927.99 5,702,101.00 5,702,101.00 5,234,090.26 5,702,101.00 5,853,184.00 2.6% 52 CONTRACTUAL 012212 521000 PRINTING 173.10 250.00 250.00 45.50 250.00 250.00 .0% 012212 527311 LIFE/SAFET 14,210.75 10,900.00 10,900.00 6,546.18 11,946.00 15,000.00 37.6% 012212 527500 VEHICLEREP 128,317.88 80,000.00 80,000.00 65,446.51 80,000.00 100,000.00 25.0% 012212 527605 FIRE CONTR 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% 012212 527606 RADIO CONT 9,279.25 10,000.00 10,000.00 1,014.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% 012212 529000 PROF SERV 39,328.14 50,000.00 50,000.00 43,360.12 55,000.00 40,000.00 -20.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 196,309.12 156,150.00 156,150.00 121,412.31 162,196.00 170,250.00 9.0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 012212 530100 COMP PURCH 1,070.73 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 012212 530503 PREVENTSUP 3,651.75 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,380.20 3,000.00 4,000.00 33.3% 012212 530514 EMS SPLY .00 25,000.00 25,000.00 7,840.45 25,000.00 10,000.00 -60.0% 012212 531000 GAS & OIL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 012212 531200 TIRES 766.73 4,500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 .0% 012212 531500 BATTERIES 670.06 750.00 750.00 469.73 750.00 2,000.00 166.7% 012212 532000 CLEAN SUP 8,469.80 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,234.95 7,000.00 7,500.00 7.1% 012212 533200 ELECTR SUP 2,199.26 1,000.00 1,000.00 242.81 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% 012212 533300 ALARM SYS 1,804.35 4,000.00 4,000.00 964.18 4,000.00 4,000.00 .0% 012212 533500 TOOLS 2,792.91 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,316.22 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% 012212 534200 BOOKS 549.21 2,000.00 2,000.00 157.25 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% 012212 535500 UNIFORMS 50,883.00 52,100.00 52,100.00 49,423.00 52,100.00 52,100.00 .0% 012212 535501 CLOTHING .00 500.00 500.00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0% 012212 535502 PROTECT CL 2,252.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,743.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 .0% 012212 535505 TURNOUT 52,034.48 .00 .00 75,000.00 75,000.00 .00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 127,144.28 105,250.00 105,250.00 153,271.79 180,250.00 93,000.00 -11.6% 54 OTHER CHARGES 012212 540500 DUES/MEMB 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 .0% 012212 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 911.21 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,106.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 15 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 2,011.21 2,600.00 2,600.00 2,206.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 .0% 56 MISCELLANEOUS 012212 560200 ED REIMB 24,972.83 20,000.00 20,000.00 9,009.78 20,000.00 20,000.00 .0% 012212 568000 FIRE HOSE 2,923.99 3,700.00 3,700.00 2,798.61 3,700.00 3,700.00 .0% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 27,896.82 23,700.00 23,700.00 11,808.39 23,700.00 23,700.00 .0% TOTAL FIRE 6,878,289.42 5,989,801.00 5,989,801.00 5,522,788.75 6,070,847.00 6,142,734.00 2.6% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 16 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 241 INSPECTION SERVICES 51 SALARIES 012411 511000 S & W 384,056.48 406,890.00 406,890.00 341,880.37 406,890.00 416,970.00 2.5% 012411 513000 OVERTIME 783.52 1,900.00 1,900.00 638.56 1,900.00 1,900.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 384,840.00 408,790.00 408,790.00 342,518.93 408,790.00 418,870.00 2.5% 52 CONTRACTUAL 012412 521000 PRINTING 43.10 325.00 325.00 250.00 325.00 400.00 23.1% 012412 529000 PROF SERV 10,356.90 10,000.00 10,000.00 4,903.20 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 10,400.00 10,325.00 10,325.00 5,153.20 10,325.00 10,400.00 .7% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 012412 530502 W & M SUP .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 780.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 50.0% 012412 534200 BOOKS 396.00 750.00 750.00 .00 750.00 1,000.00 33.3% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 396.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 780.00 1,750.00 2,500.00 42.9% 54 OTHER CHARGES 012412 540500 DUES/MEMB 790.00 500.00 500.00 1,488.00 500.00 500.00 .0% 012412 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 904.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 280.00 1,300.00 2,600.00 100.0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 1,694.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,768.00 1,800.00 3,100.00 72.2% TOTAL INSPECTION SERVICES 397,330.00 422,665.00 422,665.00 350,220.13 422,665.00 434,870.00 2.9% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 17 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 291 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 51 SALARIES 012911 511000 S & W 28,080.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 8,653.95 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 28,080.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 8,653.95 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 012912 530703 RADIO 391.28 .00 .00 970.00 970.00 .00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 391.28 .00 .00 970.00 970.00 .00 .0% 54 OTHER CHARGES 012912 540000 OTH CHGEXP 810.83 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 810.83 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 29,282.11 10,000.00 10,000.00 9,623.95 10,970.00 10,000.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 18 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 296 PARKING 51 SALARIES 012961 511000 S & W 15,483.00 15,931.00 15,931.00 13,668.04 15,931.00 16,333.00 2.5% TOTAL SALARIES 15,483.00 15,931.00 15,931.00 13,668.04 15,931.00 16,333.00 2.5% 52 CONTRACTUAL 012962 521000 PRINTING 5,031.50 6,750.00 6,750.00 1,009.50 6,750.00 6,750.00 .0% 012962 527950 GROV/MYRTL 34,999.92 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 .0% 012962 529000 PROF SERV 12,809.89 12,000.00 12,000.00 9,947.05 12,040.65 14,000.00 16.7% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 52,841.31 53,750.00 53,750.00 45,956.55 53,790.65 55,750.00 3.7% TOTAL PARKING 68,324.31 69,681.00 69,681.00 59,624.59 69,721.65 72,083.00 3.4% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 19 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 300 SCHOOL 51 SALARIES 013001 511000 S & W .00 42,523,875.00 46,342,675.00 .00 42,523,875.00 49,332,180.00 6.5% TOTAL SALARIES .00 42,523,875.00 46,342,675.00 .00 42,523,875.00 49,332,180.00 6.5% TOTAL SCHOOL .00 42,523,875.00 46,342,675.00 .00 42,523,875.00 49,332,180.00 6.5% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 20 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 399 REGIONAL SCHOOL ASSESSMENT 54 OTHER CHARGES 013012 547100 REGION SCH 1,619,030.00 1,951,636.00 1,951,636.00 1,951,636.00 1,951,636.00 2,066,354.00 5.9% 013012 547200 MINUTEMAN 27,426.18 28,201.00 28,201.00 28,200.18 28,201.00 29,231.00 3.7% 013012 547300 ESSEX AGRI 184,459.00 191,310.00 191,310.00 141,961.00 191,310.00 193,731.00 1.3% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 1,830,915.18 2,171,147.00 2,171,147.00 2,121,797.18 2,171,147.00 2,289,316.00 5.4% TOTAL REGIONAL SCHOOL ASSESS 1,830,915.18 2,171,147.00 2,171,147.00 2,121,797.18 2,171,147.00 2,289,316.00 5.4% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 21 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 401 PW ADMINISTRATION/ ENGINEERING 51 SALARIES 014011 511000 S & W 776,408.34 694,535.00 806,239.00 608,324.48 694,535.00 831,489.00 3.1% 014011 512000 PT S&W 20,361.50 .00 21,000.00 6,330.00 .00 21,000.00 .0% 014011 513000 OVERTIME 1,178.00 4,000.00 7,905.00 12,070.40 4,000.00 7,905.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 797,947.84 698,535.00 835,144.00 626,724.88 698,535.00 860,394.00 3.0% 52 CONTRACTUAL 014012 520500 ADVERTIS 4,881.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 11,075.60 4,000.00 4,000.00 .0% 014012 521000 PRINTING 82.02 4,500.00 4,500.00 .00 4,500.00 4,500.00 .0% 014012 521500 POSTAGE 694.01 4,250.00 4,250.00 1,371.40 4,250.00 4,250.00 .0% 014012 529000 PROF SERV 38,133.81 45,000.00 45,000.00 120,186.83 136,731.76 45,000.00 .0% 014012 529304 WELLNESS 210.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 2,192.50 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0% 014012 529500 GIS SERVIC 4,590.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 .00 10,000.00 6,000.00 .0% 01401772 529025 SCH OUTRCH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3,500.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 48,590.84 65,250.00 65,250.00 134,826.33 160,981.76 68,750.00 5.4% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 014012 533502 PROF TOOLS 4,720.61 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,672.45 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% 014012 533503 OPER TOOLS 1,464.09 6,000.00 6,000.00 4,562.60 6,000.00 6,000.00 .0% 014012 535501 CLOTHING 25,993.26 28,000.00 28,000.00 30,739.74 28,000.00 39,015.00 39.3% 014012 535509 SAFE EQUIP 548.49 8,000.00 8,000.00 .00 8,000.00 8,000.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 32,726.45 47,000.00 47,000.00 40,974.79 47,000.00 58,015.00 23.4% 54 OTHER CHARGES 014012 540704 PROF DEVEL 8,595.89 12,000.00 12,000.00 3,888.75 12,000.00 15,000.00 25.0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 8,595.89 12,000.00 12,000.00 3,888.75 12,000.00 15,000.00 25.0% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 014012 551046 SOFT LIC 17,526.36 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 014012 551072 STWRSTUDY .00 .00 .00 25,000.00 .00 .00 .0% 014012 551073 ELLPOND .00 .00 .00 80,000.00 .00 .00 .0% 014012 551184 ACCESS 3,871.00 .00 .00 71,129.00 71,129.00 .00 .0% 014012 551194 SUMMER .00 .00 .00 205,147.50 .00 .00 .0% 014012 551195 LEB&SYLVAN .00 .00 .00 175,000.00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 21,397.36 .00 .00 556,276.50 71,129.00 .00 .0% TOTAL PW ADMINISTRATION/ ENG 909,258.38 822,785.00 959,394.00 1,362,691.25 989,645.76 1,002,159.00 4.5% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 22 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 402 PW FACILITY MAINTENANCE 51 SALARIES 014021 511000 S & W 135,792.56 128,870.00 128,870.00 120,685.86 128,870.00 208,254.00 61.6% 014021 512004 INTERNS 66,682.50 .00 69,120.00 3,495.00 .00 69,120.00 .0% 014021 513000 OVERTIME 15,143.08 15,461.00 15,461.00 13,751.65 15,461.00 15,461.00 .0% 01402531 512002 LIBR PART 15,012.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 14,556.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 .0% 01402771 511041 SAL CUSTOD 844,902.46 877,783.00 877,783.00 709,894.43 877,783.00 823,767.00 -6.2% 01402771 511042 SAL MAINT 364,951.37 382,744.00 437,093.00 320,856.94 382,744.00 443,980.00 1.6% 01402771 512003 SCH PART 24,580.91 25,000.00 25,000.00 22,065.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 .0% 01402771 513000 OT SCH BLD 91,842.27 60,000.00 78,329.00 56,439.13 60,000.00 78,329.00 .0% 01402771 513008 OT F GREEN 45,929.85 7,960.00 7,960.00 31,212.40 7,960.00 30,000.00 276.9% TOTAL SALARIES 1,604,837.00 1,522,818.00 1,664,616.00 1,292,956.41 1,522,818.00 1,718,911.00 3.3% 52 CONTRACTUAL 014022 522525 ESCO PROJ 230,456.94 237,941.00 237,941.00 237,940.64 237,941.00 245,649.00 3.2% 014022 522526 ESCO QC 8,117.22 16,621.00 16,621.00 11,882.78 28,503.78 16,621.00 .0% 014022 527700 MUNBLD REP 74,642.58 120,000.00 120,000.00 139,692.49 120,000.00 620,000.00 416.7% 014022 527759 MUN MAJ CL 6,907.73 30,000.00 30,000.00 7,500.00 30,092.27 30,000.00 .0% 014022 529000 PROF SERV 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 500.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 .0% 01402502 522506 CH ELECTR 42,999.30 55,620.00 55,620.00 33,950.13 55,620.00 55,620.00 .0% 01402502 522611 CH HEAT 17,166.53 18,700.00 18,700.00 16,855.16 18,700.00 18,700.00 .0% 01402512 522507 STR LIGHTS 125,403.26 168,000.00 168,000.00 128,424.51 168,000.00 168,000.00 .0% 01402522 522509 COA ELECT 8,416.10 6,800.00 6,800.00 11,670.75 6,800.00 6,800.00 .0% 01402522 522613 COA HEAT 2,326.90 4,910.00 4,910.00 2,525.24 4,910.00 4,910.00 .0% 01402532 522510 LIBRARY EL 20,041.96 60,000.00 60,000.00 82,150.61 60,000.00 110,000.00 83.3% 01402532 522614 LIBR HEAT 6,388.30 .00 .00 904.17 .00 .00 .0% 01402542 522511 POLICE ELE 20,736.58 22,200.00 22,200.00 6,900.28 22,200.00 22,200.00 .0% 01402542 522615 POL HEAT 9,669.53 7,500.00 7,500.00 10,542.47 7,500.00 7,500.00 .0% 01402552 522512 FIRE ELEC 34,494.67 33,300.00 33,300.00 36,057.45 33,300.00 33,300.00 .0% 01402552 522616 FIRE HEAT 19,362.11 20,000.00 20,000.00 23,043.44 23,013.89 20,000.00 .0% 01402582 522515 PARK ELECT 31,940.47 31,800.00 31,800.00 25,642.61 31,800.00 31,800.00 .0% 01402592 522516 CEM ELECT 3,928.34 6,900.00 6,900.00 3,029.99 6,900.00 6,900.00 .0% 01402592 522619 CEM HEAT 4,393.59 4,250.00 4,250.00 4,497.98 4,250.00 4,250.00 .0% 01402602 522508 OPER ELECT 18,184.95 49,440.00 49,440.00 23,647.96 49,440.00 49,440.00 .0% 01402602 522612 OPER HEAT 34,707.26 39,000.00 39,000.00 54,932.72 39,000.00 39,000.00 .0% 01402772 522524 SCH ELECT 959,078.87 840,000.00 840,000.00 877,387.81 840,000.00 860,000.00 2.4% 01402772 522627 SCH HEAT 312,470.71 267,800.00 267,800.00 490,474.18 267,929.44 300,000.00 12.0% 01402772 527550 SCH CLEAN 152,839.39 236,900.00 236,900.00 29,958.81 237,224.09 236,900.00 .0% 01402772 527551 SCH GROUND .00 25,000.00 25,000.00 .00 25,000.00 25,000.00 .0% 01402772 527552 SCH EQUIP 149,535.44 77,250.00 77,250.00 79,029.03 98,702.46 77,250.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 23 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 01402772 527553 SCH SYSTEM 9,608.50 21,800.00 21,800.00 14,640.14 28,946.77 21,800.00 .0% 01402772 527554 SCH DOOR 12,885.64 5,000.00 5,000.00 276.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% 01402772 527555 SCHOOL SEC 7,601.58 10,000.00 10,000.00 6,105.88 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 2,344,304.45 2,436,732.00 2,436,732.00 2,360,163.23 2,480,773.70 3,046,640.00 25.0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 014022 533100 CLEAN SUP 8,815.14 20,000.00 20,000.00 24,097.47 23,975.50 20,000.00 .0% 014022 533107 CLEAN EQUI 13,412.99 13,750.00 13,750.00 3,915.00 13,750.00 13,750.00 .0% 01402772 531825 SCH CONTR 470,010.74 437,750.00 437,750.00 347,432.11 464,006.00 437,750.00 .0% 01402772 533115 SC CUSTOD 78,790.50 146,000.00 146,000.00 136,769.04 146,000.00 146,000.00 .0% 01402772 533116 SCH MAINT 113,373.28 98,000.00 98,000.00 104,129.93 98,000.00 98,000.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 684,402.65 715,500.00 715,500.00 616,343.55 745,731.50 715,500.00 .0% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 014023 551094 REPAIR .00 .00 40,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 01402772 551191 ASBESTOS 75,000.00 .00 .00 100,000.00 .00 100,000.00 .0% 01402773 551172 SCHOOL REP 3,711.25 .00 4,345,052.00 3,847,983.53 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 78,711.25 .00 4,385,052.00 3,947,983.53 .00 100,000.00 -97.7% TOTAL PW FACILITY MAINTENANC 4,712,255.35 4,675,050.00 9,201,900.00 8,217,446.72 4,749,323.20 5,581,051.00 -39.3% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 24 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 422 PUBLIC WORKS HIGHWAY 51 SALARIES 014221 511000 S & W 277,736.26 297,292.00 297,292.00 252,037.18 297,292.00 393,738.00 32.4% 014221 512004 INTERNS 4,000.00 .00 4,800.00 .00 .00 4,800.00 .0% 014221 513000 OVERTIME 26,544.21 27,973.00 33,737.00 16,519.78 27,973.00 33,737.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 308,280.47 325,265.00 335,829.00 268,556.96 325,265.00 432,275.00 28.7% 52 CONTRACTUAL 014222 520200 TRAF SIG 12,568.86 17,000.00 17,000.00 10,000.00 21,000.00 17,000.00 .0% 014222 520450 LIGHT MAIN 20,273.91 15,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 21,400.00 42.7% 014222 524000 HIRE EQUIP 27,104.46 27,500.00 27,500.00 22,849.53 29,470.00 27,500.00 .0% 014222 526900 TRAF MRKNG 58,073.29 50,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 50,000.00 60,000.00 .0% 014222 527100 CATCH BSN 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 .0% 014222 527101 NPDES DRAI 39,130.37 62,000.00 62,000.00 68,895.00 127,386.50 62,000.00 .0% 014222 527102 DRAINMAINT 560.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 49,115.00 68,415.00 20,000.00 .0% 014222 527105 MS4 27,543.84 44,725.00 44,725.00 27,787.84 58,077.84 44,725.00 .0% 014222 527307 SIDEWK REP 27,587.03 20,100.00 20,100.00 38,149.00 55,210.00 20,100.00 .0% 014222 529012 ST SWEEP 52,208.85 55,000.00 55,000.00 52,000.00 55,000.00 96,000.00 74.5% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 295,050.61 341,325.00 351,325.00 348,796.37 509,559.34 398,725.00 13.5% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 014222 533000 PAINTS 6,604.45 8,266.00 8,266.00 5,461.00 8,266.00 8,266.00 .0% 014222 533504 BARRICADE 379.61 .00 .00 .00 1,720.39 2,100.00 .0% 014222 535800 BUT PATCH 35,319.30 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 44,000.00 10.0% 014222 536000 CEM&CONCR 1,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 81.89 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0% 014222 536210 ROAD STRUC 4,255.99 7,560.00 7,560.00 3,760.00 7,560.00 7,560.00 .0% 014222 537200 LUMBER 1,000.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 800.00 2,800.00 2,400.00 .0% 014222 538000 SIGN MAT 15,260.47 10,000.00 10,000.00 9,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 64,319.82 70,726.00 70,726.00 59,102.89 72,846.39 76,826.00 8.6% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 014222 551183 TRAFCALM 14,679.75 .00 50,000.00 124,115.85 110,320.25 50,000.00 .0% 014223 551101 ROADS .00 .00 600,000.00 180,000.00 .00 600,000.00 .0% 014223 551165 DRAIN 40,914.67 .00 330,000.00 39,085.34 39,085.34 330,000.00 .0% 014223 551190 SIDEWALK 23,436.20 .00 250,000.00 66,563.80 66,563.80 250,000.00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 79,030.62 .00 1,230,000.00 409,764.99 215,969.39 1,230,000.00 .0% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS HIGHWAY 746,681.52 737,316.00 1,987,880.00 1,086,221.21 1,123,640.12 2,137,826.00 7.5% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 25 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 423 PUBLIC WORKS SNOW REMOVAL 51 SALARIES 014231 513000 OVERTIME 217,462.29 144,125.00 144,125.00 347,787.75 144,125.00 200,000.00 38.8% TOTAL SALARIES 217,462.29 144,125.00 144,125.00 347,787.75 144,125.00 200,000.00 38.8% 52 CONTRACTUAL 014232 524000 HIRE EQUIP 195,196.46 273,700.00 273,700.00 544,915.83 273,700.00 274,700.00 .4% 014232 529015 YOUTH SNOW .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 014232 529220 WEATHER 2,794.40 2,300.00 2,300.00 2,954.38 2,300.00 2,300.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 197,990.86 276,000.00 276,000.00 547,870.21 276,000.00 277,000.00 .4% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 014232 531000 GAS&OIL 55,020.41 15,000.00 15,000.00 60,318.15 15,000.00 15,000.00 .0% 014232 531201 TIRE CHAIN 7,165.05 2,000.00 2,000.00 5,524.44 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% 014232 531203 PLOW PARTS 42,773.09 30,000.00 30,000.00 104,338.92 30,000.00 30,000.00 .0% 014232 531800 PARTS&REP 71,949.16 35,000.00 35,000.00 94,801.58 35,000.00 35,000.00 .0% 014232 533500 TOOLS 12,114.18 2,000.00 2,000.00 16,718.70 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% 014232 534900 SALT 370,524.54 237,000.00 237,000.00 428,751.15 237,000.00 237,000.00 .0% 014232 535000 SAND&GRAVE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 014232 535401 SNOW MEALS .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,945.37 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 559,546.43 323,000.00 323,000.00 712,398.31 323,000.00 323,000.00 .0% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS SNOW REMO 974,999.58 743,125.00 743,125.00 1,608,056.27 743,125.00 800,000.00 7.7% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 26 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 433 PUBLIC WORKS SOLID WASTE/SANI 51 SALARIES 014331 511000 S & W 126,651.12 138,355.00 138,355.00 110,630.25 138,355.00 130,981.00 -5.3% 014331 512000 PT S&W 6,225.00 5,000.00 7,500.00 .00 5,000.00 7,500.00 .0% 014331 513000 OVERTIME 60,804.92 38,300.00 58,000.00 37,217.99 38,300.00 58,000.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 193,681.04 181,655.00 203,855.00 147,848.24 181,655.00 196,481.00 -3.6% 52 CONTRACTUAL 014332 524000 HIRE EQUIP 45,583.47 40,000.00 40,000.00 39,451.40 40,000.00 50,000.00 25.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 45,583.47 40,000.00 40,000.00 39,451.40 40,000.00 50,000.00 25.0% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS SOLID WAS 239,264.51 221,655.00 243,855.00 187,299.64 221,655.00 246,481.00 1.1% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 27 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 475 PW PARK & FORESTRY 51 SALARIES 014751 511000 S & W 579,655.22 641,092.00 607,911.00 467,618.95 607,911.00 581,699.00 -4.3% 014751 512000 PT S&W 16,120.00 .00 24,000.00 .00 .00 24,000.00 .0% 014751 513000 OVERTIME 56,894.27 40,375.00 55,900.00 38,433.06 40,375.00 55,900.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 652,669.49 681,467.00 687,811.00 506,052.01 648,286.00 661,599.00 -3.8% 52 CONTRACTUAL 014752 524006 FRST HIRED 20,960.00 21,500.00 154,681.00 69,278.20 54,681.00 100,000.00 -35.4% 014752 524007 PARK HIRED 27,230.20 30,000.00 30,000.00 17,270.39 31,230.20 30,000.00 .0% 014752 527400 IRRIG REP 12,000.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 8,000.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 .0% 014752 527806 PLYGRND RE 1,474.44 6,500.00 26,500.00 13,679.52 11,239.08 26,500.00 .0% 014752 528805 MOW&MAINT 51,260.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 57,421.00 70,690.00 68,000.00 36.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 112,924.64 120,000.00 273,181.00 165,649.11 179,840.28 236,500.00 -13.4% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 014752 531826 EQUIP PART 7,459.00 6,500.00 6,500.00 3,000.00 6,500.00 6,500.00 .0% 014752 533050 FLD MRKNG 6,638.82 7,500.00 7,500.00 6,763.15 7,500.00 7,500.00 .0% 014752 533505 LAND EQUIP 5,224.93 6,500.00 6,500.00 3,062.50 8,269.80 6,500.00 .0% 014752 535200 LANDSC SUP 43,438.62 50,000.00 55,000.00 32,188.82 50,000.00 55,000.00 .0% 014752 537300 FENCE MAT 420.35 4,200.00 4,200.00 1,500.00 5,279.65 4,200.00 .0% 014752 537610 BEN&BARR .00 4,200.00 4,200.00 5,183.12 8,187.73 4,200.00 .0% 014752 537640 ADOPTASITE 5,000.00 .00 5,000.00 .00 .00 5,000.00 .0% 014752 537641 FLOWERVET .00 .00 .00 8,000.00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 68,181.72 78,900.00 88,900.00 59,697.59 85,737.18 88,900.00 .0% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 014752 551182 TREES 34,859.00 .00 100,000.00 141,363.15 41,363.15 100,000.00 .0% 014753 551168 PARKS 75,776.45 .00 536,000.00 283,791.55 283,791.55 .00 .0% 014753 551169 COURTUPGRA 7,694.15 .00 125,000.00 13,537.75 437.75 .00 .0% 014753 551177 FIELD .00 .00 352,300.00 33,000.00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 118,329.60 .00 1,113,300.00 471,692.45 325,592.45 100,000.00 -91.0% TOTAL PW PARK & FORESTRY 952,105.45 880,367.00 2,163,192.00 1,203,091.16 1,239,455.91 1,086,999.00 -49.8% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 28 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 485 PW AUTOMOTIVE 51 SALARIES 014851 511000 S & W 167,223.01 155,827.00 212,951.00 125,826.73 155,827.00 150,368.00 -29.4% 014851 513000 OVERTIME 11,414.77 6,160.00 6,160.00 5,918.35 6,160.00 6,160.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 178,637.78 161,987.00 219,111.00 131,745.08 161,987.00 156,528.00 -28.6% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 014852 531000 GAS & OIL 30,589.49 120,000.00 120,000.00 97,677.29 120,000.00 140,000.00 16.7% 014852 531200 TIRES 2,304.18 15,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 21,775.00 45.2% 014852 531204 POL TIRES 3,000.00 3,308.00 3,308.00 2,500.00 3,308.00 3,308.00 .0% 014852 531205 WELD SUPP 1,639.05 2,040.00 2,040.00 1,500.00 2,040.00 2,040.00 .0% 014852 531500 BATTERIES 1,500.00 4,245.00 4,245.00 .00 4,245.00 4,245.00 .0% 014852 531800 PARTS&REP 93,282.06 98,313.00 98,313.00 122,363.76 102,609.26 98,313.00 .0% 014852 531824 EVCHARGIN .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 15,000.00 .0% 014852 532000 CLEAN&DISF 2,413.00 3,360.00 3,360.00 3,020.00 3,360.00 3,360.00 .0% 014852 533500 TOOLS 2,961.82 4,500.00 4,500.00 2,047.64 4,500.00 4,500.00 .0% 01485542 531804 POL MV RP 13,077.91 20,000.00 20,000.00 30,678.94 27,660.96 25,650.00 28.3% 01485772 531814 ALL SCH MV 4,517.38 8,400.00 8,400.00 1,200.00 8,400.00 8,400.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 155,284.89 279,166.00 279,166.00 270,987.63 291,123.22 326,591.00 17.0% TOTAL PW AUTOMOTIVE 333,922.67 441,153.00 498,277.00 402,732.71 453,110.22 483,119.00 -3.0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 29 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 491 CEMETERY 51 SALARIES 014911 511000 S & W 166,192.07 146,694.00 208,038.00 141,307.65 146,694.00 294,494.00 41.6% 014911 512000 PT S&W 21,096.54 15,000.00 24,580.00 4,266.86 15,000.00 24,650.00 .3% 014911 513000 OVERTIME 16,654.08 15,400.00 15,400.00 22,616.47 15,400.00 15,400.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES 203,942.69 177,094.00 248,018.00 168,190.98 177,094.00 334,544.00 34.9% 52 CONTRACTUAL 014912 524000 HIRE EQUIP 5,593.10 3,000.00 3,000.00 .00 3,000.00 4,800.00 60.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 5,593.10 3,000.00 3,000.00 .00 3,000.00 4,800.00 60.0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 014912 530704 CEM MARK .00 2,500.00 2,500.00 .00 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0% 014912 531205 WELD SUPP 201.55 850.00 850.00 500.00 850.00 850.00 .0% 014912 532000 CLEAN&DISF .00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 900.00 80.0% 014912 535200 LANDSC SUP 12,397.95 12,000.00 12,000.00 8,327.31 12,869.00 16,700.00 39.2% 014912 536000 CEM&CONCR .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 4,500.00 350.0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 12,599.50 16,850.00 16,850.00 9,327.31 17,719.00 25,450.00 51.0% TOTAL CEMETERY 222,135.29 196,944.00 267,868.00 177,518.29 197,813.00 364,794.00 36.2% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 30 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 511 HEALTH 51 SALARIES 015111 511000 S & W 539,988.88 539,369.00 539,369.00 468,470.96 539,369.00 634,428.00 17.6% 015111 513000 OVERTIME .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 25,000.00 .0% 01511771 511000 S&W SCHOOL 712,986.88 747,047.00 747,047.00 545,224.37 747,047.00 842,326.00 12.8% TOTAL SALARIES 1,252,975.76 1,286,416.00 1,286,416.00 1,013,695.33 1,286,416.00 1,501,754.00 16.7% 52 CONTRACTUAL 015112 520500 ADVERTISE .00 250.00 250.00 .00 250.00 250.00 .0% 015112 521000 PRINTING 282.37 250.00 250.00 67.42 250.00 250.00 .0% 015112 522711 SHARPS 1,750.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,610.00 1,940.00 1,800.00 .0% 015112 523000 MILEAGE 490.43 1,000.00 1,000.00 192.38 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% 015112 524500 PEST CONTR 24,893.97 21,500.00 21,500.00 19,853.06 21,500.00 21,500.00 .0% 015112 529000 PROF SERV 380.64 8,000.00 8,000.00 502.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 .0% 015112 529031 ANIM SHELT 3,282.74 4,000.00 4,000.00 200.00 4,000.00 9,000.00 125.0% 01511772 529000 PROF SERV 5,528.69 9,000.00 9,000.00 7,135.50 9,000.00 9,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 36,608.84 45,800.00 45,800.00 29,560.36 45,940.00 50,800.00 10.9% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 015112 530501 MISC SUP 726.23 600.00 600.00 262.44 600.00 600.00 .0% 015112 533500 TOOLS 410.84 600.00 600.00 98.07 600.00 600.00 .0% 01511772 532100 MEDICALSUP 8,667.69 8,900.00 8,900.00 3,732.50 8,900.00 8,900.00 .0% 01511772 535501 CLOTHING 4,000.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 4,000.00 4,400.00 4,800.00 9.1% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 13,804.76 14,500.00 14,500.00 8,093.01 14,500.00 14,900.00 2.8% 54 OTHER CHARGES 015112 540500 DUES/MEMB 905.64 800.00 800.00 1,045.38 800.00 800.00 .0% 015112 540700 SEMINARS 2,520.37 2,500.00 2,500.00 606.16 2,500.00 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 3,426.01 3,300.00 3,300.00 1,651.54 3,300.00 3,300.00 .0% TOTAL HEALTH 1,306,815.37 1,350,016.00 1,350,016.00 1,053,000.24 1,350,156.00 1,570,754.00 16.4% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 31 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 540 BEEBE ESTATE 52 CONTRACTUAL 015402 522505 BEEBE ELEC 2,544.70 1,800.00 1,800.00 2,012.16 1,800.00 1,800.00 .0% 015402 522605 BEEBE GAS 3,369.32 3,900.00 3,900.00 3,998.75 3,900.00 3,900.00 .0% 015402 527700 BLDGREPAIR 749.82 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,044.15 2,000.00 2,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 6,663.84 7,700.00 7,700.00 7,055.06 7,700.00 7,700.00 .0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 015402 530501 MISC SUP .00 200.00 200.00 .00 200.00 200.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL .00 200.00 200.00 .00 200.00 200.00 .0% TOTAL BEEBE ESTATE 6,663.84 7,900.00 7,900.00 7,055.06 7,900.00 7,900.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 32 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 541 COUNCIL ON AGING 51 SALARIES 015411 511000 S & W 285,779.30 260,084.00 260,084.00 223,647.76 260,084.00 294,946.00 13.4% TOTAL SALARIES 285,779.30 260,084.00 260,084.00 223,647.76 260,084.00 294,946.00 13.4% 52 CONTRACTUAL 015412 521000 PRINTING .00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 .0% 015412 523000 MILEAGE 130.25 50.00 50.00 .00 50.00 100.00 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 130.25 450.00 450.00 400.00 450.00 500.00 11.1% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 015412 530501 MISC SUP 1,084.92 1,095.00 1,095.00 1,095.00 1,095.00 2,500.00 128.3% 015412 535500 UNIFORMS 400.00 400.00 400.00 42.00 400.00 500.00 25.0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 1,484.92 1,495.00 1,495.00 1,137.00 1,495.00 3,000.00 100.7% 54 OTHER CHARGES 015412 540500 DUES/MEMB 3,332.00 3,332.00 3,332.00 2,626.56 3,332.00 4,415.00 32.5% 015412 543800 PROGRAM SU .00 .00 40,000.00 11,213.88 .00 2,500.00 -93.8% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 3,332.00 3,332.00 43,332.00 13,840.44 3,332.00 6,915.00 -84.0% TOTAL COUNCIL ON AGING 290,726.47 265,361.00 305,361.00 239,025.20 265,361.00 305,361.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 33 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 542 WOMEN'S COMMISSION 54 OTHER CHARGES 015422 540000 OTH CHGEXP 1,025.52 .00 .00 117.50 117.50 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 1,025.52 .00 .00 117.50 117.50 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL WOMEN'S COMMISSION 1,025.52 .00 .00 117.50 117.50 2,500.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 34 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 543 VETERANS 51 SALARIES 015431 511000 S & W 179,987.48 74,256.00 74,256.00 63,272.40 74,256.00 76,513.00 3.0% TOTAL SALARIES 179,987.48 74,256.00 74,256.00 63,272.40 74,256.00 76,513.00 3.0% 52 CONTRACTUAL 015432 523000 MILEAGE 246.50 100.00 100.00 492.08 100.00 1,000.00 900.0% 015432 525303 LICENSES 973.04 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 500.00 -50.0% 015432 527803 WAR MEM 1,947.58 5,000.00 5,000.00 2,594.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 100.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 3,167.12 6,100.00 6,100.00 3,086.08 6,100.00 11,500.00 88.5% 54 OTHER CHARGES 015432 540500 DUES 185.91 250.00 250.00 600.94 250.00 200.00 -20.0% 015432 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 1,721.22 1,000.00 1,000.00 513.28 1,000.00 3,000.00 200.0% 015432 543800 PROGRAM SU .00 .00 30,000.00 5,835.26 .00 .00 .0% 015432 544000 VET BENE 157,806.81 175,000.00 175,000.00 152,151.17 175,000.00 192,650.00 10.1% 015432 544020 EVENTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5,000.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 159,713.94 176,250.00 206,250.00 159,100.65 176,250.00 200,850.00 -2.6% TOTAL VETERANS 342,868.54 256,606.00 286,606.00 225,459.13 256,606.00 288,863.00 .8% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 35 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 544 HUMAN RIGHTS 54 OTHER CHARGES 015442 540000 OTH CHGEXP .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL HUMAN RIGHTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2,500.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 36 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 545 DISABILITY COMMISSION 54 OTHER CHARGES 015452 540000 OTH CHGEXP 1,461.45 .00 .00 605.44 605.44 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 1,461.45 .00 .00 605.44 605.44 2,500.00 .0% TOTAL DISABILITY COMMISSION 1,461.45 .00 .00 605.44 605.44 2,500.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 37 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 611 LIBRARY 51 SALARIES 016111 511000 S & W 1,064,612.52 1,052,032.00 1,077,347.00 912,321.30 1,052,032.00 1,170,932.00 8.7% 016111 513000 OVERTIME 12,770.02 12,881.00 12,881.00 8,082.98 12,881.00 14,901.00 15.7% TOTAL SALARIES 1,077,382.54 1,064,913.00 1,090,228.00 920,404.28 1,064,913.00 1,185,833.00 8.8% 52 CONTRACTUAL 016112 521000 PRINTING 461.72 1,000.00 1,000.00 593.29 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% 016112 521500 POSTAGE 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,740.19 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0% 016112 523000 MILEAGE 85.93 250.00 250.00 .00 250.00 250.00 .0% 016112 525104 NOBLE 52,780.02 54,372.00 54,372.00 54,372.00 54,372.00 55,869.00 2.8% 016112 527702 CONTRACT 15,937.33 15,235.00 15,235.00 14,515.52 15,235.00 15,235.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 70,265.00 71,857.00 71,857.00 71,221.00 71,857.00 73,354.00 2.1% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 016112 530100 COMP PURCH 1,484.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 492.99 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0% 016112 530500 OFFICE SUP 7,894.07 8,000.00 8,000.00 8,889.63 8,000.00 8,000.00 .0% 016112 534100 AUDIO MAT 1,232.48 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,332.79 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% 016112 534150 VIDEO FORM 2,141.78 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,012.86 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% 016112 534200 BOOKS 46,810.92 35,000.00 51,550.00 51,550.00 35,000.00 53,000.00 2.8% 016112 534210 ELECTRONIC 1,792.75 2,330.00 2,330.00 2,192.35 2,330.00 2,330.00 .0% 016112 534220 NETWRK ECO 27,225.00 27,225.00 27,225.00 27,225.00 27,225.00 30,155.00 10.8% 016112 534230 DOWNLOAD 22,660.97 20,000.00 20,000.00 19,247.43 20,000.00 20,000.00 .0% 016112 534240 ELECTR DAT 16,581.74 17,800.00 17,800.00 12,370.29 17,800.00 15,000.00 -15.7% 016112 534300 LIB PASSES 2,375.00 2,375.00 2,375.00 2,375.00 2,375.00 2,375.00 .0% 016112 534800 RECRE SUP 1,031.29 1,000.00 1,000.00 944.53 1,000.00 .00 -100.0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 131,230.00 121,230.00 137,780.00 129,632.87 121,230.00 138,360.00 .4% 54 OTHER CHARGES 016112 540500 DUES/MEMB 814.00 300.00 300.00 425.00 300.00 300.00 .0% 016112 540600 EDUC/SEMIN 500.00 500.00 500.00 .00 500.00 500.00 .0% 016112 542700 RECPROGRAM 2,086.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 2,455.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 .0% 016112 543800 PROGRAM SU .00 .00 10,000.00 9,311.05 .00 10,000.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 3,400.00 3,400.00 13,400.00 12,191.05 3,400.00 13,400.00 .0% TOTAL LIBRARY 1,282,277.54 1,261,400.00 1,313,265.00 1,133,449.20 1,261,400.00 1,410,947.00 7.4% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 38 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 631 RECREATION 51 SALARIES 016311 511000 S & W .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 83,070.00 .0% TOTAL SALARIES .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 83,070.00 .0% TOTAL RECREATION .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 83,070.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 39 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 652 PINE BANKS 51 SALARIES 016521 511000 S & W 229,941.66 266,928.00 266,928.00 214,743.02 266,928.00 271,681.00 1.8% 016521 513000 OVERTIME 3,665.15 5,770.00 5,770.00 4,634.61 5,770.00 6,531.00 13.2% TOTAL SALARIES 233,606.81 272,698.00 272,698.00 219,377.63 272,698.00 278,212.00 2.0% 52 CONTRACTUAL 016522 522000 TELEPHONE 5,500.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 3,840.00 -30.2% 016522 522500 ELECTRIC 21,050.00 21,050.00 21,050.00 21,050.00 21,050.00 9,500.00 -54.9% 016522 527500 MV REPAIRS 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0% 016522 527700 BLDGREPAIR 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% 016522 528600 AUDIT SERV 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 16,425.00 26.3% 016522 528804 ATH FIELD 3,300.00 3,300.00 3,300.00 3,300.00 3,300.00 3,500.00 6.1% 016522 529000 PROF SERV 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 55,850.00 55,850.00 55,850.00 55,850.00 55,850.00 46,265.00 -17.2% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 016522 530500 OFFICE SUP 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 525.00 5.0% 016522 530800 HEAT FUEL 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,450.00 4,450.00 4,500.00 12.5% 016522 531000 GAS & OIL 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 .0% 016522 532000 CLEAN SUP 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 525.00 5.0% 016522 533000 PAINTS 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 525.00 5.0% 016522 533500 TOOLS 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 525.00 5.0% 016522 535100 PARK SUP 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 .0% 016522 537200 LUMBER 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 525.00 5.0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,450.00 65,450.00 65,625.00 1.0% 54 OTHER CHARGES 016522 543201 WCINS PINE 4,750.00 4,750.00 4,750.00 5,250.00 4,750.00 5,250.00 10.5% 016522 544320 FIRE INS 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 7.1% 016522 544325 PB LIAB IN 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,750.00 1,250.00 .0% 016522 544330 AUTO INS 2,550.00 2,550.00 2,550.00 2,875.00 2,875.00 2,875.00 12.7% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 15,550.00 15,550.00 15,550.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 8.5% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 016522 551053 PB VEH&EQU .00 .00 .00 15,520.50 .00 28,130.00 .0% 016523 551099 PB PROJECT 101,294.18 101,295.00 101,295.00 101,294.18 101,295.00 75,971.00 -25.0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 40 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 016523 551102 PF SHED 48,597.67 48,598.00 48,598.00 48,597.67 48,598.00 48,598.00 .0% 016523 551189 TURF/PLAYG 76,828.15 76,829.00 76,829.00 76,828.15 76,829.00 76,829.00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 226,720.00 226,722.00 226,722.00 242,240.50 226,722.00 229,528.00 1.2% TOTAL PINE BANKS 596,726.81 635,820.00 635,820.00 599,793.13 637,595.00 636,505.00 .1% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 41 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 693 MEMORIAL BUILDING 51 SALARIES 016931 511000 S & W 158,106.32 148,886.00 148,886.00 118,443.62 148,886.00 153,361.00 3.0% TOTAL SALARIES 158,106.32 148,886.00 148,886.00 118,443.62 148,886.00 153,361.00 3.0% 52 CONTRACTUAL 016932 522500 ELECTRIC 16,850.60 20,700.00 20,700.00 9,074.98 25,959.88 20,700.00 .0% 016932 522600 GAS HEAT 16,368.93 12,295.00 12,295.00 17,313.78 12,295.00 12,295.00 .0% 016932 527303 ELEVATOR 5,535.92 5,813.00 5,813.00 5,768.72 5,813.00 6,011.00 3.4% 016932 527700 BLDGREPAIR 8,645.29 6,273.00 6,273.00 1,861.12 6,273.00 6,273.00 .0% 016932 529000 PROF SERV 14,614.19 16,000.00 16,000.00 15,891.19 16,000.00 22,240.00 39.0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 62,014.93 61,081.00 61,081.00 49,909.79 66,340.88 67,519.00 10.5% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 016932 530501 MISC SUP 5,200.74 5,170.00 5,170.00 3,769.59 5,170.00 5,170.00 .0% 016932 530508 MARKET SUP 393.00 800.00 800.00 26.98 800.00 800.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 5,593.74 5,970.00 5,970.00 3,796.57 5,970.00 5,970.00 .0% TOTAL MEMORIAL BUILDING 225,714.99 215,937.00 215,937.00 172,149.98 221,196.88 226,850.00 5.1% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 42 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 711 MUNICIPAL DEBT 56 MISCELLANEOUS 017112 565000 MUNI DEBT 2,259,500.00 2,333,100.00 2,333,100.00 2,410,200.00 2,333,100.00 2,179,000.00 -6.6% 017112 565010 EX PRINC 1,733,909.35 1,809,910.00 1,809,910.00 1,809,909.35 1,809,910.00 1,934,410.00 6.9% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 3,993,409.35 4,143,010.00 4,143,010.00 4,220,109.35 4,143,010.00 4,113,410.00 -.7% TOTAL MUNICIPAL DEBT 3,993,409.35 4,143,010.00 4,143,010.00 4,220,109.35 4,143,010.00 4,113,410.00 -.7% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 43 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 751 MUNICIPAL DEBT INTEREST 54 OTHER CHARGES 017512 549102 MUNI INT 1,127,840.76 1,472,667.00 1,472,667.00 1,514,593.77 1,472,667.00 1,396,459.00 -5.2% 017512 549103 EXEMPT INT 227,255.94 159,778.00 159,778.00 159,777.75 159,778.00 2,042,017.00 1178.0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 1,355,096.70 1,632,445.00 1,632,445.00 1,674,371.52 1,632,445.00 3,438,476.00 110.6% TOTAL MUNICIPAL DEBT INTERES 1,355,096.70 1,632,445.00 1,632,445.00 1,674,371.52 1,632,445.00 3,438,476.00 110.6% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 44 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 752 PROJECTED DEBT & TEMP INTEREST 54 OTHER CHARGES 017522 549100 PROJ DEBT 311,275.56 380,300.00 380,300.00 312,968.75 380,300.00 897,362.00 136.0% 017522 549103 EXEMPT INT .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 311,275.56 380,300.00 380,300.00 312,968.75 380,300.00 897,362.00 136.0% TOTAL PROJECTED DEBT & TEMP 311,275.56 380,300.00 380,300.00 312,968.75 380,300.00 897,362.00 136.0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 45 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 911 PENSION 51 SALARIES 019111 511010 CONTRIB 7,366,574.00 7,620,971.00 8,120,971.00 8,120,971.00 7,620,971.00 8,272,164.00 1.9% TOTAL SALARIES 7,366,574.00 7,620,971.00 8,120,971.00 8,120,971.00 7,620,971.00 8,272,164.00 1.9% TOTAL PENSION 7,366,574.00 7,620,971.00 8,120,971.00 8,120,971.00 7,620,971.00 8,272,164.00 1.9% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 46 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 912 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 54 OTHER CHARGES 019122 543100 W C MED 147,408.67 100,000.00 100,000.00 129,433.54 100,000.00 150,000.00 50.0% 019122 543101 W C EXP 35,166.32 50,000.00 50,000.00 36,309.03 50,000.00 50,000.00 .0% 019122 543102 W C BENE 241,935.54 234,000.00 234,000.00 212,089.44 234,000.00 234,000.00 .0% 019122 543200 INDEMN 80,331.61 70,000.00 70,000.00 55,961.52 70,000.00 70,000.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 504,842.14 454,000.00 454,000.00 433,793.53 454,000.00 504,000.00 11.0% TOTAL WORKER'S COMPENSATION 504,842.14 454,000.00 454,000.00 433,793.53 454,000.00 504,000.00 11.0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 47 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 913 UNEMPLOYMENT 54 OTHER CHARGES 019132 544400 UNEMP EXP 79,969.86 411,000.00 411,000.00 155,168.59 418,440.00 100,000.00 -75.7% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 79,969.86 411,000.00 411,000.00 155,168.59 418,440.00 100,000.00 -75.7% TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT 79,969.86 411,000.00 411,000.00 155,168.59 418,440.00 100,000.00 -75.7% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 48 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 914 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 51 SALARIES 019141 511000 S & W 96,816.15 101,220.00 101,220.00 90,294.49 101,220.00 115,107.00 13.7% TOTAL SALARIES 96,816.15 101,220.00 101,220.00 90,294.49 101,220.00 115,107.00 13.7% 54 OTHER CHARGES 019142 549201 GROUP HEAL 13,139,054.91 14,500,000.00 14,942,455.00 11,914,426.63 14,500,000.00 16,426,989.00 9.9% 019142 549214 LIFE INS P 79,832.37 90,000.00 90,000.00 71,866.17 90,000.00 90,000.00 .0% 019142 549215 SENTINEL F 13,822.60 16,000.00 16,000.00 12,743.80 16,000.00 16,000.00 .0% 019142 549217 PART B 70% 928,880.95 985,000.00 985,000.00 953,755.00 985,000.00 1,056,720.00 7.3% 019142 549218 PART B PEN 21,673.90 22,000.00 22,000.00 15,694.00 22,000.00 22,000.00 .0% 019142 549223 HIATUS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0% 019142 549224 OPT OUT 784,050.34 816,800.00 816,800.00 618,430.14 816,800.00 816,800.00 .0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 14,967,315.07 16,429,800.00 16,872,255.00 13,586,915.74 16,429,800.00 18,428,509.00 9.2% TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 15,064,131.22 16,531,020.00 16,973,475.00 13,677,210.23 16,531,020.00 18,543,616.00 9.3% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 49 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 916 MEDICARE TAX CITY PORTION 54 OTHER CHARGES 019162 548000 MED TX CTY 983,942.45 1,005,581.00 1,046,705.00 848,010.22 1,005,581.00 1,099,040.00 5.0% TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 983,942.45 1,005,581.00 1,046,705.00 848,010.22 1,005,581.00 1,099,040.00 5.0% TOTAL MEDICARE TAX CITY PORT 983,942.45 1,005,581.00 1,046,705.00 848,010.22 1,005,581.00 1,099,040.00 5.0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 50 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 930 DEPARTMENTAL EQUIPMENT 52 CONTRACTUAL 019302 527602 IT COPY LE 47,006.97 27,707.00 27,707.00 21,125.30 31,023.21 27,707.00 .0% TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 47,006.97 27,707.00 27,707.00 21,125.30 31,023.21 27,707.00 .0% 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 019302 530100 IT COMP PU 66,308.12 28,000.00 28,000.00 28,000.00 28,000.00 28,000.00 .0% 019302 530103 IT PRINTER 3,541.10 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,173.10 2,371.26 2,000.00 .0% 019302 530500 OFFICE SUP 21,108.52 33,329.00 33,329.00 35,392.86 38,076.07 33,329.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 90,957.74 63,329.00 63,329.00 65,565.96 68,447.33 63,329.00 .0% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 019303 551059 PERMIT SFT 50,688.27 60,000.00 60,000.00 54,939.08 79,072.21 60,000.00 .0% 019303 551165 DRAIN 2,564.15 .00 .00 76,055.73 76,055.73 .00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 53,252.42 60,000.00 60,000.00 130,994.81 155,127.94 60,000.00 .0% TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL EQUIPMENT 191,217.13 151,036.00 151,036.00 217,686.07 254,598.48 151,036.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 51 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 931 CAPITAL OUTLAY 53 SUPPLIES & MATERIAL 019313 530706 FIRE EQUIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 109,000.00 .0% 019313 535505 BUNKER GEA .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 58,500.00 .0% 019313 537500 FURN&FIX .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 100,000.00 .0% 01931773 537500 FURN&TECH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 100,000.00 .0% TOTAL SUPPLIES & MATERIAL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 367,500.00 .0% 55 CAPITAL OUTLAY 019313 551032 PUMP .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 50,000.00 .0% 019313 551049 POL VEHICL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 83,000.00 .0% 019313 551072 MASONRY .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 250,000.00 .0% 019313 551185 ARC ELECT .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 225,000.00 .0% 019313 551186 MILANO .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 75,000.00 .0% 01931773 551097 SCHOOL IT 114,868.29 .00 .00 .00 8,953.47 325,000.00 .0% 01931773 551168 PARKS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 200,000.00 .0% 01931773 551193 MVMMS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 100,000.00 .0% 01931773 551196 HOOV APR .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 75,000.00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 114,868.29 .00 .00 .00 8,953.47 1,383,000.00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 114,868.29 .00 .00 .00 8,953.47 1,750,500.00 .0% Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 52 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrptsCITY OF MELROSE v2024.7 LIVE NEXT YEAR / CURRENT YEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS PROJECTION: 2027 FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2027 PCT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ORIG BUD REVISED BUD ACTUAL PROJECTION MAYOR CHANGE 942 STABILIZATION FUNDS 56 MISCELLANEOUS 019422 561300 STABIL TRT 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .0% 019422 561350 CONTRACT .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 400,000.00 .0% 019422 561400 OPEB TRUST 50,000.00 50,000.00 550,000.00 .00 50,000.00 50,000.00 -90.9% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00 100,000.00 600,000.00 .00 100,000.00 500,000.00 -16.7% TOTAL STABILIZATION FUNDS 100,000.00 100,000.00 600,000.00 .00 100,000.00 500,000.00 -16.7% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 64,190,836.38 107,575,802.00 121,092,352.00 66,213,351.77 109,305,232.97 126,652,797.00 4.6% GRAND TOTAL 64,190,836.38 107,575,802.00 121,092,352.00 66,213,351.77 109,305,232.97 126,652,797.00 4.6% ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Kerriann Golden ** Report generated: 05/07/2026 14:29 Page 53 User: kgolden Program ID: bgnyrpts Fiscal Year 2027 Board/Commission Memo to City Council Board/Commission: Beebe Estate Name of Chair: Bill Butler 1. Board/Commission Overview: Trustees appointed to steward the Beebe Estate 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Accomplishments: New master lock and key system, exterior painting, holiday decor, appointed new member and Building Manager, John Tozza, extra shrub pruning, new website done in partnership with the Creative Alliance, hosted second year of Bier Garden events. Challenges: gutter inspection - looking to replace gutter in phases this and next FY. 3. FY 27 Priorities: Generate more awareness of the estate for private rental use via online marketing campaign and special events. Complete gutter renovation. Complete wiﬁ installation for the use of renters. 4. What, if anything, has changed for your Board/Commission Budget for FY 27? Nothing. Fiscal Year 2027 Board/Commission Memo to City Council Board/Commission: Commission on Disability Name of Chair: Gary Hale 1. Board/Commission Overview: The purpose of the Commission on Disability is to provide advocacy, education and information toward the goal of assuring that Melrose is fully inclusive of all people with disabilities. The Commission is comprised of seven members, four of whom are individuals with disabilities, one a parent of a young adult with a disability, one member with years of experience in the field of disability, and a City liaison. Several of our members have many years of experience working with people with disabilities in various ways and toward unique goals. The predominance of a perspective on disability as it exists on our Commission makes us an informed and insightful group that effectively advocates for Melrose residents with disabilities and that provides an expert resource to the City in its shared commitment to the inclusion of people with disabilities. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: A. The Commission worked with City personnel to obtain a $171,000 grant from the Massachusetts Office on Disability to address some accessibility needs in three elementary schools. The work was underway during the April school vacation. B. The Commission completed and is distributing a “Guide for Community Organizations” that addresses ways in which people with disabilities can be welcomed and included in organizational activities, considerations for ensuring accessibility in meeting spaces and when conducting events, and ways to address reasonable accommodation requests. C. Last July, the Commission organized some activities to acknowledge disability pride month and to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Activities included a panel discussion, a book reading about disability for children and a mural was painted on the side of the YMCA. D. The Commission initiated and effort to connect students with disabilities at the high school with work experience opportunities at Melrose businesses. This has been a partnership with the Chamber of Commerce and the High School Special Ed Department. E. The Commission provided a resource to work with the City toward website accessibility. City the size of Melrose are expected by the State to have addressed this satisfactorily by April, 2027. F. We have taken on some advocacy issues, particularly when it tends to effect the disability community at large. An example of this are the ‘no parking’ signs along Lebanon Street across from the softball field. 3. FY 27 Priorities: A. The Commission will be available to provide education and resources pertaining to the Guide for Community Organizations. B. We intend to continue and expand our initiative to increase the participation of community businesses in providing work exposure and experience for students with disabilities at the High School C. We will, again, arrange activities for Disability Pride Month, July. D. We will continue to develop our partnerships with city departments to bring important advocacy issues to their attention and to provide our resources and expertise when requested. E. We will continue to seek ways to reach out to and connect with the disability community in Melrose. 4. What, if anything, has changed for your Board/Commission Budget for FY 27? In FY’26, the Commission on Disability had no budget although the City was very supportive in finding funds to cover our few expenses. As the Commission on Disability, we are able to access the Handicapped Parking Violation fund by requesting these funds through the City. In FY’27, we anticipate a budget of $2,500 which we will prudently utilize to support our priority activities. Fiscal Year 2027 Board/Commission Memo to City Council Board/Commission: Human Rights Commission Name of Chair: Josh Shortlidge 1. Board/Commission Overview: a. The Melrose Human Rights Commission (MHRC) works closely with City of Melrose leadership and partners to address issues of human and civil rights, reinforces a positive atmosphere in the community, and amplifies and promotes organizations and people working to make Melrose one community, open to all. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: a. Distributed “Know Your Rights” (KYR) Red Cards in seventeen languages at Melrose City Hall, the Melrose Farmers Market, and other high-need locations i. KYR Red Cards are small, business-card-sized tools that help individuals assert their constitutional rights during encounters with immigration or law enforcement b. Published three resource guides to connect vulnerable community members with available services: i. Legal and Civil Rights Resource Guide (PDF) ii. LGBTQ+ Resource Guide (PDF) iii. Immigrant and Refugee Legal Resource Guide (PDF) c. Created an intake process to review claims of discrimination based on protected class and provide referrals to appropriate agencies and resources d. Increased community engagement through social media outreach e. Provided supplies and support for community events, including MLK Day of Service and the Roosevelt School World Culture Fair f. Challenge: The absence of an administrative budget limited the scale, consistency, and reach of these efforts 3. FY 27 Priorities: a. Visibility: Strengthen MHRC’s role as a trusted public resource i. Publish human and civil rights explainer pieces in local media ii. Participate in community events to share MHRC materials and KYR information b. Education: Expand KYR and documentation training i. Host KYR trainings, including at least one in a high-need location ii. Partner with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office for trainings (KYR, active bystander) iii. Continue distribution of KYR cards and resource materials iv. Develop educational materials explaining judicial vs. administrative warrants c. Community Coordination: Strengthen local alignment i. Clarify and publish ICE-related policies in coordination with Melrose Police ii. Confirm and document policies for Melrose Public Schools and Melrose Wakefield Hospital d. Community Engagement: Deepen participation and support i. Facilitate community forums to explain policies and answer questions ii. Ensure legal training resources are accessible to residents iii. Host or co-host active/aware bystander trainings with community partners e. Foundations: Build internal capacity i. Provide training for commissioners on human and civil rights fundamentals 4. What, if anything, has changed for your Board/Commission Budget for FY 27? a. The need for resources, trainings, and community engagement has increased. MHRC has established a strong foundation for outreach aligned with the City's commitment to protecting residents' rights. With funding, the Commission can expand multilingual materials, replenish KYR cards, and host public forums, trainings, and interpretation services. b. Without a restored budget, MHRC's ability to provide consistent programming, respond to community needs, and proactively address discrimination and misinformation will remain limited. c. Request: Restoration of an annual operating budget of $2,500 to support: i. Printing and translation of materials ii. Community events and trainings iii. Outreach supplies and tools iv. Administrative support Fiscal Year 2027 Board/Commission Memo to City Council Board/Commission: Commission on Women Name of Chair: Karen Blackburn & Alli Goldberg 1. Board/Commission Overview: The Melrose Commission on Women (“MCW”) works to investigate, understand, educate, and promote constructive action in areas of interest and concern to all women and girls, including trans women and girls, in our community. As a central voice in the community, MCW promotes opportunities, fosters equity and belonging, and provides the community with a vehicle for information, advocacy and action on issues affecting all women. Understanding that our community is open to all, we advocate and support diversity across all aspects of our lives - gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, culture, age, abilities, and socio-economic background. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Despite not having a budget due to the fiscal realities of the city, the MCW had a productive year. Building on the success of our financial literacy event to close out the previous fiscal year, we once again focused on bring women together to engage with and learn from one another. We hosted two book club events centered on women’s brain health—understanding some of the factors that contribute to Alzheimer’s in women and the role nutrition plays. Both events were held at The Residence at Melrose Station and close to 50 people attended. We are currently planning a June event focused on the role fitness plays in preventing Alzheimer’s and leading a healthy life. We welcomed three new commissioners, who each bring a variety of expertise and passion to this work. The most significant challenge has been finding creative ways to introduce more of the community to our work and events. We’ve been unable to utilize our Facebook account for several years but have finally developed a workaround that should make raising awareness of our events and engagement opportunities much easier. 3. FY 27 Priorities: With our commissioners having incredible full lives outside of this work, we aim to keep our programming focused and simple. In FY27 we plan to revisit our interview series with MMTV, EmpowerHER, where we interviewed leaders in our community on issues of importance to women. We’ll continue with our thematic book events and will explore other programming ideas depending on issues and opportunities facing our primary constituents. 4. What, if anything, has changed for your Board/Commission Budget for FY 27? Having a budget for FY27 will be a huge help in ensuring our programming is not solely reliant on donated time and items. Fiscal Year 2027 Board/Commission Memo to City Council Board/Commission: Liquor License Commission Name of Chair: Joseph P. Nevin, Jr. 1. Board/Commission Overview: FY 2026 was a solid year. Melrose currently has 21 liquor licenses issued – 12 Restaurants (3 wine & malt beverages and 9 full alcohol), 3 Retail full alcohol licenses, 1 Farmer/Brewer license and 5 Private Clubs. The Liquor License Commission met on a monthly basis. All licenses were renewed in December 2025. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: a. New Licenses – Three new establishments opened • Restaurant Full Alcohol – Bangkok Thai • Restaurant Wine & Malt Beverages – Table 4 & Big Fin Poke • Retail Full Alcohol – Franklin Market b. Farmers market multiple one day permits/multiple vendors – summer & winter c. One day permits – We issue approximately 25 – 40 one day permits annually. d. We had one Commissioner depart the Commission (Kevin Cronin) and added a new Commissioner (Diane Casey). We thank and greatly appreciate Commissioner Cronin’s time, dedication and service to the commission and welcome Commissioner Casey. 3. FY 27 Priorities: a. Review current Melrose Liquor Licensing Commission General Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Alcoholic Beverage Sales in the City of Melrose, last amended March 30, 2015. b. Review current license fees and those of surrounding communities. c. License Renewals. d. Website update. 4. What, if anything, has changed for your Board/Commission Budget for FY 27? No change. Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Clerk’s/Elections Name of Department Head: Tanji Cifuni 1. Department Overview and Mission: The City Clerk is the official keeper of the history and records of Melrose. Our mission remains dedicated to maintaining and protecting historical records as safely as possible while also servicing the public by providing information in an efficient and timely manner. At the literal and figurative main entrance to City Hall, the Clerk’s office is a busy, vibrant gateway municipal services. Often the first point of contact with the public is to respond to questions and concerns that arise with our residents. The 4-person department consists of a City Clerk, an Assistant City Clerk, an Elections Administrator and a Senior Clerk. City Clerk Tanji Cifuni Asst. City Clerk Linda Reed Election Clerk James Harris Senior Clerk Kathy Maihack Records kept by the office include: • Vitals Statistics: Births, Deaths, Marriages, Affidavits & Correction of Vitals • Election and Census records • Business Certificate Filings and Dissolution • Original filings of Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning, Site Plan and Slope Protection Decisions (29 cases) • All notifications of meetings of municipal governmental bodies (253 meetings) • Common Victualler Licenses, Second Hand Dealers Licenses, Class I & II Motor Vehicle Licenses, Gasoline Storage Certificates, Food Truck and Hackney license • Dog Licenses • Insurance Claim filings • Raffle permits • Conflict of Interest completion records • Oaths of Office and Committee • All City Council documents: Orders, ordinances, resolutions and motions minutes, agenda for all meetings, Council related Mayoral communications and all City of Melrose Board and Commission appointments (25 council meetings) 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 • Conducted a successful local election in November with 11,227 voters turning out which is 51% of the total registered voters ( Early Voters 4857 and Election Day 6370) • Distribution of annual online Conflict of Interest training information to all City employees including public safety and public school personnel. • Rolled out a new software platform for city and school agenda and minutes across the city. This was a large undertaking and the roll out of the program was successful. • Annual training of election workers with almost 100 percent attendance • Continued organization, inspection and preservation of municipal records • Electronic distribution of monthly Campaign Finance newsletter • Refresh and update to departmental webpages • Updated our licensing and permit fees for the department • Created and or edited our annual license applications • Coordinated a SAFE audit with the State ( Paid for by the State ) on our election procedures on a daily basis as well as Election Day • Revamped the nomination packages for the local election • Mailed out over 16,000 census first week in January and to date have received and processed a little over 10,000 over the last few months. We will be mailing out a REMINDER confirmation card to all registered voters that have not mailed in their census in the next week. • Send updated Registered Dog Licenses to BOH the first day of the Month to post on website • Send the State Representative the list of all newly registered voters on the first day of each month 3. FY 27 Priorities: Updating the 28 Election Poll pads for the Primary and November State Elections Running a smooth State Primary and November election Increasing the voter turnout for State elections 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? At this time, we did not run against any negative financial constraints because we plan accordingly. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? Election Office If a School Committee member runs for office then we manage the election process and make sure that the candidate files their campaign finance reports in a timely manner. City Clerks office • Perform the oaths for the School Committee members • We also make sure that all school staff members complete the annual conflict of interest training FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 • Post Agendas and minutes for all School Subcommittee meetings 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The City Council, Clerks Office and Elections office was not negatively or positively affected by the result of the override election at this time. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Total number of transactions Total Sterilized dogs @$23 each 1597 $36,728 Intact dogs @$25 each 131 $3,275 Late Fee @ $18 each 150 $4,178 Replacement Tag @ $5 each - Total 2 = $10.00 2 $10 Marriage Certificates @ $20 each - Over the counter 75 $1,500 Birth Certificates -@ $20 each - Over the counter 642 $12,840 Death Certificates -@ $20 each - Over the counter 474 $9,480 Marriage Certificates - @ $22 each- Online 72 $1,584 Birth Certificates - @ $22 each - Online 419 $9,218 Death Certificates - @22 each - Online 288 $6,336 Marriage Intentions -@75 each 28 $2,100 Mail-In Vital Requests -@ $22 each 40 $880 Gas and Storage -Different amounts per location 29 $3,137 Fees -@ $50 each 15 $750 Amendments - @ $75 each 10 $750 Planning Board -Different amounts per job 2 $2,165 Board of Appeals Commerical - @ $500 each 1 $500 Board of Appeals Residential @ $350 each 10 $3,500 Business Certificates - @ $75 each 35 $2,625 Change of Business - @ $15 each 2 $30 Common Victualler - @ $175 each 40 $7,000 Class II Motor - @ $150 each 5 $750 Second Hand Dealer - @ $150 each 3 $450 Livery -$175 each 1 $175 Raffles - @ $50 for new $10 for renewal 2 $60 Copies - @ 1.00 each 9 $9.00 Total $110,030 FY 27 Budget Memo page. 4 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Council on Aging Name of Department Head: Erica Drummond 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Melrose Council on Aging (COA) aims to connect older adults with programs, resources, and services in our community to generate a positive impact on daily living. The COA serves older adults aged 60+. Members of the Milano Center have the opportunity to participate in fitness programs, social engagement activities, and educational presentations. Members can also take advantage of resources like the COA’s social services team and transportation program. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: a. Marked progress on strategic planning goals that were created from the 2022 Needs Assessment including creation of resources for housing options, an ADU information session, assisting members with MBTA discount passes, a digital literacy program on rideshare apps, a YMCA information session, Senior Strolls with the Friends of the Middlesex Fells, the continuation of our weekly walking club, resource creation for food insecurity, a monthly men’s breakfast to increase male membership, distribution of a resource guide and accessible walking maps, hosting our annual Open House and Resource Fair, increasing fitness class offerings, and creating participant led programming like armchair travel. b. Progress towards an Age-Friendly/Dementia-Friendly city designation with plans to officially apply by the end of the fiscal year c. As of 4/24/2026, the Milano Center has served 1,199 individuals who have recorded 14,104 check ins. d. As of 4/24/2026, the Council on Aging transportation program has provided 2,034 rides to Melrose residents, with 524 of those going to medical destinations. e. Challenges included an update to our weekly schedule to maximize parking efficiency, increased costs of goods and services, and special limitations within the Milano Center building. 3. FY 27 Priorities: a. Updates to the Council on Aging city webpage to include tax relief resources, support groups, durable medical equipment, Memory Café, and all program offerings b. “Milano on the Move” programming to work more collaboratively with local resources, businesses, and city departments c. Memory Café – continuing this monthly resource for caregivers and their loved ones d. “Aging in Place” panel e. “Enriching Retirement” programming f. Member-led programming FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? Changes to the department’s budget include several line item increases to create level funding from FY25, increases to salaries and wages to keep positions competitive, and increases to the “Dues & Memberships” line item to reflect the higher costs of services. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? N/A 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The Proposition 2 ½ Override has ensured that the Council on Aging’s Milano Center can continue to operate at levels residents have come to expect. This includes the transportation program, social services, fitness offerings, social engagement activities, and educational opportunities. Specifically, the Milano Center will reduce fitness class fees from $5 per class to $2 per class in order to maximize participation in these vital programs. Without the Proposition 2 ½ Override, this price reduction would not be possible. In addition to level funding from FY25, the Council on Aging is also benefiting from $40,000 in capital funding from the override to install lighting along the driveway. Upon completion, this project will provide safe access to participants who walk to evening events, as well as increasing the overall security of the property. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Veterans’ Services Name of Department Head: Tammy Shovelton 1. Department Overview and Mission: Melrose Veterans’ Services administers all aspects of Massachusetts Chapter 115—including emergency funds for urgent needs—helps veterans and families understand and file for federal, state, and local benefits, liaises on VA claims and appeals, hosts benefits-review meetings to explain changes, coordinates Veterans Day and Memorial Day commemorations, cares for and preserves Melrose’s veterans monuments, and operates a monthly food mart where veterans and family members select the groceries they need. These efforts cut red tape, improve food security, protect historic memorials, and reduce hardship while honoring the service of our veteran community. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: In FY26, Melrose Veterans’ Services relocated its office from the Milano Center to City Hall to improve access and coordination; restored the Otis W. Bishop Memorial Plaque; conducted several outreach events; actively supported 77 veterans on VA claims; ensured 16 veterans or dependents received Chapter 115 assistance; and launched Monthly Veteran Socials to strengthen community connection. We also formally codified and publicly published the Veterans Property Tax Work-Off Program 3. FY 27 Priorities: Sustain and expand outreach through monthly socials, neighborhood pop-up benefits clinics, and quarterly workshops; provide comprehensive care and preservation of all veterans memorials citywide with a documented inspection/maintenance schedule; and host Thanksgiving and Christmas community dinners for Melrose veterans and families with on-site benefits navigation, and follow-up case management—strengthening access to benefits, food security, and community connection. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? In FY27, the Veterans’ Services Department will implement a 3% salary increase, increase mileage funding to support home visits and event logistics, expand war memorial maintenance, strengthen outreach programming, and increase the veteran’s benefits line. We are also raising the allocation FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 for employee professional development to ensure staff can meet evolving state and federal standards in benefits administration, claims processing, compliance. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? NA 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? Thanks to the override, the Veterans’ Services Department has restored outreach funding and raised targeted spending levels where needs are most acute—professional development (required training), mileage for home visits and outreach, war memorial maintenance, veterans’ benefits assistance, and employee education/seminars—while decreasing software and licensing costs through consolidation and efficiencies. These adjustments sustain service quality, expand access to benefits, and ensure we can meet growing demand and deliver timely support to Melrose veterans and their families. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Mayor (121) Name of Department Head: Mayor Jen Grigoraitis 1. Department Overview and Mission: The mayor is the chief executive officer of the City of Melrose, elected by the voters at large every four years. The mayor oversees all City operations and is responsible for appointing department heads, city officers, and the members of multi-member bodies (Boards & Commissions). Jen Grigoraitis is the 24th Mayor of Melrose, the first woman elected mayor, and assumed office on January 8, 2024. The mayor has oversight over all City departments, with all department heads with the exception of the superintendent of schools, reporting to the mayor. Per city charter, the mayor serves as an ex officio member of the Melrose School Committee, which hires and supervises the superintendent. The mayor’s office engages with a variety of stakeholders, including residents; federal, state, and local elected officials; members of City boards and commissions; and local media Staff also regularly provide information and resources to residents via email, phone and in-person visits. The Mayor’s Department is currently staffed by the following employees: • Mayor Jen Grigoraitis • Chief of Staff, Lauren Grymek • Communications & Events Manager, Thomas Dalton • Part-Time Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Constituent Services Representative, Diane MacDonald The Mayor’s Department continues to utilize and manage Property Tax Work Off Participants who provide front desk coverage to answer and transfer phone calls within City Hall, greet and assist walk- ins, and assist with administrative tasks in the absence of a full-time Executive Assistant. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Constituent Services and Events: Throughout FY 26, Mayor Grigoraitis and her staff met with hundreds of residents in a variety of settings and forums including: in-person Mayor’s Office Hours; coffee hours at senior and public housing facilities (the Steele House, the Cefalo Complex, the Cochrane House, the McCarthy House, the Fuller and Gould Houses, and the Residence at Melrose Station); and new events such as Slice of the City neighborhood pizza socials and a New Resident Open House at City Hall. The mayor also conducted in-person office hours with residents throughout the year. These events provided an opportunity for residents to speak directly with the mayor about their concerns, priorities, and hopes for the community. At the five Slice of the City events held over the summer and fall, residents joined the mayor and city councilors for informal gatherings at parks and green spaces in their wards of the city while enjoying pizza from a neighborhood restaurant. FY 27 Budget Memo page 1 The mayor’s office works closely with departments who regularly provide social services support and outreach, including the Council on Aging and the Veterans’ Services Department. These departments oversee City resources including the Melrose Emergency Fund, the monthly Veterans Food Mart and the Veterans Relief Fund, and assist with SNAP benefits and applications, emergency funding and housing resources. Through this social services team, the mayor’s office led the city’s response to the temporary termination of SNAP benefits to approximately 50 Melrose residents in early 2026. Thanks to the generosity of so many Melrosians who sustainably donate to the Melrose Emergency Fund, the city was able to provide grocery store gift cards to residents in need over eight weeks, as well as share resources on non-profit supports available for the impacted Melrosians. The Mayor’s Office is the primary respondent to calls and emails from residents looking for information and resources. On a typical weekday the Mayor’s office receives an average of 15 calls and dozens of emails and website contact forms plus walk-in visits from residents looking for general City information and assistance, ideas and requests of the Mayor, and help and resources. One of the office’s Property Tax Work Off participants has extensive public sector case management experience and we have created a case coordinator role filled by this individual so that they can assists with calls regarding housing and food insecurity. Most of the calls regarding housing come from residents residing at the Melrose Housing Authority and the Mayor’s office can easily resolve and assist these residents thanks to the collaborative working relationship with the Housing Authority’s Executive Director. Our PTWO case coordinator is tracking calls for social services support to help us best assess future options. Communications: The Mayor’s Office serves as the primary communications hub for residents and stakeholders. The Office provides: a weekly email newsletter to approximately 2,800 individual subscribers; weekly City Hall submissions and press releases to the Melrose Weekly News and Melrose Messenger; a monthly email newsletter of activities and events run by local non-profits; frequent social media updates to over 2,200 followers on both Facebook and Instagram ; and episodes of the Melrose Minute podcast via MMTV. The Mayor’s Office also serves as the primary communications department for all City Departments, responding to media inquiries and interviews, assisting with writing of press releases and social media posts, advising on web content and helping to promote and publicize city programs and events. The Mayor’s Office continued to support and promote an incredible number of community events, including the following during FY 26: 1. Summer Stroll 2. Victorian Fair 3. Home for the Holidays 4. Sustainability Day 5. DPW Day (May) - expanded to serve the entire community this year 6. Third Annual 8th Grade Civics Day (June) 7. Melrose High Grad Night (June) 8. Pride flag raising at City Hall (June) 9. Juneteenth flag raising at City Hall (June) FY 27 Budget Memo page 2 10. Disability Pride City Initiatives & Special Projects: The Mayor’s Office continues to oversee and liaise with the City’s boards and commissions; to date the mayor has submitted 67 new mayoral appointments and reappointments throughout Fiscal Year 26 to resolve backlogs of empty seats and lapsed terms reaching back years. Staff regularly meets with chairs to strategize and plan for community programs, services and initiatives. Through the Chief of Staff and CFO, the Mayor’s office oversaw and coordinated the City’s FY 2027- 2031 Capital Improvement Program including the (CIP) Final Report. Since 1995, the CIP Committee has reviewed and recommended funding for capital projects on an annual basis. Capital projects are major, non-recurring expenditures that typically cost $25,000 or more and have a useful life of five or more years. For this iteration of the CIP, the committee reviewed over 100 project requests submitted by six departments. Creating a CIP is both a requirement of the city charter and a DLS recommended best practice for municipalities. The CIP is NOT a funding source; it is instead a guiding document on how the City should consider and prioritize planned capital investments as funding sources become available. Additionally, the Mayor’s office applied for and was awarded a Technical Assistance Planning Grant from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council to conduct a strategic planning process for Memorial Hall and how we best utilize that building. The Chief of Staff has been the lead representative on the City side for this project, which has included a community survey, meetings with MAPC and various stakeholders and a community forum, to inform a strategic plan for how best to utilize Memorial Hall for the future. 3. FY 27 Priorities: Building Capacity in Sustainability and Youth Services: The Mayor’s Office will be asking the City Council to formally codify a Sustainability Commission to guide the administration’s work on energy savings and climate stewardship; and to bring back a Birth to Five advisory group to unify and enhance our local programs and opportunities for Melrose’s youngest residents. In addition, plans are underway to host the Slice of the City and New Resident Open House events again. In FY 27, the Mayor’s office will continue to pursue Vision Zero priorities, and we are currently waiting for the grant funding to be finalized. Communicating About the Override: After Melrose voters entrusted the city with additional revenue in the November 2025 override referendum, the Mayor’s Office and City Hall have undertaken unprecedented levels of public engagement and information-sharing to accurately and comprehensively demonstrate the impact of the override. The city website features several detailed lists and descriptions of override-funded services and projects, and communications spanning from press submissions to email newsletter to physical signage and flyers have clearly acknowledged the impact of the override on the viability and delivery of improved or sustained city services. Budget Transparency with ClearGov: Since Mayor Grigoraitis took office, City Hall has prioritized providing the most transparency into the city budget of any administration to date. The administration has regularly provided the City Council with updates as we move through several fiscal years and have regularly added documentation on the FY 27 Budget Memo page 3 City website. The administration continues to work towards even more access: this month, the City’s visual budget will be available on the city website, thanks to our use of ARPA funds to support the adoption of ClearGov, a platform which will enable us to share the budget with the public in a more comprehensive and digestible manner Public Safety Facilities Advisory Committee: The Public Safety Facilities Advisory Committee is appointed by the Mayor and staffed by the Public Safety Buildings Project Manager, who reports directly to the Mayor. The PSFAC was formed in 2024 to advise the mayor’s administration on the Public Safety Facilities renovation and replacement projects approved by Melrose voters in a November 2023 debt exclusion vote. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? There are three line items within Department 121 which are changing for FY 27: (011211-511000) S&W: The Salary & Wages line item is increasing 9.1% to reflect the salary schedule set forth for salary of the Mayor according to Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 48-1. Mayor. Part A, Salary and cost of living adjustments and any anticipated step-ups for three staff members in the department. On February 5, 2024, the City Council voted to increase the annual salary of the Mayor’s position from $125,000, which had been in effect since January 1, 2014, as follows: $137,500 - Effective January 1, 2026; and $150,000 - Effective January 1, 2027. Mayor Grigoraitis declined the increase for FY 26 due to the budget challenges facing the City at that time. (011212 – 525401) Website: The Website line item is increasing 33.3%. Oversight and maintenance of the City Website was previously in the City Council (112) Department under Website (011122 – 525401) and in FY 26 the work and annual costs were moved into the Mayor’s Department under a new line item. The increase in annual costs represents the full annual amount to host and maintain the City’s website. In FY 26 some of the costs were covered by remaining APRA funds which are no longer available. (011212 – 529000) Prof Serv: The Professional Services line item is increasing 50% to account for opportunities to support community outreach that would include things such as additional mailers and posters to communicate information to residents; hiring interpreters for events; and adding one- time community meetings and events as needed. It will also allow the Mayor’s Office to provide support for City-administered and managed community events including photography, marketing and publicity. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? There are no direct costs housed in Department 121 which support the Melrose Public Schools. However, the Communications Manager works on school-related communications, press releases and other public-facing information as requested by the mayor and the superintendent of schools. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? FY 27 Budget Memo page 4 The Professional Services line item is increasing 50% to account for opportunities to support community outreach that would include things such as additional mailers and posters to communicate information to residents; hiring interpreters for events; and adding one-time community meetings and events as needed. It will also allow the Mayor’s Office to provide support of City- administered and managed community events including photography, marketing and publicity. FY 27 Budget Memo page 5 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Legal Department 151 Name of Department Head: Shannon Phillips, City Solicitor 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Legal Department functions as a full-time law office for the City of Melrose providing legal services to the Mayor, City Council, School Committee, Department Heads, Boards and Commissions and other municipal officials. We regularly advise and represent the City in areas such as zoning, employment, labor law, Title IX issues, civil service, procurement, permitting and licensing, education law, ethics, code enforcement, public records, and open meeting law. We prepare and review public contracts, leases, deeds, easement documentation and other legal documents, assist in drafting ordinances and policy, and represent the City and schools in a variety of courts and administrative agencies. This office also manages, coordinates and responds to public records requests received by the City of Melrose, as well as processes and manages all insurance and claims for the City. Aside from these duties, this office oversees and regularly advises on labor relations and is responsible for negotiating with twelve different collective bargaining units between the City and Schools. The mission of this Department is to provide sound and effective legal advice and representation to the City on a daily basis- Mayor, City Council, School Committee, Boards, Commissions and public officials- to allow for informed decisions to be made that help navigate potential risks and ensure legal compliance with state and federal laws. In doing so, we protect the City’s interests by helping to avoid costly litigation, maintain the public’s trust in local government, and ensure municipal policies and actions are legally defensible. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: • Developed an orientation and training for newly elected officials on legal responsibilities as municipal officials; • Managed and responded to an increased volume of public records in a timely and effective manner; • Managed Insurance and claims processes for the City; • Assisted the School Committee in process and negotiations related to the hiring of a new Superintendent; • Assisted with legal issues related to the Prop 2 ½ override question and its passage by voters. 3. FY 27 Priorities: • Assist in the implementation and creation of a more streamlined contract/ procurement process for the City; • Settle any pending Collective Bargaining Agreements; and • Stay current on changes in legislation, litigation, municipal practice, to proactively prevent issues and concerns in the City and Schools. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? • The filling of a position (split between HR and Legal) which will take some of the administrative burden for certain tasks- claims processing and management, public records management and responses, processing payroll and invoices- off of current staff and assist the Department in being able to more efficiently focus on providing legal guidance proactively on areas of legal concern. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? • Educator’s Professional Liability Insurance, Property Insurance, some legal expenses 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? During the FY26 budget cycle, the role of Executive Assistant – a position that has existed for more than 20 years- was eliminated from this Department given financial constraints. With the Prop 2 ½ override approved last November, a new position is being proposed to be shared between Human Resources and Legal, given HR’s expansion to administer school- related leaves and benefits. Half of the salary and benefits for this position will be funded out of this Department’s Budget for FY27. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Library - 611 Name of Department Head: Linda C.W. Gardener 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Melrose Public Library provides public library services to the Melrose community. The library provides access to information through physical books, both in print and on CD; downloadable ebooks and e- audiobooks; magazines and newspapers, online databases and more. We provide access to the internet and computers, book groups and other programming for all ages and spaces to work, study or relax. Our mission is to provide a portal for all to explore, imagine and engage. The library is where literacy, local history and community connect! 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: FY2026 began 2.5 months after the Public Library re-opened in its renovated/reconstructed space. The year has been full of both accomplishments and challenges. We began the year with the loss of one of our 13 full time positions due to the early separation incentive. This, combined with being unable to add anticipated staff for the larger, active new building, has proven to be very challenging. Staff worked hard to acclimate both themselves and the public to the new environment and received both positive and constructive feedback, which we continue to build upon. Work on the building continued after we opened, with punch list items and necessary changes. Despite the challenges, we were excited to register over 2,000 library cards in the first year open. After the successful Override vote, we were able to be open on Sundays once again, which was very well received. We have been consistently in the top 3 NOBLE libraries for items circulated. We were also able to bring in more outside programs, including children’s events that had between 100 – 200 attendees. The Local History Room is now available for in-person visits by appointment, and we continue to work on digitizing the collection to make it more accessible. Our library e-newsletter is published monthly which includes a “Did you know” section to help make residents aware of new services available at the library. The April issue let everyone know that we now have a variety of activities that kids can use in the Children’s Room, including board games, card games and coloring kits. We are happy to be able to offer patrons needing internet access a choice between our traditional public computers and a laptop that can be checked out for in-house use. This allows patrons who do not own a laptop to have the same flexibility as patrons who do when deciding where in the building to do their work. We collaborated with the Melrose Residence to have a group of their residents come and get a chance to look around the library and get library cards, and several staff participated in the Bridge’s Community Read day. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 3. FY 27 Priorities: We are looking forward to continuing to improve our offerings in FY27 through the following priorities: Comprehensive collections – We will have a focus on improving our Young Adult nonfiction collections to better meet middle and high school interests and needs. We will also work on strengthening areas of the collection throughout the building with more authors with diverse voices. Diverse services - We will continue to utilize the results of the FY26 Children’s Room survey to inform the direction of both active and passive programming, making adjustments as possible with staffing and budget. We will digitize additional specific portions of the Local History collection, including photographs capturing local history. User-Centric Facilities - We will explore opportunities to increase library access for senior members of the community who may have difficulty coming to the library. Purpose-designed rooms in the library will be used to offer educational craft programs for all ages. Superb staffing – Staffing is a priority both in ensuring that staffing levels are adequate to meet our goals and the community’s needs and that staff have the opportunity to benefit from staff trainings and professional development, both of which will enhance our ability to provide excellent services to the community. Staffing is the foundation upon which all other priorities can be built. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? Line 534800 (Recreational Supplies) has been eliminated, due to the increase in line 543800 (Program Supplies), which performs the same purpose. We will have funding to be open on Sundays for the full school year in FY27, which was cut in the original FY26 budget. The Program Supplies line is a significant increase from prior years, and will allow us to continue the enhanced program offerings initiated this year to better meet community desire. Salary & Wages has been increased (not including restoration of the full time position), allowing for additional part time staff which will enable us to meet more of our priorities and better respond to patrons’ needs. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? The library does not house any direct costs related to the Melrose Public Schools, although our collections are regularly used by Melrose students for school projects as well as personal interest. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The library has regained funding for the Sunday hours which were lost prior to the Override vote. Our programming budget has been increased, which will allow us to continue providing a diverse array of programs for patrons of all ages. We will be able to hire some additional part time staff, which will enable us to better serve the community’s needs. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Human Resources Name of Department Head: Polina Latta 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Human Resources Department is committed to promoting fair and consistent employment practices across the City of Melrose. It supports employees and retirees by administering health and wellness benefits, ensuring compliance with federal and state regulations, and upholding the terms of collective bargaining agreements. The department also serves as the employer for the City and a key resource for effectively communicating employment-related matters to all City staff. Through high-quality service and by fostering a safe, respectful, and inclusive workplace, Human Resources aims to create an environment where employees from all backgrounds can succeed and thrive, ultimately helping to deliver outstanding services to the diverse community we serve. To accomplish these responsibilities, the department is staffed with: Polina Latta, Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations Diane Barrett, Benefits Coordinator for City and School Matt Travers, HR Systems & Operations Specialist 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: School HR Support • Assisted with the recruitment and hiring, and onboarded, trained and supported a new School HR Coordinator, ensuring continuity of service and operational stability during transition. • Led development of the Melrose Public Schools HR Portal in partnership with School Administration and City IT, creating a centralized platform that improves employee access to HR, benefits, policies, training and support information. • Following the School HR vacancy, transitioned key school HR functions to the City HR Department to maintain continuity, strengthen compliance, improve consistency of practice, and enhance operational efficiency and employee experience across City and School operations. Contract Negotiations • Four Union contracts expire at the end of FY 26. The City is on schedule begin health insurance negotiations with the PEC for a successor health insurance agreement, which expired June 30, 2027. The HR Director serves as a member of the City’s collective bargaining team, alongside the City Solicitor and CFO. The team is currently engaged in active contract negotiations with four unions including: Library, Clerical, Laborers, and Fire, and will begin PEC negotiations related to health insurance. These negotiations focus on maintaining fiscal responsibility while supporting competitive, sustainable, and fair employee compensation and benefits structures. Workforce Restoration FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 The second half of the year was a busy period for recruiting and promotions. The department supported the recruitment, hiring, and onboarding of 12 benefited new employees (3 were managers/department heads), processed over 40 non-benefited (part-time/seasonal) hires, and facilitated nearly 10 promotions as positions opened and qualified internal candidates advanced. ADA Support • Secured CART and interpreter services for high school graduation, significantly improving accessibility for students, families, and attendees. • Assisted with obtaining ADA grant funding in collaboration with DPW and the Commission on Disabilities to advance priority projects aligned with the 2022 ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan, including accessibility improvements at Hoover, Horace Mann, and Winthrop schools. • Advanced citywide ADA compliance and accessibility by expanding closed-captioning requirements for virtual meetings, collaborating with City Clerk and Chief of staff to expand closed-captioning guidance, and updating municipal and school ADA resource pages, and strengthening coordination between Commission on Disabilities and City departments. 3. FY 27 Priorities • Collaborate with IT and Auditor’s office to streamline and automate HR processes to improve workflow efficiency between Departments, leveraging existing technology tools and the MUNIS HR module. • In collaboration with IT, Mayor’s office, and other departments, prepare for and support compliance with Digital Accessibility requirements under the ADA, through proactive planning and implementation. • Continue supporting the school through the implementation of standardized HR processes to strengthen compliance, enhance internal controls, and establish a unified HR framework across City and School operations. • Modernize the performance evaluation system to make it more relevant and align it with performance management and payroll practices. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? The HR Salary budget has increased, to support the School HR alignment. To successfully integrate the School HR function within the City’s Human Resources Department and distribute responsibilities among existing HR staff without the need to hire additional professional personnel, it was proposed that certain routine and clerical duties were reassigned to a new Administrative Assistant role to be shared with the Legal Department. This adjustment allows professional HR staff to focus on higher-level and more complex responsibilities, improves operational efficiency, reduces costs by eliminating the need for higher-cost professional staff to perform administrative tasks and improves employee experience across City and School operations, which helps with staff retention. The Health Contractual budget has increased due a number of factors, including broader economic conditions and the evolving healthcare landscape. This budget is inherently dynamic and difficult to fully control. At any given time, it reflects a snapshot of current membership enrollment, which is shaped by employee life events as well as broader socioeconomic trends. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 In addition to economic pressures, the budget is influenced by annual Open Enrollment changes, Opt-Out participation, Medicare premium adjustments, and individual employee status changes throughout the year. For FY27, the rate increases for non-Medicare plans range from 4.1% to 13.6%, while Medicare plans premiums have increased between 4.0% and 7.5%. The Workers’ Compensation medical budget was increased to $30,000. Approximately 60% of the current budget is attributed to prescription costs for a long-term recipient. This expenditure reflects a contractual obligation and does not impact service delivery, and is a more accurate representation of the actual cost, which helps avoid year budget shortfalls. The Unemployment budget has been decreased to $100,000, which is more fiscally appropriate, in the absence of layoffs. Employee Benefits, Worker’s Compensation and Unemployment are budgets that are contractual and legally mandated budget obligations for the City of Melrose. They don’t directly impact service delivery. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? The HR Department is responsible for managing the Employee Benefits, Workers’ Compensation, and Unemployment budgets, which support both City and School employees and retirees. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of the approval of Proposition 2½, the City secured funding to restore 17 school positions, 5 DPW positions and 2 Police officer positions that had previously remained unfilled. The HR Department plays a key role in the full recruitment and hiring lifecycle for City employees, as well as enrollment benefits for all City and School positions. As a result, additional funding was reinstated to the City’s Health Contractual budget, Advertising and Pre-employment exams budgets. Timely filling of vacancies with qualified candidates directly supports service delivery across City departments. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Department of Public Works Name of Department Head: Elena Proakis Ellis, Director 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Melrose Department of Public Works provides quality services to the community in the areas of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, recycling, parks, forestry, fleet, highway, cemetery, facilities, engineering, and administration, while promoting health, safety, sustainability, and fiscal responsibility through the teamwork and commitment of an honest and dependable workforce. The DPW’s budget is a combination of several components. The general fund operating budget is broken down into budgets for: 1) Administration and Engineering 2) Facilities Maintenance 3) Highway 4) Snow Removal 5) Sanitation 6) Parks and Forestry 7) Automotive 8) Wyoming Cemetery In addition, the DPW manages three enterprise funds with independent budgets: Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste/Recycling. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2026, these are some of the items DPW has completed: • Potholes filled: 189 locations • Storms responded to: 42 inches of snow (not including salting operations, plowable storms only) • Vehicles in fleet maintained: 144 pc. of equipment • Tonnage of trash/recycling: o 4,633.70 tons of trash o 1,648.67 tons of recycling • Parks/fields/open spaces maintained: 82 locations • Total work orders resolved: 3,496 (908 facilities and 2,588 operations) • Invoices processed: 1,235 purchase orders • Recycled 230 mattresses as part of the mattress recycling drop-off program The Department of Public Works also played a critical role in several large projects/events such as: • Capital projects including paving, water main replacement, sewer main improvements, and drainage improvements FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 • Support of City events including school sports, elections, memorials, Earth Week, Victorian Fair, and private facility rentals • Applied for and received multiple grants for infrastructure and environmental initiatives, including acceptance in to the Massachusetts State Building Association’s Accelerated Repair Program for the Melrose High School Learning Commons Roof and roofing and other building improvements at the Franklin School. 3. FY 27 Priorities: The DPW’s priorities for FY27 include getting back up to full staffing levels by filling critical vacancies with quality staff, implementing important infrastructure and facilities projects that have been funded by grants and by the FY26 supplemental budget, and keeping up on essential services provided daily by the department. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? The DPW’s FY27 budget is largely unchanged from the FY26 supplemental budget, with a return to full staffing and level-funding of many of our contractual and materials/supplies line items, except where contract pricing showed significant increases in competitively bid on-call contracts. Salary line items show step increases but do not yet reflect the outcome of ongoing contract negotiations with both our laborers and clerical unions. Several staff members have been shifted between DPW Divisions to more accurately reflect the workload of the department and routine assignments of those roles. These moves resulted in no net change in our total number of employees funded through the general fund and through each of our enterprise funds. Rising energy costs are reflected in our facilities budget and continue to be outside of the City’s control. We continue to implement energy efficiency projects and look for savings wherever feasible, such as through demand management programs. Finally, some of the capital line items (paving, sidewalks, facilities) from the FY26 supplemental budget have been maintained into FY27, allowing the department to continue implementing critical infrastructure repairs and replacements as needs arise and to plan for small projects in the coming year. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? Many line items within DPW’s Facilities budget are directly related to school spending. These include items such as: • Custodial and maintenance staff • Contracted work such as cleaning and inspections within school buildings • Maintenance and repairs of school facilities • Capital repairs and upgrades of school buildings • A portion of administrative staff time and resources to oversee all of the above FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The successful override has allowed DPW to fully fund our prior staffing levels, critical to providing essential services to the City, and has grown our ability to respond to capital needs. The DPW (including Engineering, Operations, and Facilities) submitted nearly 100 projects to the capital improvement plan program. These are necessary upgrades and repairs all over Melrose that require attention, such as paving, roof replacements, Melrose High School bathrooms, drainage improvements, etc. The DPW is better able to plan for and address these needs with adequate funding, allowing us to be more proactive and less reactive. Furthermore, the availability of free cash is allowing the DPW to get back into a cycle of vehicle replacements that is sorely needed, especially during winter operations when failing equipment can result in immediate safety hazards. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Auditor - 135 Name of Department Head: Kerriann Golden CFO/City Auditor 1. Department Overview and Mission: The mission of the Auditor’s Office is to provide accurate, timely, and comprehensive financial information to support long-term fiscal planning and informed decision-making for the benefit of the community. At the core of this mission is the Office’s responsibility to safeguard the city’s financial assets while upholding the highest standards of accountability, transparency, and stewardship. The Auditor’s office is responsible for the following: -General ledger management and oversight of all finance functions -Financial reporting to Department of Local Services and Federal Government -Processing of weekly payroll and maintenance of weekly employee pay and benefits. -Process Accounts Payable and 1099 reporting -Compliance with Municipal, State and Federal Finance regulations. -Training employees on Munis software for payroll, accounts payable and reporting -Providing information and participating in Collective Bargaining Negotiations for the 6 City Unions. -Internal Controls There are 3 positions in the department- - CFO/City Auditor - Assistant City Auditor - Accounts Payable Clerk - Payroll Manager will be transferred to the Treasurer’s Office for FY27 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: -Affirmed the City’s bond rating (AA+ Stable outlook) -For the 2nd consecutive year, received Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting on the FY24 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). -Certified Free Cash of $5,558,450 -Developed draft Financial Policies with the Treasurer/Collector and Assistant Auditor. -Financial Process audit by DLS -Piloted ACH payments to our chapter 115 benefit recipients FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 -Completed the Capital Improvement Plan -1099 reporting to the IRS -Met all Federal and State reporting requirements 3. FY 27 Priorities: -Finalize Financial Policies -Assist in hiring a Payroll Manager and transition role to the Treasurer’s Office -Implement Phase 2 of ACH vendors -Update documentation and review all internal controls -Training of all Finance Staff (Tyler PACE) to find efficiencies 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? The payroll position is being transferred from the Auditor’s Office to the Treasurer’s Office. This will allow the auditing department to shift our focus to enhancing reporting and conducting more internal audits of processes. Overall, I think this transition will result in more efficiencies with payroll reporting The contractual category is increasing by $34,737. The requested increase is our budget reporting module as well as investment in Tyler PACE (Munis). PACE stands for Planned Adoption, Consulting and Education. Tyler PACE will do a optimization test of our accounting software (Munis) to ensure we are using it most efficiently, provide consultation and training on how to set up and use modules. The goal of this program is to ensure the system operates most efficiently and that everyone is properly trained. If more processes can be automated, it will allow for better turnaround time and efficiency. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? Annual Audit – The annual audit is paid through the Auditor’s budget. The audit covers all funds on the city general ledger including the school department. OPEB Reporting – The annual valuation is paid for out of the Auditor’s budget. This valuation covers all employees and retirees of the City and School. Tyler Pace – Tyler Pace will allow for training of all administrative staff on modules within Munis. The cost for this for all departments (HR, IT, Treasury, School, Assessing and Auditing) will be in the Auditing budget. Staff time - The auditor’s office processes account for payable warrants and 1099 reporting, processes payroll, enters new hires on the weekly payroll. We provide support on Munis, the accounting software. As part of the School End of Year Report and reported on Schedule 1 and 19 is the Per Pupil Administrative cost average. Section 10.04 of the Massachusetts Department of Secondary Education (DESE) Regulations for School Finance, and Section IV of DESE's Guidelines for Student and Financial Reporting provide the option of charging and reporting municipal administrative costs based on the statewide average cost per student of these services. For FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 FY2026, the rate set by DESE is $152.77 * enrollment of 3,985 for FY26 – The total administrative cost average per pupil is $608,788.50. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The override will allow us to restore education money and attend training in our professional association. It will also allow us to invest in Tyler Pace and our employees to identify efficiencies in our software and provide comprehensive training and support. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Assessors Name of Department Head: Sarah MacLellan 1. Department Overview and Mission: The mission of the Melrose Assessing Department is to provide fiscal stability by promptly, fairly, and equitably determining the valuation of all real and personal property located in the city for the purpose of taxation. In addition, the department administers motor vehicle excise taxes, real, personal, and motor vehicle excise tax abatements, and all property tax exemptions as allowed by law. The Department serves property owners, residents, local and other municipal officials, real estate professionals, and state government. The core impacts of the Department’s functions are as follows: • Establish the tax base that funds local services – the tax levy in Melrose represents approximately 72% of the city’s total revenue. • By maintaining an accurate and updated records database, ensure all property assessments are fair and equitable, and that each property owner pays their appropriate share of the levy. • Provide transparency and accountability in how property values and are determined. • Administer property tax exemptions for specific groups including veterans, older adults, blind individuals, surviving spouses, and others. • Offer processes for taxpayers to review, question and appeal their property assessment if they believe their property is incorrectly valued. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Accomplishments: • Successfully managed a significant increase in taxpayer inquiries and in-person visits related to the override, providing clear guidance and timely responses to residents • Certified and incorporated over $780,000 in new growth into the tax base • Implemented newly adopted local-option veterans’ exemption increases efficiently and accurately • Maintained compliance with all Massachusetts Department of Revenue reporting and certification requirements Challenges: • For FY 2026, the Assessing Department’s Training and Education budget was reduced by 50%, limiting the department’s ability to keep staff current with evolving assessment practices, changes in state laws and guidance from the Mass. Dept. of Revenue, and preparation for cases before the Appellate Tax Board, while requiring only prioritization of limited essential training for the year FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 • Reduced funding also limited cross-training and professional development for the clerk and assistant assessor roles, making it more difficult to build depth across roles and continue improving service to the public 3. FY 27 Priorities: For FY 2027, the department’s main priority is to achieve full compliance with the Mass. Dept. of Revenue’s 5-year Recertification with Melrose, ensuring accurate, equitable valuations and timely reporting. The department also plans to reinvest in staff training and professional development, while also building capacity with cross-training. The department will continue to provide responsive and transparent service to residents and taxpayers and focus on capturing new growth. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? The proposed budget for Assessors includes a reinstatement of the training and education line item. This will allow the department to resume the required coursework to maintain assessor certification, while also supporting ongoing professional development to stay current with evolving assessing methodologies, emerging technology, and Dept. of Revenue standards. This re-investment ensures continued certification compliance and equitable property assessments, and improves the department’s ability to provide reliable service to the public. The revaluation budget line was increased 5% to keep pace with rising annual recurring vendor contract costs. This will allow the department to complete assessments and achieve certification on schedule and keep property data updated to ensure fair and equitable assessments. The proposed budget replaces the prior mileage reimbursement model with a mileage stipend for the Chief Assessor. This streamlines administrative processes by eliminating the need for mileage submissions and aligns the department’s practice with comparable communities, allowing for more efficient use of staff time. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? No direct costs 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The override had a direct positive impact on the Assessors Department by restoring and stabilizing its operating budget. It allows the department to reinstate professional development funding, address rising contractual costs and implement more efficient administrative practices. As a result, the department will be well-positioned to maintain certification requirements, ensure accurate and equitable property assessments and provide efficient and reliable service to the public. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Treasurer Collector 145- Treasurer/Collector 711 – Municipal Debt 296 – Parking 751 – Municipal Interest 916 – Medicare City Portion 752 – Projected Debt and Temporary Interest Name of Department Head: Kathryn Armata 1. Department Overview and Mission: The mission of the Treasurer Collector’s office is to ensure timely collection of revenues, invest and disburse funds appropriately, and maintain fiscal responsibility while supporting the City’s operational and borrowing needs. The Treasurer Collector department has six positions; three Collections Clerks, a Treasury/Parking Clerk, an Assistant Treasurer and the Treasurer Collector. The Collectors are the outward facing team. They interact with clients, law firms, and processing companies. They are responsible for providing professional and courteous responses to inquiries, the processing of real estate, personal property and motor vehicle excise tax, and water/sewer/trash payments. They also issue Municipal Lien Certificates. The team members each specialize in a specific type of billing but are crossed-trained across all collections to ensure ongoing operations when short staffed. The Assistant Treasurer is responsible for cash management duties, and her client base is the City departments. The Assistant Treasurer books all cash receipts of the City, funds all vendor and payroll warrants, and processes the payroll warrants of the City and Schools. She also manages the annual tailings process (uncashed checks). The Treasury side of the operation includes the Treasury/Parking Clerk who is responsible for managing the collection and dispute of parking tickets and processing deduction changes in the payroll system. The Treasury/Parking Clerk also serves as back up to the Assistant Treasurer for payroll processing and provides backup at the Collections window when there is a staffing shortage. The department will be adding the position of Payroll Manager, which currently sits in the City Auditor’s department, to the team in the near future. The transition is being made due to a recommendation included in the Department of Labor Services (DLS) review of financial operations conducted near the beginning of the Mayor’s term. In addition, the department is responsible for issuing and managing City debt, investment of City funds, managing relationships with banking and investment partners and our debt advisor and bond counsel, reconciliation of all bank and investment accounts, quarterly government filings, the liening of outstanding water bills to real estate bills, issuing W2’s, and continuously working to enhance processes and procedures. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 Prior to the issuance of the Q3/Q4 actual billing our reports showed a significantly higher than usual receivables level on the Water/Sewer accounts. The Water/Sewer Clerk proactively reached out to every outstanding client via phone to remind them of the overdue amount and respond to any questions about payment plan options and the liening process. Overall, the calls were appreciated and approximately $300,000 was collected prior to going to lien. The effort was positive to the City from a collections viewpoint and to the clients who avoided additional fees, interest and possible escrow adjustments. During the fiscal year, the Collections team added an on-line request portal to the options available on cityhallsystems.com. For a $2 fee, the portal allows clients to order tax payment information, bill copies and other requested research (forms are also available at the Collections window). Over the last several months, a committee of the CFO/City Auditor, Assistant Auditor, City Solicitor and Treasurer Collector has been working to convert the City’s Financial Policies to DLS suggested format. The process should be completed and the policies sent to the Mayor for approval around fiscal year end. We transitioned the Veterans’ monthly payments from physical checks to electronic payments and upgraded the card swipe at the Collectors window that is more user friendly to chip cards. Currently, we are collaborating with the Audit team to transition certain vendor payments to electronic form via a third- party provider. The project, which will be rolled out in phases, will enable us to meet the increasing vendor demand for electronic payment in a secure manner. In December 2025, the City issued $30.655 million of 25 year General Obligation Bonds (GOs) and a $26 million Bond Anticipation note (BAN) to fund the first construction phase of the Public Safety Building project. The lead up to the offering required collaboration among many departments to complete the offering document and prepare for the review meeting with Standard & Poor’s. The City was able to maintain its rating of AA+ and we were pleased with the market participation and results of the auction. 3. FY 27 Priorities: The use of a third-party accounts payable partner will be a staged rollout to minimize the impact on day- to-day operations. The Treasury team is committed to supporting the Audit team in this effort. There will be a large focus on hiring and training the new Payroll Manager over the next several months. The position is now vacant and duties being managed by the Assistant Auditor. We are meeting with her regularly to set up a smooth transition with a good starting knowledge base. If it doesn’t occur by year end, we will bid out the Deputy Collector duties as well as collections processor relationship. Although we are satisfied with our current business partner, it is good to review the relationship periodically to ensure we are getting the best service for a competitive price. There are a limited number of providers in this area of municipal services. Preparing and executing on a successful second round of long-term financing for the Public Safety Building project will take place in the fall of 2026. The goal is to maintain or improve the City’s rating of AA+ and obtain competitive market pricing. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? There are no significant changes to the Treasurer Collector (145) budget. The largest increase is in the Salary line of based on anticipated step-ups, the addition of the Payroll Manager, and an estimate for contractual changes. The Treasurer Collector budget consists primarily of payroll expenses and FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 equipment maintenance and processing costs. The postage line item takes into account the number of elections to be held in the fiscal year and other large volume mailings (such as excise tax bills). The driver for the $5,000 reduction in budget is the fact that there will only be two state elections in FY27. Printing costs will be lower due to a change in the Tax Title process that shifts some advertising costs to constable delivery fees in the Title Fees line. The Parking budget (296) is budgeted to increase 3.4% primarily due to a salary step up and $2,000 increase in the professional services line item. The debt budget (711) is slightly lower because payments on matured non-exempt bonds (that rolled off the schedule) were higher than the new issue exempt principal obligation being added to the payment schedule. Interest (751) is $1.816 million higher than FY26 due to the addition of the $1.9 million exempt interest related to the FY26 debt issuance offset by interest on matured bonds that rolled off the schedule. Projected Debt and Temporary Interest (752) is higher due to the maturing $26 million BAN being much larger the previous year’s BAN maturity. Medicare (916) – Medicare expense is calculated on total wages less FSA contributions, dental, health and life insurance premiums, and opt-outs of the City health plan. Currently, the City is negotiating multiple union contracts. We are conservatively budgeting a 5% increase to include estimated contract increases and the rehiring of certain roles made available by the Override. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? There are no direct costs of the Schools in the Treasurer Collector or Parking department budgets. In FY27, the principal payments on School related debt will be $2,978,909.35 and interest costs will be $621,420.84. A significant amount of the payments (principal $1,888,909.35 and interest $89,199.56) is associated with the two exempt bonds for the Middle School that will be fully paid in FY29. The balance is spread over multiple projects undertaken over the years. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approve on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? Treasurer Collector -145 - The majority of the costs of the Department are for payroll, processing, and equipment maintenance. The Override did not impact the budget. Parking - 296 – The Override had no impact on the budget. Debt – 711,751,752 - The Override had no impact on the budget. Medicare 916 – Increased payroll expenses associated with hires allowed by the Override will increase budgeted Medicare costs. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 NORTHEAST METROPOLITAN REGIONAL VOCATIONAL SCHOOL FY 2027 BUDGET Presented to the School Committee April 9, 2026NEMT Executive Summary Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 Budget 0 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 Budget Summary-Highlights FY27 Budget The FY27 budget proposal includes the following highlights and assumptions: Based on our Chapter 70 formula calculation, Northeast Metro Tech is projected to receive $16,719,585 in aid for FY27. This amount is $526,008 higher than our budgeted aid in FY26. We anticipate FY27 transportation revenue of $1,600,000 , which is $200,000 more than the revenue we received in FY26. FY25 FY26 Budget Budget FY27 Appropriation Change % Change Chapter 70 Aid $ 14,072,974 $ 16,193,577 $ 16,719,585 $ 526,008 3.25% Transportation Aid (Reimbursement Fund) $ 1,200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 200,000 14.29% Total State Revenue $ 15,272,974 $ 17,593,577 $ 18,319,585 $ 726,008 4.13% Expenses Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School's total operating expense before debt service for FY27 is projected to be $39,439,737 ; 6.98% or $2,574,954 over the FY26 total operating budget of $36,864,783 . FY25 FY26 Budget Budget FY27 Request Change % Change Northeast Metro Tech $ 31,650,800 $ 36,864,783 $ 39,439,737 $ 2,574,954 6.98% with debt service $ 33,513,000 $ 43,361,038 $ 48,516,400 $ 5,155,361 11.89% This total request can be attributed to increases in Salary, Contracted Services, Supplies, and Equipment over the FY26 budget amount. Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School's salary request for FY27 is $23,456,828 ; $1,439,543 or 6.54% over the FY26 budget of $22,017,285 . The increase in the salary request can be attributed to the following conditions: FY25 FY26 Actual Budget FY27 Request Change % Change Total Salary $ 19,922,061 $ 22,017,285 $ 23,456,828 $ 1,439,543 6.54% Highlighted Salary Expenses Notes FTE Change Steps and Lanes/Salary Increases $ 946,577 New Biotech Teacher $ 117,198 New CCL Teacher $ 104,603 New Marketing Teacher $ 92,016 New Medical Assisting Teacher $ 104,603 New Custodian $ 73,915 New Security $ 52,626 New Special Ed Teacher $ 112,403 New Reading Teacher $ 110,602 Salary Savings $ (275,000) 1 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 Budget Summary-Highlights FY27 Budget Total Increase of Highlighted Expenses $ 1,439,543 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School's FY27 Contractual Services budget is $14,015,242 ; 7.30% or $953,293 more than the FY26 budget of $13,061,949 . The increase in the contracted services request can be mainly attributed to the following expenses and conditions: FY25 FY26 Actual Budget FY27 Request Change % Change Total Contracted Services $ 12,046,225 $ 13,061,949 $ 14,015,242 $ 953,293 7.30% Highlighted Contracted Service Expenses Notes Increase in Funding Contractual Increase to Transportation, Added 24th bus $ 350,350 Increases in Health Insurance Cost $ 636,495 Increase In Building Insurance Coverage $ 250,563 New Copier Lease $ 60,000 Increase in Special Events Line $ 25,000 Increase in Game Officials Due to Sports Success $ 14,000 Increase in Graduation Expenses $ 13,000 Reduction to Compensated Absence Fund $ (275,000) Increase In FICA Split Funding $ 50,000 Increase In Retirement Contribution $ 43,611 Removal of Modular Lease $ (150,000) Reduction in Building Service Contracts/Repairs Covered By Warranty $ (64,725) Total Increase of Highlighted Expenses $ 953,293 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School's Supplies and Materials budget for FY27 is $1,890,644 ;22.90% or $352,268 more than the FY26 amount of $1,538,376 . The increase in supplies is due to the consumable supplies budget requested by department heads during the budget process. FY25 FY26 Actual Budget FY27 Request Change % Change Total Supplies $ 1,639,113 $ 1,538,376 $ 1,890,644 $ 352,268 22.90% Highlighted Supply Expenses Notes Increase in Funding Increase In Cosumable Supply Raw Materials-Stock for New Building $ 352,268 Total Increase of Highlighted Expenses $ 352,268 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School's FY27 equipment/technology budget is $77,023 ; - 68.84% or $(170,150) less than the FY26 budget amount. The increase in equipment is attributed to: FY25 FY26 Actual Budget FY27 Request Change % Change 2 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 Budget Summary-Highlights FY27 Budget Total Equipment $ 145,763 $ 247,173 $ 77,023 $ (170,150) -68.84% Highlighted Equipment Expenses Increase in Funding Reduction In Equipment Request Due to Project $ (170,150) Total Increase of Highlighted Expenses $ (170,150) Regionalization exists as a measure to offer services at a reduced cost to its member districts. Knowing the financial constraints faced by each member City and Town, Northeast aims to limit the annual operating assessment increase. We are able to attain that goal by using $800,000 from our other funding sources to offset total expenditures, therefore reducing the assessment. FY25 FY26 Funding Summary Actual Budget FY27 Request Change % Change Northeast Metro Tech Total Operating Expense $ 32,185,546 $ 36,864,783 $ 39,439,737 $ 2,574,954 6.98% Total Chapter 70 Revenue Applied to Budget $ 14,072,974 $ 16,193,577 $ 16,719,585 $ 526,008 3.25% Total Transportation Applied $ 1,600,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 200,000 14.29% Total Other Funds (E&D) $ 300,000 $ 900,000 $ 800,000 $ (100,000) -11.11% Total Assessment Requested Before Debt Service $ 16,212,572 $ 18,371,206 $ 20,320,152 $ 1,948,946 10.61% Total Debt Service $ 1,737,600 $ 6,496,255 $ 9,076,663 $ 2,580,408 39.72% $ 29,396,815 $ 4,529,354 cross check Northeast Metro Tech Requested Assessment $ 22,390,182 $ 24,867,461 $ 29,396,815 $ 4,529,354 18.21% DeficitBefore the capital assessment, the total assessment#REF! increase#REF! results in an increase#REF! of 10.61% #REF! . After application of the debt service payment, the total assessment increase to the member communities is 18.21% . FY25 FY26 District Actual Budget FY27 Request Enrollment Change $ Change % Change Chelsea $ 2,039,983 $ 2,273,334 $ 2,685,454 -11 $ 412,120 18.1% Malden $ 2,778,419 $ 3,251,977 $ 4,211,460 22 $ 959,483 29.5% Melrose $ 1,619,030 $ 1,951,636 $ 2,066,354 -4 $ 114,718 5.9% North Reading $ 939,751 $ 1,042,462 $ 978,721 -7 $ (63,740) -6.1% Reading $ 858,300 $ 1,295,702 $ 1,292,317 -4 $ (3,384) -0.3% Revere $ 3,285,660 $ 3,616,676 $ 4,479,006 10 $ 862,330 23.8% Saugus $ 2,621,975 $ 2,557,570 $ 3,075,825 4 $ 518,255 20.3% Stoneham $ 1,650,461 $ 1,653,036 $ 1,940,084 4 $ 287,048 17.4% Wakefield $ 2,370,610 $ 2,445,557 $ 2,834,622 5 $ 389,065 15.9% Winchester $ 143,050 $ 275,451 $ 415,254 4 $ 139,802 50.8% Winthrop $ 1,245,687 $ 1,255,602 $ 1,491,810 3 $ 236,208 18.8% Woburn $ 2,837,256 $ 3,248,457 $ 3,925,906 9 $ 677,449 20.9% Funding from Cities/Towns $ 22,390,182 $ 24,867,461 $ 29,396,815 35 $ 4,529,354 18.21% 3 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 District Assessment FY27 Budget Total Operating District Minimum Transp. Budget Adjustment Assessment Capital/Debt Total Students Enrollment Contribution Assessment Before Capital Assessment Assessment w Percentage Chelsea $ 1,062,641 $ 14,356 $ 57,219 $ 1,134,216 $ 1,551,238 $ 2,685,454 242 17.1% Malden $ 2,742,882 $ 12,992 $ 51,781 $ 2,807,655 $ 1,403,806 $ 4,211,460 219 15.5% Melrose $ 1,563,416 $ 4,449 $ 17,733 $ 1,585,598 $ 480,755 $ 2,066,354 75 5.3% N. Reading $ 744,017 $ 2,076 $ 8,275 $ 754,369 $ 224,353 $ 978,721 35 2.5% Reading $ 977,143 $ 2,788 $ 11,113 $ 991,044 $ 301,273 $ 1,292,317 47 3.3% Revere $ 2,561,137 $ 16,966 $ 67,623 $ 2,645,726 $ 1,833,281 $ 4,479,006 286 20.2% Saugus $ 2,264,419 $ 7,178 $ 28,610 $ 2,300,207 $ 775,619 $ 3,075,825 121 8.5% Stoneham $ 1,457,264 $ 4,271 $ 17,024 $ 1,478,559 $ 461,525 $ 1,940,084 72 5.1% Wakefield $ 2,143,921 $ 6,110 $ 24,354 $ 2,174,385 $ 660,237 $ 2,834,622 103 7.3% Winchester $ 314,666 $ 890 $ 3,547 $ 319,102 $ 96,151 $ 415,254 15 1.1% Winthrop $ 1,082,754 $ 3,619 $ 14,423 $ 1,100,796 $ 391,014 $ 1,491,810 61 4.3% Woburn $ 2,987,089 $ 8,305 $ 33,102 $ 3,028,496 $ 897,410 $ 3,925,906 140 9.9% Total $ 19,901,349 $ 84,000 $ 334,803 $ 20,320,152 $ 9,076,663 $ 29,396,815 1416 100% cross check $ 9,076,663 Total FY27 Operating Budget Request $ 39,439,737 Expenditures Net school Spending $ 36,620,934 Transportation $ 2,484,000 Capital Projects Fund $ - E&D $ - Supplementary Requests $ 334,803 Bond Anticipitory $ 9,076,663 $ 9,076,663 Total FY27 Request $ 48,516,400 $ 48,516,400 Available Revenues Chapter 70 Funds $ 16,719,585 Transportation Fund $ 1,600,000 1.6 mil from transportation E&D Transp $ 800,000 E&D to offset transportation increase E&D Operating $ - Total Revenues $ 19,119,585 Total Assessment $ 29,396,815 cross check $ 29,396,815 4 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 Comparison of Assessments FY27 Budget Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School Comparison of Assessments Operating Operating Variance Total Budget Total Budget Budget Budget Variance $ Variance % FY 2026 FY2027 Operating w Capital FY2026 w Capital FY2027 Gross Budget $ 34,144,463 $ 39,439,737 $ 5,295,274 $ 43,361,038 $ 48,516,400 $ 5,155,362 11.89% Less Revenues Chapter 70 Aid $ 16,193,577 $ 16,719,585 $ 526,008 $ 16,193,577 $ 16,719,585 $ 526,008 3.25% Transportation $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 200,000 14.29% Other Sources $ 900,000 $ 800,000 $ (100,000) $ 900,000 $ 800,000 (E&D + Capital) $ (100,000) -11.11% Total Revenues $ 18,493,577 $ 19,119,585 $ 626,008 $ 18,493,577 $ 19,119,585 $ 626,008 3.39% Net Assessments $ 17,178,832 $20,320,152 $ 3,141,320 $ 24,867,461 $ 29,396,815 $ 4,529,354 18.21% Chelsea $ 1,083,216 $ 1,134,216 $ 51,000 $ 2,273,334 $ 2,685,454 $ 412,120 $ 1,551,238 Malden $ 2,325,285 $ 2,807,655 $ 482,370 $ 3,251,977 $ 4,211,460 $ 959,483 $ 1,403,806 Melrose $ 1,580,018 $ 1,585,598 $ 5,580 $ 1,951,636 $ 2,066,354 $ 114,718 $ 480,755 North Reading $ 844,893 $ 754,369 $ (90,524) $ 1,042,462 $ 978,721 $ (63,740) $ 224,353 Reading $ 1,055,796 $ 991,044 $ (64,752) $ 1,295,702 $ 1,292,317 $ (3,384) $ 301,273 Revere $ 2,318,366 $ 2,645,726 $ 327,360 $ 3,616,676 $ 4,479,006 $ 862,330 $ 1,833,281 Saugus $ 2,007,200 $ 2,300,207 $ 293,007 $ 2,557,570 $ 3,075,825 $ 518,255 $ 775,619 Stoneham $ 1,333,163 $ 1,478,559 $ 145,397 $ 1,653,036 $ 1,940,084 $ 287,048 $ 461,525 Wakefield $ 1,984,563 $ 2,174,385 $ 189,822 $ 2,445,557 $ 2,834,622 $ 389,065 $ 660,237 Winchester $ 223,707 $ 319,102 $ 95,396 $ 275,451 $ 415,254 $ 139,802 $ 96,151 Winthrop $ 982,769 $ 1,100,796 $ 118,027 $ 1,255,602 $ 1,491,810 $ 236,208 $ 391,014 Woburn $ 2,632,230 $ 3,028,496 $ 396,266 $ 3,248,457 $ 3,925,906 $ 677,449 $ 897,410 Total $ 18,371,206 $ 20,320,152 $ 1,948,946 $ 24,867,461 $ 29,396,815 $ 4,529,354 $ 9,076,663 total debt asmt Enrollment Students Students Variance Contribution % Per Pupil Cost Oct 1, 2024 Oct 1, 2025 (FY26) (FY27) of Assessment Chelsea 253 242 -11 17.09% $ 11,097 Malden 197 219 22 15.47% $ 19,230 Melrose 79 75 -4 5.30% $ 27,551 North Reading 42 35 -7 2.47% $ 27,963 Reading 51 47 -4 3.32% $ 27,496 Revere 276 286 10 20.20% $ 15,661 Saugus 117 121 4 8.55% $ 25,420 Stoneham 68 72 4 5.08% $ 26,946 Wakefield 98 103 5 7.27% $ 27,521 Winchester 11 15 4 1.06% $ 27,684 Winthrop 58 61 3 4.31% $ 24,456 Woburn 131 140 9 9.89% $ 28,042 Total Enrollment 1381 1416 35 100.00% 5 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 Minimum Contribution FY27 Budget FY26 Minimum FY27 Minimum Change % increase % of Total Chelsea $ 1,006,421 $ 1,062,641 $ 56,220.00 5.6% 5.34% Malden $ 2,265,488 $ 2,742,882 $ 477,394.00 21.1% 13.78% Melrose $ 1,556,039 $ 1,563,416 $ 7,377.00 0.5% 7.86% North Reading $ 832,144 $ 744,017 $ (88,127.00) -10.6% 3.74% Reading $ 1,040,316 $ 977,143 $ (63,173.00) -6.1% 4.91% Revere $ 2,234,590 $ 2,561,137 $ 326,547.00 14.6% 12.87% Saugus $ 1,971,686 $ 2,264,419 $ 292,733.00 14.8% 11.38% Stoneham $ 1,312,522 $ 1,457,264 $ 144,742.00 11.0% 7.32% Wakefield $ 1,954,816 $ 2,143,921 $ 189,105.00 9.7% 10.77% Winchester $ 220,368 $ 314,666 $ 94,298.00 42.8% 1.58% Winthrop $ 965,164 $ 1,082,754 $ 117,590.00 12.2% 5.44% Woburn $ 2,592,467 $ 2,987,089 $ 394,622.00 15.2% 15.01% Total $ 17,952,021 $ 19,901,349 $ 1,949,328 10.86% 100.00% Total Combined Minimum Cont Debt Service Total Assessment Minimum + Debt Difference Increase Increase Increase Increase Chelsea $ 56,220 $ 361,119.84 $ 417,340 $ 412,120.06 $ (5,219.78) Malden $ 477,394 $ 477,113.43 $ 954,507 $ 959,483.14 $ 4,975.70 Melrose $ 7,377 $ 109,137.66 $ 116,515 $ 114,717.59 $ (1,797.06) North Reading $ (88,127) $ 26,783.59 $ (61,343) $ (63,740.20) $ (2,396.79) Reading $ (63,173) $ 61,368.26 $ (1,805) $ (3,384.18) $ (1,579.44) Revere $ 326,547 $ 534,970.51 $ 861,518 $ 862,330.03 $ 812.52 Saugus $ 292,733 $ 225,248.13 $ 517,981 $ 518,254.84 $ 273.71 Stoneham $ 144,742 $ 141,651.69 $ 286,394 $ 287,048.24 $ 654.55 Wakefield $ 189,105 $ 199,243.26 $ 388,348 $ 389,065.41 $ 717.15 Winchester $ 94,298 $ 44,406.84 $ 138,705 $ 139,802.40 $ 1,097.57 Winthrop $ 117,590 $ 118,181.11 $ 235,771 $ 236,207.62 $ 436.51 Woburn $ 394,622 $ 281,183.19 $ 675,805 $ 677,448.92 $ 1,643.73 $ 1,949,328 $ 2,580,408 $ 4,529,736 $ 4,529,354 $ (381.63) FY26 Debt FY27 Debt Service Service Change Chelsea $ 1,190,118 $ 1,551,238 $ 361,120 Malden $ 926,692 $ 1,403,806 $ 477,113 Melrose $ 371,618 $ 480,755 $ 109,138 North Reading $ 197,569 $ 224,353 $ 26,784 Reading $ 239,905 $ 301,273 $ 61,368 Revere $ 1,298,310 $ 1,833,281 $ 534,971 Saugus $ 550,371 $ 775,619 $ 225,248 Stoneham $ 319,874 $ 461,525 $ 141,652 Wakefield $ 460,994 $ 660,237 $ 199,243 Winchester $ 51,744 $ 96,151 $ 44,407 Winthrop $ 272,833 $ 391,014 $ 118,181 Woburn $ 616,227 $ 897,410 $ 281,183 Total $ 6,496,255 $ 9,076,663 $ 2,580,408 6 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School Total Budget Graph FY26 Budget FY17 School Committee Superintendents Office Guidance Office FY16Total BudgetBudgeted FY17 FY18 Staff FY18 $226,635 $1,246,758 $1,281,732 Debt Service Description Expended Staff Budget Request Request Change $9,076,663 Principals Office Library Media Business Office School Committee $ 184,447 2.0 $ $2,602,592 216,090 2.0 $ 226,635$101,405$ 10,545 $626,155 Superintendents Office $ 1,482,029 3.0 $ 1,333,817 3.0 $ 1,246,758Nurses $Office (87,059) Principals Office $ 2,029,231 17.0 $ 2,622,644 18.0 $ 2,602,592$217,619$ (20,052) Business Office $ 529,770 6.0 $ 603,508 6.0 $ 626,155 $ 22,647 Guidance Office $ 1,159,034 12.0 $ 1,185,160 12.0 $NE 1,281,732Athletics $ 96,572 Library Media $ 87,173 3.0 $ 190,695 1.0 $ $742,978 101,405 $ (89,290) Nurses Office $ 124,728 2.0 $ 210,703 2.0 $ 217,619 $ 6,916 NE Athletics $ 666,919 $ 707,994 $ 742,978Student$ Body 34,985 Student Body Capital Projects $ 193,820 $ 194,620 $ 212,067$212,067$ 17,447 Fixed Charges $- $ 7,299,123 $ 8,216,538 $ 8,922,113 $ 705,576 Maintenance $ 2,492,715 12.0 $ 2,554,189 13.0 $ 2,628,447 $ 74,257 Chapter 74 VocationalSTEM Programs $ 7,458,129 67.5 $ 8,033,983 69.5 $ 8,807,191 $ 773,207 Transportation TechnologyCVTE$251,943 $ 894,797 5.0 $ 955,256 5.0 $ 979,713 $ 24,457 $2,694,000 Academic$87,096 $ 4,401,110 44.5 $ 4,696,654 Fixed 43.5Charges $ 4,805,300 $ 108,646 Safety Program $ 23,660 $ 21,148 $ 21,148 $ - Foreign Language ELL $8,922,113 Special Ed $ 1,560,211 16.0 $ 1,688,381 20.0 $ 2,094,661 $ 406,280 $890,184 Foreign Language ELL $ 627,967 7.0 $ 749,824 8.0 $ 890,184 $ 140,360 CVTE Special Ed $ 74,549 $ 84,689 $ 87,096 $ 2,407 STEM $2,094,661 $ 243,718 2.0 $ 255,239 2.0 $ 251,943 $ (3,296) Transportation $ 2,220,033 $ 2,343,650 $ 2,694,000 $ 350,350 OPEB Safety Program $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - Academic Capital Projects $21,148 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $4,805,300 Total Budget $ 34,353,162 199.0 $ 36,864,783 205.0Maintenance$ 39,439,737 $ 2,574,954 Chapter 74 Vocational $2,628,447 Programs $8,807,191 Technology $979,713 7 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School Total Budget FY27 Budget FY26 FY25 Budgeted FY26 FY27 Staff FY27 Description Expended Staff Budget Request Request Change % Change School Committee $ 184,447 2.0 $ 216,090 2.0 $ 226,635 $ 10,545 4.88% Superintendents Office $ 1,482,029 3.0 $ 1,333,817 3.0 $ 1,246,758 $ (87,059) -6.53% Principals Office $ 2,029,231 17.0 $ 2,622,644 18.0 $ 2,602,592 $ (20,052) -0.76% Business Office $ 529,770 6.0 $ 603,508 6.0 $ 626,155 $ 22,647 3.75% Guidance Office $ 1,159,034 12.0 $ 1,185,160 12.0 $ 1,281,732 $ 96,572 8.15% Library Media $ 87,173 3.0 $ 190,695 1.0 $ 101,405 $ (89,290) -46.82% Nurses Office $ 124,728 2.0 $ 210,703 2.0 $ 217,619 $ 6,916 3.28% NE Athletics $ 666,919 $ 707,994 $ 742,978 $ 34,985 4.94% Student Body $ 193,820 $ 194,620 $ 212,067 $ 17,447 8.96% Fixed Charges $ 7,299,123 $ 8,216,538 $ 8,922,113 $ 705,576 8.59% Maintenance $ 2,492,715 12.0 $ 2,554,189 13.0 $ 2,628,447 $ 74,257 2.91% Chapter 74 Vocational Programs $ 7,458,129 67.5 $ 8,033,983 69.5 $ 8,807,191 $ 773,207 9.62% Technology $ 894,797 5.0 $ 955,256 5.0 $ 979,713 $ 24,457 2.56% Academic $ 4,401,110 44.5 $ 4,696,654 43.5 $ 4,805,300 $ 108,646 2.31% Safety Program $ 23,660 $ 21,148 $ 21,148 $ - Special Ed $ 1,560,211 16.0 $ 1,688,381 20.0 $ 2,094,661 $ 406,280 24.06% Foreign Language ELL $ 627,967 7.0 $ 749,824 8.0 $ 890,184 $ 140,360 18.72% CVTE $ 74,549 $ 84,689 $ 87,096 $ 2,407 2.84% STEM $ 243,718 2.0 $ 255,239 2.0 $ 251,943 $ (3,296) -1.29% Transportation $ 2,220,033 $ 2,343,650 $ 2,694,000 $ 350,350 14.95% Capital Projects $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ 5,211,350 $ 6,496,255 $ 9,076,663 $ 2,580,408 39.72% Total Budget $ 38,964,512 199.0 $ 43,361,038 205.0 $ 48,516,400 $ 5,155,361 11.89% 8 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School Total Expense Summary FY27 Budget FY26 FY27 FY25 Budgeted FY26 Staff FY27 Description Expended Staff Budget Request Request Change % Change Total Professional Salary $ 16,423,882 157.0 $ 18,152,282 161.0 $ 19,291,745 $ 1,139,463 6.28% Total Support Salary $ 919,011 13.0 $ 1,026,921 13.0 $ 1,035,287 $ 8,366 0.81% Total Other Salary $ 2,579,168 29.0 $ 2,838,082 31.0 $ 3,129,796 $ 291,714 10.28% Total Contracted Services $ 12,046,225 $ 13,061,949 $ 14,015,242 $ 953,293 7.30% Total Supplies and Materials $ 1,639,113 $ 1,538,376 $ 1,890,644 $ 352,268 22.90% Total Equipment $ 145,763 $ 247,173 $ 77,023 $ (170,150) -68.84% Total Debt Service $ 5,211,350 $ 6,496,255 $ 9,076,663 $ 2,580,408 39.72% Total Budget $ 38,964,512 199.0 $ 43,361,038 205.0 $ 48,516,400 $ 5,155,361 11.89% $77,023 $9,076,663 0.16% 18.71% $1,890,644 $19,291,745 3.90% 39.76% Total Professional Salary Total Support Salary Total Other Salary $14,015,242 Total Contracted Services 28.89% Total Supplies and Materials $3,129,796 6.45% Total Equipment Total Debt Service $1,035,287 2.13% 9 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School Total Summary FY27 Budget FY26 FY27 FY25 Budgeted FY26 Staff FY27 Description Expended Staff Budget Request Request Change % Change Total Salary $ 19,922,061 199.0 $ 22,017,285 205.0 $ 23,456,828 $ 1,439,543 6.54% Total Non Salary $ 19,042,451 $ 21,343,753 $ 25,059,571 $ 3,715,818 17.41% Total Budget $ 38,964,512 199.0 $ 43,361,038 205.0 $ 48,516,400 $ 5,155,361 11.89% $23,456,828 $25,059,571 48.35% 51.65% Total Salary Total Non Salary 10 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School FY27 Budget Presentation to FinCom May 26, 2026 GOAL OF THE FY27 BUDGET • The FY27 budget is designed to minimize the financial impact on our member communities while addressing the challenges created by limited increases in state funding and rising Net School Spending requirements. • At the same time, the budget seeks to ensure sufficient funding to support student learning, maintain high educational standards, and continue providing a high-quality vocational and academic experience for all students. MINIMIZING FINANCIAL IMPACT • Regionalization allows the District to provide high-quality educational services at a lower overall cost to our member communities, while ensuring equitable access to programs and opportunities for all students. • While the target of 3% has been discussed in past budgets, due to the decrease in the chapter 70 allocation and net school spending requirements, we have had to adjust that target, as 3% is no longer feasible. Our new goal is to restrict assessment increases to the minimum allowable contribution by mandate and the debt service. • In FY27 we were able to achieve that goal, and the District has taken multiple steps to reduce the financial burden on member communities wherever possible.CHALLENGING FISCAL ENVIRONMENT • FY27 presents another challenging fiscal environment for the District. The budget is affected by lower-than-anticipated Chapter 70 state aid and a significant increase in the required Net School Spending threshold. • Under the DESE Net School Spending formula, which determines the minimum amount a district must spend on educational programs and services, Northeast Metro Tech is required to spend $2,475,336 more than in FY26 to meet the mandated threshold. • Typically, increases in Net School Spending are largely offset by Chapter 70 state funding, allowing the District to limit additional financial contributions from member communities. • However, in FY27 the Chapter 70 increase totaled $526,008, leaving a remaining funding gap of $1,949,328 that must be supported through increased contributions from the member municipalities.Chapter 70 Trend-Heading in The Wrong Direction Chapter 70 Increase Required District Contribution Increase Student ChangeDEBT SERVICE PAYMENT NORMALIZATION • We were able to reduce the debt service payment in FY26 to $6,496,255 as we utilized a one time payment of $2.7 million dollars from our Excess and Deficiency funds to reduce that burden to our members in anticipation for a difficult fiscal year. • In FY27, the payment returns to its normal level. ANALYZING FINANCIAL IMPACT-DEBT SERVICE Debt ServiceANALYZING FINANCIAL IMPACT-DEBT SERVICE AND REQUIRED MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION INCREASE Debt Service and Minimum Total FY26 Assessment Increase Contribution Increase $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 Total, $ $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 4,529,736 $ 4,529,354 Minimum $ 4,000,000 Contribution $ 4,000,000 Increase, $ 1,949,328 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Debt Service $ 1,000,000 Increase, $ $ 1,000,000 2,580,408 $ - $ - FY27 Debt Service Increase Minimum Contribution Increase Total Assessment MINIMIZING FINANCIAL IMPACT: HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS Assessment Increase MINIMIZING FINANCIAL IMPACT: HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS Year Previous Current Assessment Assessment % Change Assessment Increase FY18 $13,858,182 $14,115,769 $257,587 1.86% FY19 $14,115,769 $14,451,886 $336,117 2.38% FY20 $14,451,886 $14,727,254 $275,368 1.91% FY21 $14,727,254 $15,015,717 $288,463 1.96% FY22 $15,015,717 $15,465,903 $450,186 3.00% FY23 $15,465,903 $17,464,552 $1,998,648 12.92%* FY24 $17,464,552 $17,950,172 $485,620 2.78% FY25 $17,950,172 $22,390,182 $4,440,010 24.74%* FY26 $22,390,182 $24,867,461 $2,477,279 11.06% FY27 $24,867,461 $29,396,815 $4,529,354 18.21%MINIMIZING FINANCIAL IMPACT: STATE FUNDING Chapter 70 Aid Transportation AidMINIMIZING FINANCIAL IMPACT: REVENUE Ø Based on our Chapter 70 formula calculation, Northeast Metro Tech is projected to receive $16,719,585 in aid for FY27. This amount is $526,008 higher than our aid in FY26. Ø The District also anticipates receiving $1,600,000 in transportation reimbursement, representing an increase of $200,000 over FY26. We will receive those funds in this fiscal year that will be used to offset the FY27 budget. Ø Additionally we intend to use $800,000 from our Excess and Deficiency funds (E&D), which will be used to directly reduce assessment costs, mainly reducing the transportation cost assessed to our members due to the increase of busses required to transport our students to the new facility. ØIn total, we plan to use $2,400,000 of other funds to reduce the member assessment. PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF FUNDING FY27 presents the following fiscal challenges: Meeting contractual salary obligations, including step and lane increases required under collective bargaining agreements • Supporting new instructional staff needed to accommodate enrollment growth and expanded programming, including new teachers in Biotechnology, Construction Craft Laborer, Marketing, Medical Assisting, Reading, and Special Education • Funding additional custodial and security staff necessary to operate and maintain the new school facility • Addressing increased transportation costs, including the addition of a 24th bus to support growing student enrollment • Funding rising health insurance and operational costs associated with maintaining the new building • Providing adequate supplies and materials to support expanded vocational programs and the new facility These investments ensure that Northeast Metro Tech can continue to provide high-quality vocational and academic programming while supporting the needs of a growing student population. PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF FUNDING FY27 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST FY25 FY26 FY27 FY26/FY27 Expense Budget Budget Request Change % Change $23,456,82 Total Salary $20,551,718 $22,017,285 8 $1,439,543 6.54% $14,015,84 Total Contracted Services $12,061,541 $13,062,549 2 $ 953,293 7.30% Total Supplies $1,393,072 $1,538,376 $1,890,644 $ 352,268 22.90% Total Equipment $138,132 $246,573 $76,423 $ -170,150 69.01% Total Debt Service $5,211,350 $6,496,255 $9,076,663 $ 2,580,408 39.72% $48,516,40 NortheastTotal Metropolitan Budget Regional $39,355,813 Vocational $43,361,038 School's total operating0 $expense 5,155,361 with debt service11.89% for FY27 is projected to be $48,516,400; 11.89% or $5,155,361 over FY26 total operating budget of $43,361,038. FY27 BUDGET OFFSET SUMMARY FY25 FY26 Budget FY26 Budget Funding Summary Change Budget Final Request Final Request Northeast Metro Tech Total Operating Expense $34,144,463 $36,864,783 $39,439,737 $2,574,954 Total Debt Service $5,211,350 $6,496,255 $9,076,663 $2,580,408 Total Revenue Applied to $ 16,965,631 $18,493,577 $19,119,585 $626,008 Budget Northeast Metro Tech $22,390,182 $24,867,461 $29,396,815 Requested Assessment $4,529,354 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School's total assessment for FY27 is projected to be $29,396,815; 18.21% or $4,529,354 over FY26 total operating assessment of $24,867,461. This increase is mainly attributed to the increase in debt service payment of $2,580,408, and the increase of minimum required contribution. TOTAL FY27 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY (INCLUDES DEBT SERVICE) FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Student FY26 to FY27 District Assessment Assessment Assessment Increase Increase % Change $ Chelsea $ 2,039,983 2,273,334 $ 2,685,454 -11 $ 412,120 18.1% $ Malden $ 2,778,419 3,251,977 $ 4,211,460 22 $ 959,483 29.5% $ Melrose $ 1,619,030 1,951,636 $ 2,066,354 -4 $ 114,718 5.9% $ North Reading $ 939,751 1,042,462 $ 978,721 -7 $ (63,740) -6.1% $ Reading $ 858,300 1,295,702 $ 1,292,317 -4 $ (3,384) -0.3% $ Revere $ 3,285,660 3,616,676 $ 4,479,006 10 $ 862,330 23.8% $ Saugus $ 2,621,975 2,557,570 $ 3,075,825 4 $ 518,255 20.3% $ Stoneham $ 1,650,461 1,653,036 $ 1,940,084 4 $ 287,048 17.4% $ Wakefield $ 2,370,610 2,445,557 $ 2,834,622 5 $ 389,065 15.9% $ Winchester $ 143,050 275,451 $ 415,254 4 $ 139,802 50.8% $ Winthrop $ 1,245,687 1,255,602 $ 1,491,810 3 $ 236,208 18.8% $ Woburn $ 2,837,256 3,248,457 $ 3,925,906 9 $ 677,449 20.9% Funding from $ Cities/Towns $ 22,390,182 24,867,461 $ 29,396,815 35 $ 4,529,354 18.21% FY27 OPERATIONAL/DEBT SERVICE BREAKOUT City/Town Total FY27 Total FY27 Total FY27 Final Operating Assessment Debt Service Assessment Chelsea $ 1,134,216 $ 1,551,238 $ 2,685,454 Malden $ 2,807,655 $ 1,403,806 $ 4,211,460 Melrose $ 1,585,598 $ 480,755 $ 2,066,354 N. Reading $ 754,369 $ 224,353 $ 978,721 Reading $ 991,044 $ 301,273 $ 1,292,317 Revere $ 2,645,726 $ 1,833,281 $ 4,479,006 Saugus $ 2,300,207 $ 775,619 $ 3,075,825 Stoneham $ 1,478,559 $ 461,525 $ 1,940,084 Wakefield $ 2,174,385 $ 660,237 $ 2,834,622 Winchester $ 319,102 $ 96,151 $ 415,254 Winthrop $ 1,100,796 $ 391,014 $ 1,491,810 Woburn $ 3,028,496 $ 897,410 $ 3,925,906 Total $ 20,320,152 $ 9,076,663 $ 29,396,815 CITY OF MELROSE Auditor’s Office City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 To: Melrose City Council From: Kerriann Golden, CFO/City Auditor Date: May 28, 2026 Re: Fiscal Year 2027 School Appropriation Please be advised that the number presented in the Fiscal Year 2027 Operating budget of $49,332,180 encompasses the anticipated increase in Chapter 70 of $332,180. On April 14th, 2026, The Melrose School Committee voted a Fiscal Year 2027 School budget based on a City Appropriation of $49,000,000. On April 16th, 2026, the Massachusetts House of Representatives Ways & Means Committee recommended an increase in Chapter 70 of $332,180 for Melrose. The increase in Chapter 70 was included in the Fiscal 2027 appropriation to Melrose Public Schools and will be available to the school once both the City and State’s budget is approved. 4/14/26 School Committee Appropriation 49,000,000.00 4/16/26 Chapter 70 increase recommendation 332,180.00 Total Fiscal 2027 School Appropriation 49,332,180.00 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Department of Public Works Name of Department Head: Elena Proakis Ellis, Director 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Melrose Department of Public Works provides quality services to the community in the areas of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, recycling, parks, forestry, fleet, highway, cemetery, facilities, engineering, and administration, while promoting health, safety, sustainability, and fiscal responsibility through the teamwork and commitment of an honest and dependable workforce. The DPW’s budget is a combination of several components. The general fund operating budget is broken down into budgets for: 1) Administration and Engineering 2) Facilities Maintenance 3) Highway 4) Snow Removal 5) Sanitation 6) Parks and Forestry 7) Automotive 8) Wyoming Cemetery In addition, the DPW manages three enterprise funds with independent budgets: Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste/Recycling. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2026, these are some of the items DPW has completed: • Potholes filled: 189 locations • Storms responded to: 42 inches of snow (not including salting operations, plowable storms only) • Vehicles in fleet maintained: 144 pc. of equipment • Tonnage of trash/recycling: o 4,633.70 tons of trash o 1,648.67 tons of recycling • Parks/fields/open spaces maintained: 82 locations • Total work orders resolved: 3,496 (908 facilities and 2,588 operations) • Invoices processed: 1,235 purchase orders • Recycled 230 mattresses as part of the mattress recycling drop-off program The Department of Public Works also played a critical role in several large projects/events such as: • Capital projects including paving, water main replacement, sewer main improvements, and drainage improvements FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 • Support of City events including school sports, elections, memorials, Earth Week, Victorian Fair, and private facility rentals • Applied for and received multiple grants for infrastructure and environmental initiatives, including acceptance in to the Massachusetts State Building Association’s Accelerated Repair Program for the Melrose High School Learning Commons Roof and roofing and other building improvements at the Franklin School. 3. FY 27 Priorities: The DPW’s priorities for FY27 include getting back up to full staffing levels by filling critical vacancies with quality staff, implementing important infrastructure and facilities projects that have been funded by grants and by the FY26 supplemental budget, and keeping up on essential services provided daily by the department. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? The DPW’s FY27 budget is largely unchanged from the FY26 supplemental budget, with a return to full staffing and level-funding of many of our contractual and materials/supplies line items, except where contract pricing showed significant increases in competitively bid on-call contracts. Salary line items show step increases but do not yet reflect the outcome of ongoing contract negotiations with both our laborers and clerical unions. Several staff members have been shifted between DPW Divisions to more accurately reflect the workload of the department and routine assignments of those roles. These moves resulted in no net change in our total number of employees funded through the general fund and through each of our enterprise funds. Rising energy costs are reflected in our facilities budget and continue to be outside of the City’s control. We continue to implement energy efficiency projects and look for savings wherever feasible, such as through demand management programs. Finally, some of the capital line items (paving, sidewalks, facilities) from the FY26 supplemental budget have been maintained into FY27, allowing the department to continue implementing critical infrastructure repairs and replacements as needs arise and to plan for small projects in the coming year. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? Many line items within DPW’s Facilities budget are directly related to school spending. These include items such as: • Custodial and maintenance staff • Contracted work such as cleaning and inspections within school buildings • Maintenance and repairs of school facilities • Capital repairs and upgrades of school buildings • A portion of administrative staff time and resources to oversee all of the above FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The successful override has allowed DPW to fully fund our prior staffing levels, critical to providing essential services to the City, and has grown our ability to respond to capital needs. The DPW (including Engineering, Operations, and Facilities) submitted nearly 100 projects to the capital improvement plan program. These are necessary upgrades and repairs all over Melrose that require attention, such as paving, roof replacements, Melrose High School bathrooms, drainage improvements, etc. The DPW is better able to plan for and address these needs with adequate funding, allowing us to be more proactive and less reactive. Furthermore, the availability of free cash is allowing the DPW to get back into a cycle of vehicle replacements that is sorely needed, especially during winter operations when failing equipment can result in immediate safety hazards. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: IT Department Name of Department Head: Tom Smulligan 1. Department Overview and Mission: The IT Department plays a critical role in ensuring the continuity of day-to-day city and school operations by maintaining the health and reliability of our network and server infrastructure. This includes keeping all network equipment properly configured and operational, ensuring servers remain online and secure, and maintaining robust backup and disaster recovery systems across both municipal and school environments. In addition to supporting ongoing operations, the department partners with city and school leadership to plan, design, and implement new technology systems. This includes providing guidance on new construction and renovation projects to ensure buildings are equipped to meet modern technological and connectivity needs. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: In Fiscal Year 2026, the IT Department made strong progress in improving technology, security, and instructional support across both the City and School District. We upgraded public address systems at the High School and Roosevelt School, supported MCAS testing with updated Chromebooks and carts, and enhanced learning environments through High School Art and CAD lab upgrades, new projectors at MVMMS, and a district-wide staff Chromebook rollout. We also completed student Chromebook refreshes at Lincoln Elementary and High School. From a security and infrastructure standpoint, we improved camera systems across multiple schools and upgraded door access controls at City Hall to strengthen building security and management. At the same time, we faced several challenges. The retirement of our primary Munis operator required a transition of critical system knowledge. We also experienced ongoing school technology staffing shortages and implemented necessary network security and topology changes in our production environment. Despite these challenges, the department continued to deliver key improvements that support education, operations, and public safety. 3. FY 27 Priorities: For Fiscal Year 2027, the IT Department will focus on strengthening instructional technology, expanding security systems, and improving resiliency across municipal operations. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 At the High School, we plan to upgrade interactive classroom displays to support modern teaching and collaboration. We will also continue phased Chromebook upgrades at the elementary level to ensure students have reliable, up-to-date devices. From a facilities and safety perspective, we will expand door access control systems across additional buildings and continue upgrading school public address systems to enhance communication and emergency response. To better serve our community, we will implement language line services across all city departments, improving accessibility for non-English-speaking residents. On the infrastructure side, we will prioritize municipal phone system resiliency upgrades to ensure continuity of operations, along with firewall modernization and high availability enhancements to strengthen network reliability. Finally, we will continue to advance our cybersecurity posture, including expanded adoption of FIDO2 authentication, to better protect city and school systems from evolving threats. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? For Fiscal Year 2027, the IT Department’s budget reflects targeted investments in both capital improvements and physical security, with $525,000 allocated for capital projects and $325,000 dedicated to security enhancements. These investments support continued modernization of critical infrastructure, including classroom technology, network systems, and communication platforms. The security funding allows us to expand physical protections such as door access control systems and camera coverage across city and school buildings, strengthening our ability to monitor, secure, and manage facilities effectively. As a result, service delivery will benefit from improved system reliability, enhanced building security, and a more consistent technology environment across departments. These upgrades also help us to better support staff and students while reducing operational risk and improving response capabilities. Overall, the FY27 budget enables the department to maintain current service levels while making strategic investments in infrastructure and physical security that support long-term operational stability and safety. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? The IT Department budget includes several costs that directly support the Melrose Public Schools and help ensure reliable day-to-day operations across the district. These costs include firewall protections, phone systems, student Chromebooks, teacher and staff devices, network infrastructure, projectors and interactive displays, PA systems, door control systems and maintenance, and broader security-related improvements. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 These investments support both instructional technology and the underlying infrastructure needed to keep schools connected, secure, and operational. They also help ensure that staff and students have the tools and systems necessary to support teaching, learning, communication, and building safety. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The Proposition 2 1/2 override approved by Melrose voters in November has had a positive impact on the IT Department’s FY27 budget by restoring and increasing our capital improvement funds. This additional funding allows the department to continue addressing deferred technology needs and move forward with planned upgrades to infrastructure, instructional technology, and security systems. As a result, we are better positioned to maintain reliable service, improve system stability, and support both city and school operations more effectively throughout the year. Overall, the override provides meaningful flexibility to invest in long-term technology needs that directly support operational continuity and modernization. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Office of Planning and Community Development Name of Department Head: Lori Massa 1. Department Overview and Mission: It is the mission of the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) to protect and enhance the quality of life in Melrose. To accomplish this mission OPCD provides long range planning, manages select capital improvement projects, recommends and implements zoning amendments, creates GIS maps and spatial analysis, applies for and administers grants and community development programs and implements special projects. Additionally, OPCD supports the administrative and technical work of several Boards and Commissions in the City and reviews all major land use proposals, including subdivision plans and conservation regulations. Details are in the accomplishment section below. Long range plans that the Departments creates and implements: • Melrose Forward Community and Master Plan 2017-2027 • Housing Production Plan 2022-April 13, 2027 • Open Space & Recreation Plan 2023-2033 • Wayfinding & Creative Placemaking Plan • Net Zero Action Plan 2022-2027 Staff: • Lori Massa, AICP, Planning Director • Jane Pitts, Account Manager & GIS Analyst (shared with DPW & Assessing) • Maya Noviski, Senior Planner • Adam Forrester, Assistant Planner • Ingrid Winkler, Conservation Agent • James Horne, Energy Advocate – grant funded position • Denise Gaffey, Project Manager for the Public Safety Building Construction Projects Staff are members of committees: • North Suburban Consortium (NSC) for HOME fund disbursement with 8 neighboring communities • Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) • MAPC Inner Core Committee • MAPC Metro Mayors Coalition Housing Taskforce • Local School Health and Safety Committee • Affordable Housing Trust Fund • Capital Improvement Program 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Boards and Commissions So far this fiscal year managed: FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 • Planning Board: o Handled 4 applications for approval including 62 residential units (9 affordable), commercial space and an Accessory Dwelling Unit that required Site Plan Approval; o Design Review Subcommittee review of signage, and follow-up of exterior material and conditions of approval for 6 other cases o Managing follow-up on conditions of approval for 9 previously approved projects under development including assisting with upcoming lotteries for affordable housing units. o These projects will increase our tax base, revitalize underutilized and vacant buildings, and help fill the local demand for more housing. • Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): o 32 new cases including two 40B Comprehensive Permits o Managing follow-up on conditions of approval for three 40B Comprehensive Permits • Conservation Commission handled cases for permitting, wetlands regulation enforcement, compliance and other activities including: o Working with the Police Department and DPW to reduce incidents of illegal dumping in certain areas where such dumping frequently occurs o Implementing a new technique for water quality treatment at Ell Pond with filters at inlets o Participated in community events including the Victorian Fair, educating those in the community on the important values of wetlands and Conservation land o Drafted a new policy regarding encroachments onto Conservation land o Reviewing and addressing encroachments by property owners onto adjacent Conservation land to ensure these areas remain protected • Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board o Created and accepted Mission and Guidelines o Processed and accepted first grant application o Held a meeting with housing groups to discuss the Board’s newly created guidelines • Historic District Commission o 4 cases to review and make determinations on exterior changes within the Local Historic District – currently downtown from Emerson Street to Foster Street o Wrote the Preliminary Study Report and undergoing process to designate 244 Main Street as the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District • Historical Commission o Staffing the HC for cases that fall under the newly approved demolition review ordinance o Developing criteria for determinations and the application form • Redevelopment Authority o Expended the remaining funds and taking steps to officially dissolve the board Housing and Permitting • Applied for and received designation for Melrose to be a Housing Choice Community • Wrote Demolition Review Ordinance • Requested and received Temporary Safe Harbor Status under the 40B law and updated the State’s Subsidized Housing Inventory • Put forth adoption and implementation of the ‘Mullin Rule’ for the City’s land use boards/commissions • Increased application fees for OPCD staffed Boards/Commissions and updated the City Codes, Rules and Regulations, and application forms • Implemented and maintaining the City’s Vacant Storefront Program • Housing monitoring and data submission FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 o Submitted housing data to MAPC to meet regional goals o Submitted housing data to the Census o Monitor inclusionary affordable units for continued compliance and rent request approvals o Managed the restrictions of a re-sale of an affordable condominium that was transferred from the NSC to the City as required by the agreements Graphic Information Systems (GIS) • Cemetery project advancement which includes substantial data cleaning and digitization into a database that links to a map that will be available online. • Continue to maintain the City’s GIS data and online map, which provides residents and staff spatial data, and connections with the building permit software, assessors’ records and maps, and aerial images of the City. • Submission of the annual report of parcel data to MassGIS, including updates to N911 address additions and changes. • Maintained and updated the City’s infrastructure layers, including water, sewer, stormwater, conservation areas, and FEMA-related data. • Created maps for special projects such as the demolition review ordinance analysis, affordable unit locations for the Affordable Housing Trust and utilities and operations (snow and trash route) map updates. Energy and Sustainability • The Energy Advocate has held outreach events and individual coaching to homeowners, renters/landlords, and income-eligible residents to help them navigate and take advantage of Mass Save incentives for insulation, air sealing, weatherization, heat pump hot water heaters, and heating system upgrades. • Help with the administration of the Melrose Community Power program to protect residents from astronomical increases in energy costs. • Submitted the Green Communities Annual Report to continue this designation. • Applied for grants related to energy efficiency and renewal energy projects as noted below. Long Range Planning • Continuing to advance the School Facilities Master Plan • Surplus Municipal Land Study (Ripley School and Police Station) – in progress • Working with the Engineering Department on updates to the Ell Pond stormwater management project, Mystic River Watershed Resilient Facilities Project (MVP) with Housing Authority, & Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Planning 2.0 project • Working with the Mayor’s Office and MAPC on the Memorial Hall operations plan Grants and Project Management • Completion of the majority of the MassWorks grant management for the reconstruction of the culvert by Ell Pond, which has been installed. Our request to extend the deadline to use the remaining funds of the grant was approved by the State so that the site restoration can be done once the private development is farther along. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 • Design and construction management of the Milano Park Project with Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund Earmark and the Redevelopment Authority Funds • Housing Production Plan Implementation Zoning Work with a Community Planning One Stop Grant – hiring consultant and work will start soon. • Applied for and received the Climate Leader Community TA Grant for designing the MVMMS and MHS heat pumps in auditorium/admin & solar on the DPW salt shed • Applied for a Green Communities Grant for Phase 2 of the MVMMS BMS Control & Energy Advocacy Outreach Efforts • Melrose’s Community Development Revolving Programs – awarding applicants signage grants 3. FY 27 Priorities: • Housing Production Plan Implementation Zoning Work • Housing Production Plan Update – if funding awarded • Downtown Parking Study – if funding awarded • Towners Pond hydro-raking – if funding awarded • Implementing the recommendations of the study for the Riley School and Police Station Sites • Finalizing the School Facilities Master Plan • Continuing the review and follow-up of the applications to the Boards & Commissions • Cemetery Digitization Project Completion • Grant reporting and collaboration with DPW on the awarded grants for green infrastructure projects 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? The changes in OPCD’s budget for FY27 are the expected salary increases and the movement of the energy initiative line item into professional services to better reflect the current use of the money now that the grant for the Energy Advocate and related outreach is in place. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? The administration of the School Facilities Master Plan, grants for green capital projects for school buildings, and participation on the School Health and Safety Committee are current activities that support the Melrose Public Schools which occupy a portion of the staff time in the Office of Planning and Community Development. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The Override has allowed us to include visioning sessions with school staff for the School Facilities Master Plan, which will greatly enhance the quality of the recommendations of the study having this input on programing space deficiencies, the quality of the existing spaces, and learner/developmental impacts of space. We are being fiscally conservative by not filling the role of the Sustainability Manager position, which has been vacant since 2023. We are trying to keep up with the related grant opportunities that allow for the FY 27 Budget Memo page. 4 replacement of failing building systems with energy efficient systems that also have the financial benefits of utility cost reductions. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 5 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Health and Human Services Name of Department Head: Anthony Chui 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Melrose Health and Human Services (HHS) Department operates through a regional agreement with the Towns of Wakefield and Stoneham, sharing staff positions and coordinating joint programming. The Melrose Board of Health, made up of three members, meets monthly and as needed to set policy, adopt regulations, and enforce local and state public health laws. In FY26, the department continued to strengthen its core public health responsibilities while expanding efforts to support social services and community well-being. Staff conducted restaurant inspections, issued permits, oversaw public and semi-public pools, and monitored farmers markets and temporary events. The department also managed environmental health functions that included dumpster compliance, nuisance complaints, rodent investigations, and closures of massage and bodywork establishments when required. HHS addressed a wide range of housing and human services concerns, including routine housing inspections, hoarding situations, elder neglect or abuse referrals, and cases involving housing instability, such as residents navigating Section 8 and other voucher programs. These efforts were closely connected to ongoing case management and support services provided by the department’s Human Services team. Animal Control services were also part of this work, responding to domestic animal concerns, investigating neglect or abuse-related complaints, and supporting community safety. School nursing services are also part of the HHS Department and played a key role in supporting student health throughout the year. School nurses provided daily medical care, managed chronic conditions, responded to emergencies, and collaborated with families, school staff, and community partners to keep students healthy and ready to learn. Mental health, behavioral health, and access to social services remained top priorities across all areas of work. To address these needs, the HHS Department worked in partnership with other city departments, community organizations, and dedicated volunteers to strengthen supports and improve the overall health of Melrose residents. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: The department made significant progress across public health, school health, and community services. Public Health Nurses convened a regional training for summer camp leadership to review Massachusetts Department of Public Health regulations and enforcement requirements. They continued to offer regular blood pressure clinics and supported workforce development by serving as preceptors for nursing students. As fiscal agent for the Public Health Excellence grant serving six communities, the department sustained professional development and continuing education for health inspection staff. School Nurses remained a vital resource for students, families, and school staff, providing daily support across physical health, mental health, behavioral health, and chronic disease management. The department also conducted extensive research and analysis on kratom, supporting the Board of Health in its decision to prohibit local sales based on safety concerns and staff recommendations. Food safety work remained strong, with all required inspections completed and several new establishments opening during FY26. The department also faced several challenges throughout the year. School Nurse shortages created periods when some schools were under-covered, requiring frequent coordination and flexibility to maintain essential services. Staff continued to manage rising service demands, including more complex environmental, housing, and human services cases. 3. FY 27 Priorities: The department’s priorities for FY27 focus on strengthening core public health services and expanding community outreach. A key goal is to increase opportunities for animal control and animal health education through the new regional Animal Control partnership, including more proactive enforcement and potential community events. The department will continue to maintain strong inspection and school nursing programs to ensure safety, compliance, and consistent support for students and families. Additional priorities include expanding the reach of the Youth Action Team to engage more young people in prevention and wellness initiatives and completing a comprehensive review and revision of all existing Board of Health regulations to ensure they remain current, effective, and aligned with community needs. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? The FY27 budget includes several important changes that strengthen the department’s ability to meet growing community needs. Funding from the Proposition 2½ Override supports the addition of a floating School Nurse, which provides essential coverage across all school buildings. This improves service delivery by ensuring a nurse is always available on site to manage urgent medical needs, respond to multiple incidents at once, and maintain safe nurse‑to‑student ratios, especially in larger schools. The budget also expands the department’s capacity to address domestic animal issues through the addition of a Regional Animal Control Officer shared with Wakefield and Stoneham while still being cost- effective. This enhancement improves enforcement of existing regulations such as the leash law, strengthens follow‑up on animal bite reports, and supports investigations of potential neglect or abuse. It also allows the department to take a more proactive role in community education and to explore new public outreach activities, including the possibility of hosting rabies clinics. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? The Health and Human Services budget includes several key costs that directly support the Melrose Public Schools. All School Nurse positions are funded through the Health Department, ensuring that each school has the medical support needed to keep students safe and able to learn. In addition to clinical care, School Nurses manage chronic conditions, respond to emergencies, support mental and behavioral health needs, and collaborate with families and staff. The department also provides indirect support to the school community through substance use prevention and mental health initiatives. This includes analysis of Youth Risk Behavior Survey data, programming such as Screenagers, alcohol awareness campaigns, gambling‑prevention materials, and other health education efforts that strengthen student well‑being and complement the work of the schools. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The Proposition 2½ Override will help strengthen the Health and Human Services budget for FY27 and allowed the department to address two significant operational needs. First, the budget supports the addition of a full-time floating School Nurse to ensure consistent coverage across all school buildings. Due to the nature of student medical needs, the City is required to have a nurse on site to maintain safety. When a nurse is out, the nurse‑to‑student ratio increases sharply, especially in larger schools such as the middle and high school. The additional floating nurse will help maintain safe staffing levels, reduce the strain caused by unexpected absences, and ensure timely response when multiple medical incidents occur simultaneously. The override also enhances the department’s ability to respond to domestic animal issues through the addition of a Regional Animal Control Officer shared with Wakefield and Stoneham. This increased capacity strengthens enforcement of existing regulations such as the leash law, supports timely follow‑up on animal bite reports, and allows for investigations related to possible neglect or abuse. With this added staff support, the department can also take a more proactive role in community education and explore opportunities for public‑facing initiatives such as rabies clinics. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: Inspectional Services Name of Department Head: Albert Talarico 1. Department Overview and Mission: The Inspectional Services Department consists of the Director, one Administrative Assistant, and three part-time inspectors (Building, Electrical, and Gas/Plumbing). The Department’s mission is to ensure public safety and protect the quality of life in Melrose through the enforcement of life safety codes, consumer protection laws, health regulations, and land use laws. We are committed to communicating clearly, educating the public, and providing professional, responsive service. We strive to uphold these standards with integrity while serving a diverse community. 2. FY 26 Accomplishments/Challenges: Over the past year, we made significant improvements to our permitting system, Simplicity. We worked closely with the software provider to expand access and allow other departments to review and approve building permit applications. We successfully integrated the Treasurer’s Office, Office of Planning and Community Development, Fire Department, and Engineering Department into the permitting workflow at no additional cost. This enhancement improves the collection of outstanding taxes, reduces interdepartmental miscommunication, and ensures more thorough permit review prior to approval. Overall, these changes have increased accountability, streamlined operations, and improved customer service. 3. FY 27 Priorities: Continue to educate the public on the Department’s role through improvements to the City website, while maintaining a high level of customer service. 4. What has changed in the Department’s Budget for FY 27? As a result of these changes, what are the corresponding service delivery impacts? Due to prior budget constraints, several line items were reduced. We are requesting that these items be restored to their original levels. • Printing Services (reduced by 18.8%) Reduced from $400 to $325 annually. Impact is minimal if limited to one year. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 • Books and Subscriptions (reduced by 30.6%) Reduced from $1,000 to $750 annually. This is manageable unless new state code updates require the purchase of additional materials. • Weights & Measures Supplies (reduced by 33.3%) Reduced from $1,500 to $1,000 annually. Minimal impact if limited to one year. • Education and Seminars (reduced by 50%) Reduced from $2,600 to $1,300 annually. This reduction presents challenges, as inspectors are required to complete continuing education and maintain certifications. While manageable for one year, this is not sustainable long-term. 5. What costs, if any, are housed in your department’s budget to support the Melrose Public Schools? None. 6. What impacts, if any, has the Proposition 2 ½ Override Melrose voters approved in November had on your Department’s Budget for FY 27? The override has allowed us to maintain current staffing levels, which supports workload management, emergency response, customer service, and staff retention. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: 931 Capital Outlay Name of Department Head: Kerriann Golden Included in the operating budget is funding for projects/equipment that were identified as needs as part of the Capital Planning process and other one-time needs. Fire EMS Equipment $109,000.00 Fire Department Priority Group A This project requests funding to replace aging and end-of-life EMS equipment essential for resuscitation and life-saving operations. The request includes Lucas 3.1 CPR devices (Stryker) – one for each frontline apparatus. These devices provide automated, consistent chest compressions during cardiac arrest events, improving patient outcomes and reducing firefighter fatigue and injury risk.; AED-Pro units (Zoll) – assigned to Car 1, Car 2, S1, K1, Ladder 1, Engine 2, Engine 3, and one for each fire station (3), replacing all current AEDs which have reached end-of-life and are no longer supported.; Exterior AED mounting cabinets – weatherproof, alarmed cases to mount AEDs on the outside of each fire station, providing 24/7 public access to early defibrillation in cardiac emergencies. This project updates department equipment to modern standards, improves interoperability with EMS provider Armstrong Ambulance, and expands community access to life-saving cardiac tools. Fire Turnout Replacement Gear $58,500 Fire Department Priority Group A This project seeks multi-year funding to replace firefighter turnout gear (coat and pant ensembles) that will reach end-of-life over the next four fiscal years. Turnout gear is a primary safety barrier protecting firefighters from flames, heat exposure, carcinogens, and environmental hazards. The current department gear is worn and stored across all three fire stations and deployed on every emergency response call. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards limit turnout gear to a 10-year life cycle, making replacement mandatory once gear exceeds that age. replacement mandatory once gear exceeds that age. City Yard Gas Pump replacement - $50,000 Priority Group B Infrastructure needs to be updated at the City Yard. The gas pump is used by both city and school vehicles for refueling. Police Vehicles - $83,000 – 1 Cruiser - Priority Group A Updating of 1 line cruiser. The goal for this line item is to work towards maintaining a budget for a set replacement cycle. The cruiser being replaced is a 2019 Ford Interceptor. Masonry Work - $250,000 – Priority Group A -Various masonry projects around the city, including City Hall and Winthrop School Masonry projects identified on the CIP, inclusive of retaining walls and stairs. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 ARC electrical Study for City and School Buildings - $225,000 – Priority Group B Comprehensive engineering analysis of all facilities electrical power system. Milano Improvements - $75,000 - Group B Repairs to the Milano center exterior. The other portion of this project will be funded through an earmark. MVMMS Control Upgrade Phase 2: $100,000 -Group B National Grid has identified the MVMMS HVAC system controls as a critical energy efficiency project. The first phase has already been funded with FY26 supplemental funds, and this would be funding of phase 2. Hoover All Purpose Room (APR) - $75,000 – Group B The project will consist of asbestos abatement as well as installation of new flooring, replacement or cleaning of window treatments and repainting of the walls. The other portion will be funded through an earmark. The following items were not identified in the CIP, however have been identified as needs once the CIP was complete. Furniture and Fixtures - $100,000 City Departments This funding would provide funding to replace broken furniture in some of our public meeting spaces (City Council Chamber, Cassidy Conference room) as well as update furniture needs within departments. Furniture and Fixtures - $100,000 School Department This funding would allow for broken furniture to be updated in school buildings as well as add smaller items throughout schools (bulletin boards, library carts). School IT - $325,000 School Department Identified upgrades district wide to building security including Fob accessed doors and cameras. Projector upgrades at the high school. Parks - $200,000 School Playground (School/Parks Department) Replace the playground at Winthrop School. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 FY 27 Budget Memo page. 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: 942 Stabilization Funds Name of Department Head: Kerriann Golden Department #942 Stabilization Funds Contract Stabilization - $400,000 – The request for this appropriation is for supplemental funding for contractual obligations that were not settled at the time the budget was set as well as contractual obligations that may arise during the Fiscal Year. Annual appropriation to fund City Stabilization Fund in the amount of $50,000. Currently, the cash balance of this fund is $4,696,211.87. The goal for this fund is to have a target balance of 5% of the operating budget. Annual appropriation to fund OPEB (Other Post Employee Benefits) trust in the amount of $50,000. Currently, the cash balance of this fund is $2,252,452. The net OPEB liability in FY2025 was $155,000,036 A special act was passed in 2005 that entitles retirees to an 85% contribution on health insurance premiums. Also, under our current PEC (Public Employee Committee) agreement, the city contributes 70% of the monthly cost of Medicare Part B premiums for retirees. This agreement is set to expire 6/30/27 and will be renegotiated. All benefits offered to employees and retirees are factored into the OPEB liability. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE OF ACTIVE AND RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF MELROSE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. Notwithstanding section 19 of chapter 32B of the General Laws or any other general or special law to the contrary, an employee who has retired or will retire from the service of the city of Melrose after the effective date of this act and is enrolled in an HMO type health plan offered by the city, the employee's spouse and dependents shall be entitled to an 85 per cent contribution from the city for the insurance premiums for as long as the retiree remains continuously enrolled in the plan notwithstanding any change in the health plan premiums paid by the city for active employees. SECTION 2. If the commonwealth mandates an increase in the minimum percentage contribution that active employees shall pay toward their health insurance, the increase shall be paid by active employees, and the percentage paid by retirees shall not be affected. SECTION 3. This act shall take effect upon its passage. Approved June 30, 2005. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 Fiscal Year 2027 Department Memo to City Council Department: 399 Essex Agricultural and Lexington Minuteman Name of Department Head: n/a Essex Tech and Lexington Minutemen Technical The Chapter 74 Nonresident Student Tuition Program provides students the opportunity to attend a school outside their district of residence to study a state-approved vocational technical education program that is not offered by their district of residence. Such programs are approved pursuant to M.G.L. c. 74 and 603 CMR 4.00 and are known as Chapter 74-approved programs. Tuition for students who attend a school outside their resident district under this program is paid by the city or town of residence at a rate established by the DESE. Transportation for students who attend a school outside their resident district under this program is provided by the city or town of residence. Students who seek admission to a school outside their district of residence must follow the admission process of the school to which they seek admission, including using the school-provided application for admission. School Preference While students may apply to any school which accepts applications from non-resident students, a district may, through its school committee, adopt a policy designating specific vocational schools as “preferred” vocational schools for purposes of the Chapter 74 Non-resident Student Tuition Program. This means that the district may direct students to apply to the preferred school(s) before applying to any other vocational school. If a student does not apply to a “preferred” vocational school, the superintendent may disapprove the application for nonresident tuition. Enrollment/Acceptance Essex Technical had a total of 6 new applicants — 3 were accepted and 2 were wait listed. There are 4 returning students for next year. Due to the timing of acceptances, the budget is based on an estimate of 8 students with transportation. Minutemen Technical had no new applicants. There is one returning student for next year. Please see the tuition rates below as set by DESE. FY 27 Budget Memo page. 1 FY 27 Budget Memo page. 2 City Council Meeting June 1st, 2026 Cari Berman, Superintendent & Ken Kelley, Deputy Superintendent 1 FY26 TO FY27 RESTORE MPS OPERATING BUDGET - SC CATEGORIES FY26 FY26 FY27 STAFF ORIGINAL SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED POST OVERRIDE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS ALLOCATION Franklin/ECC $2,122,157 $2,219,157 $2,322,846 1.0 FTE Teacher 1.0 1.0 FTE Teacher at Hoover 1.0 FTE Teacher at Roosevelt 1.0 FTE Teacher at Winthrop $16,030,819 $16,686,819 $17,230,011 1.0 FTE School Counselor at Lincoln 6.0 1.0 FTE Teacher (potential special ed./interv.) 0.5 FT Administrator (AP) at Lincoln Elementary 0.5 FT Administrator (AP) at Roosevelt MVMMS $7,774,386 $8,307,386 8.0 FTE Secondary Teachers $18,036,829 9.0 MHS $8,554,988 $8,917,988 1.0 FTE Administrator (STEM Director) Athletics/EC $1,009,766 $1,009,766 $1,029,961 Teaching and Learning $728,761 $2,198,261 $1,087,842 High Quality Instructional Mat. Special Education $9,052,012 $9,052,012 $9,715,118 Administration/DW $2,674,986 $3,375,286 $4,514,393 1.0 FTE Teacher (potential special educator) 1.0 Total $47,947,875 $51,766,675 $53,937,000 17.0 Increase FY26 to FY27 $3,818,800 $5,989,125 3 Addressing Key Priorities Class Size ● Add a 1.0 FTE Teacher to the Franklin Elementary School ● Restore 3.0 FTE Teachers at the Elementary Schools ● Restore 8.0 FTE Teachers at the Secondary Level Team Model at MVMMS ● Provide three teams to 6th grade students with the above mentioned staff ● Provide two teams to 7th grade students with the above mentioned staff Purchase and Implementation of High Quality Instructional Materials (HQIM) ● Secondary STEM Director, 6-12 ● Assistant Principals at Lincoln and Roosevelt ● Provision of classroom materials, diagnostic tools, and professional development for educators Providing Intervention ● 1.0 FTE Elementary School Counselor (based at Lincoln and supporting elementary schools, as needed) ● 2.0 FTE Held for positions of interventionists and/or special education ● Recent hiring of 2 Reading Specialists from the additional funding for FY26 4FY26 TO FY27 Class size projections (April 2026) PROJECTED MPS 26-27 ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT GRADE K 1 2 3 4 5 PROJ. CLASSROOMS 13 12 13 14 13 13 ENROLLMENT 239 254 262 307 270 297 AVE. CLASS SIZE 18.4 21.2 20.2 21.9 20.8 22.8 PROJECTED MPS 26-27 SECONDARY ENROLLMENT GRADE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ENROLLMENT 298 267 263 300 262 251 252 NESDEC January 2026 5 FY26 TO FY27 DESE SERIES DESE SERIES CATEGORY SUMMARY VARIANCE FY26 FY26 SUPP FY27 FY26-FY27 % INC/DEC 1000 SERIES: ADMINISTRATION ADMIN $1,112,038 $1,149,653 $1,170,576 $58,538 5% TEACHING AND 2000 SERIES: INSTRUCTION LEARNING $37,904,271 $41,670,436 $43,214,833 $5,310,562 14% 3000 SERIES: OTHER STUDENT SVCS HEALTH $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $0 0% TRANSPORTATION $2,340,936 $2,344,913 $2,414,667 $73,732 3% ATHLETICS $1,009,766 $1,009,766 $1,029,961 $20,195 2% 4000 SERIES: OPERATIONS/MAINT. UTILITIES/TECH $261,181 $272,224 $340,650 $79,469 30% 5000 SERIES: CROSSING/INSUR. INSURANCE $207,200 $207,200 $220,650 $13,450 6% 9000 SERIES: PROG. WITH OTHER SCHOOLS TUITIONS $5,105,483 $5,105,483 $5,538,662 $433,179 8% TOTAL $47,947,875 $51,766,675 $53,937,000 $5,989,125 12% $3,818,800 $2,170,325 6 FY27 - RECENT LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS CITY LOCAL CONTRIBUTION This is the most recent 4 FYs showing the City's appropriation to the schools YEAR APPROPRIATION % % FY24-27 FY24 $38,511,659 FY25 $41,000,000 6.5% FY26 ORIG $42,523,875 3.7% FY26 SUPP $46,342,675 9.0% FY27 $49,000,000 5.4% 27.2% 7 FY27 MPS TEACHING AND LEARNING FY27 BUDGET Non Salary Total Salaries Expenses Total Budget Hoover $ 2,807,792.43 $ 17,340.00 $ 2,825,132.43 Horace Mann $ 2,510,256.74 $ 16,320.00 $ 2,526,576.74 RECOMMENDED MPS FY27 SC Categories Lincoln $ 4,433,235.73 $ 33,354.00 $ 4,466,589.73 Franklin/ECC $ 2,322,846.05 Roosevelt $ 4,251,578.71 $ 19,380.00 $ 4,270,958.71 Elementary $ 17,230,010.59 Winthrop $ 3,118,312.99 $ 22,440.00 $ 3,140,752.99 Secondary $ 18,036,829.17 Franklin Budget $ 2,306,781.05 $ 16,065.00 $ 2,322,846.05 Athletics/EC $ 1,029,961.35 Franklin non-budget $ 1,456,784.38 $ 6,200.00 $ 1,462,984.38 Teaching and Learning $ 1,087,842.36 Middle School $ 8,733,045.85 $ 59,160.00 $ 8,792,205.85 Special Education $ 9,715,117.60 High School $ 9,063,960.52 $ 180,662.80 $ 9,244,623.32 Administration/DW $ 4,514,392.88 Special Education $ 1,060,601.42 $ 8,654,516.18 $ 9,715,117.60 Total $ 53,937,000.00 Teaching and Learning $ 372,052.36 $ 715,790.00 $ 1,087,842.36 Administration $ 1,227,448.51 $ 51,210.00 $ 1,278,658.51 Systemwide $ 2,504,866.62 $ 730,867.75 $ 3,235,734.37 Athletics $ 1,029,961.35 $ 1,029,961.35 TOTAL $ 42,389,932.93 $ 11,547,067.07 $ 53,937,000.006 8 FY27 MPS: THE PATH FORWARD Transparency Items in Motion ● Budget listening sessions last winter ● Current negotiations with 3 CBAs ● FY27 line item budget shared in March ● MA State legislature deliberating FY27 between HWM and SWM ● MPS School Committee approved April 14, 2026 on schedule ● CH70 $13,578,856 + City and State projecting increase in CH70 funding of ● Referred to City Council for consideration $332,180, increasing total School as part of overall City FY27 budget appropriation consideration to $49,332,180 9 City of Melrose DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FY27 BUDGET Who is DPW? Melrose DPW Mission Statement: The Melrose Department of Public Works provides quality services to the community in the areas of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, recycling, parks, forestry, fleet, highway, cemetery, facilities, engineering, and administration, while promoting health, safety, sustainability, and fiscal responsibility through the teamwork and commitment of an honest and dependable workforce. Who is DPW?  Four Main Divisions:  Administration  Engineering/Water & Sewer Billing  Facilities  Operations DPW Administration & Finance  Public Relations  Accounts Payable/Receivable  Payroll  Environmental/Outreach Coordinator  Rentals CoordinatorDPW Engineering & Water/Sewer Billing  Capital Projects – Planning, Design, and Construction  Permits and Inspections  Development Reviews  Records and Plans/GIS  Water and Sewer Billing DPW Facilities Division  Custodial Services – Schools and Municipal Buildings  Building Maintenance and Repairs  Building Capital Projects DPW Operations Division  Highway  Parks and Forestry  Fleet  Cemetery  Sanitation (Partially Enterprise Funded)  Water and Sewer (Enterprise Funded)  Snow and Ice DPW Staffing  70 full-time employees  1 part-time employee  4 partially funded by DPW in other departments  2 PM custodians funded from Education Stations budget  Positions eliminated in FY26 have been restored  FY27 employee count matches FY25 budget Staff in DPW Operating Budgets Division # of Full Time Employees Administration/Engineering 3 fully funded (1 PT); 14 partially funded Facilities 16 custodians, 5 tradespeople Highway 5 employees (+1 in FY27) Snow Removal 0 employees (all overtime) Sanitation 2 employees Parks & Forestry 8 employees (-1 in FY27) Fleet 2 employees (-1 in FY27) Cemetery 4 employees (+1 in FY27) Water 9 fully funded; 14 partially funded Sewer 3 fully funded; 14 partially funded 57 fully funded in one DPW division TOTAL 14 spread between DPW divisions 4 shared with other departments DPW Organization Elena Proakis Ellis, P.E., DPW Director James Troup, Matt Spinale, Jay Coy, Acting Scott Enos, Asst. Director Operations Manager City Engineer Facilities Manager Admin & Finance On the Move…  New Employees Hired:  Operations Manager, Matt Spinale  Parks Equipment Operator, Jade Butler  Junior Project Engineer, Fagan Doyle  Promotions:  Facilities Manager, Scott Enos  Forestry Working Foreman, Shaun Foss  Parks Working Foreman, Marcos Echevarria Retirements and Vacancies  Retirement (upcoming):  Resident Project Representative, Lynda Garron  Municipal Custodian, Dan Guevin  Vacancies with no offers pending:  City Engineer (posted since override)  Mechanic/Welder (posted since override)  Parks Heavy Equipment Operator  Four other vacancies have pending offersSome Operational Accomplishments in FY26 Through early-May:  3,496 work orders resolved  908 Facilities  2,588 Operations  525 potholes filled  Handled 42” of snow  1,235 purchase ordersSome Operational Accomplishments in FY26  Collected 4,634 tons of trash (Casella)  Collected 1,649 tons of recycling (Casella)  Collected yard waste curbside (City forces)  Recycled 230 mattresses  Began distribution of new stickers for use of the City Yard  Began curbside composting preferred vendor program with Garbage to Garden Some Capital Accomplishments in FY26  Completed construction of Franklin Roof E, MHS Skylights, MVMMS & Lincoln Heat Pump Chillers  Renovated Franklin School All Purpose Room (asbestos removal, floors, ceiling, lighting, paint)  MVMMS and MHS LED lighting upgrade projects  Added handicap pushbutton door openers at Hoover, Horace Mann, and Winthrop Schools Some Capital Accomplishments in FY26  Paved Sewall Woods Road, Maple Road, Melrose Street (LFP to Main), Porter Street (Rowe to Harding)  Added sidewalks on Swains Pond Avenue  Replaced water mains on Crystal Street, Hurd Street, and Circuit Street  Oversaw replacement of Ell Pond Drain beneath property at 687-691 Main Street FY27 DPW Budget Requests  Total General Fund DPW Budget: $11,702,429  Water Enterprise Budget: $6,702,788 (Increase of 4.1% from FY26)  Sewer Enterprise Budget: $8,461,623 (Increase of 1.2% from FY26)  Solid Waste Enterprise Budget: $3,639,322 (Increase of 3.1% from FY25) Grand Total All DPW FY27 Budgets: $30,506,162 Tonight’s DPW Council Agenda Items Order ID # Description Value

2026-1208 FY27 General Fund DPW Budget $11,702,429

2026-1206 FY27 Water Enterprise Operating Budget $6,702,788

2026-1205 FY27 Sewer Enterprise Operating Budget $8,461,623

2026-1207 FY27 Solid Waste Enterprise Operating Budget $3,639,322

2026-1175 Free Cash – Ell Pond Park Design & Permitting $710,000 2026=1176 Free Cash – Lebanon Street TIP 75% Design $400,000

2026-1177 Free Cash – School Signage $20,000

2026-1251 Sewer Retained Earnings Vactor Downpayment $150,000

2026-1213 Proposed FY27 Water Rates N/A

2026-1208 FY27 General Fund DPW Budget $11,702,429

2026-1206 FY27 Water Enterprise Operating Budget $6,702,788

2026-1205 FY27 Sewer Enterprise Operating Budget $8,461,623

2026-1207 FY27 Solid Waste Enterprise Operating Budget $3,639,322

2026-1175 Free Cash – Ell Pond Park Design & Permitting $710,000 2026=1176 Free Cash – Lebanon Street TIP 75% Design $400,000

2026-1177 Free Cash – School Signage $20,000

2026-1251 Sewer Retained Earnings Vactor Downpayment $150,000

2026-1213 Proposed FY27 Water Rates N/A

2026-1214 Proposed FY27 Sewer Rates N/ADPW General Fund Budget Breakdown Code DPW Division FY27 Budget 401 Admin. and Engineering $1,002,159 402 Facilities $5,581,051 422 Highway $2,137,826 423 Snow and Ice $800,000 433 Sanitation (non-enterprise) $246,481 475 Parks and Forestry $1,086,999 485 Automotive-Fleet $483,119 491 Wyoming Cemetery $364,794 TOTAL $11,702,429DPW Items Restored in FY26 Supplemental Budget All DPW positions funded in FY25 Summer help program Saturday weekly overtime at the City Yard Overtime for flower watering and parklets Roadway line painting Sidewalk repairs Seasonal Sunday municipal trash barrel pickup Adopt-a-Site program support FY27 Budget Highlights Across all DPW Divisions  Union salaries include step increases but no COLAs (laborers and clerical negotiations wrapping up)  Most remaining items not restored in supplemental budget have been restored for FY27. For example, clothing and professional development lines in Admin/Engineering budget  Budgets reflect rising energy and fuel costs  No net change in total positions in general fund and W/S FY27 Budget Highlights Facilities  Positions restored  OT increased to more closely align with actual needs  Library electricity reflects all electric building  $500,000 recurring capital added to building repairs line  $100,000 capital outlay for annual asbestos removal in schools FY27 Budget Highlights Highway  Moved one position into Highway to perform more sidewalk work  Increased street light maintenance to match needs  Large contractual increase to street sweeping based on new bids Snow and Ice  Increasing annually to approach actual costs Sanitation  Updates to match actual needs and rising costs FY27 Budget Highlights Parks and Forestry  Moved one employee out of P&F  Removed last year’s supplemental contractual labor for tree trims  Maintained $100,000 for new tree planting Automotive  Moving one employee out of Fleet budget (maintains position)  Restoration of budgets and increasing fuel costs Cemetery  Moving one employee to Cemetery to match existing staffing  Restoration of supplies to match needs FY27 Budget Highlights Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds  MWRA Assessment Increases  Rising electrical costs  Increase of water meter lines to $25K in each fund to replace as needed  Increase of Vactor payments from $80K to $90K for new truck ($610,000 vehicle cost plus financing – Sewer Only) Solid Waste and Recycling Enterprise Fund  Contractual increases to curbside collection and disposal  Debt repayments for trash and recycling carts Capital Items in FY27 Budget In DPW Budget:  $100,000 asbestos removal in schools  $1,230,000 in Highway: roads ($600K), sidewalks ($250K), drainage ($330K), traffic calming ($50K)  $100,000 tree planting Capital Items in FY27 Budget Capital Outlay presented previously by Finance:  DPW gas pump repairs - $50,000  Masonry stair and wall projects - $250,000  Electrical/ArcFlash study for buildings - $225,000  Milano Center additional exterior improvements - $75,000  MVMMS Phase 2 Building Management System (BMS) upgrades- $100,000 to combine with Green Communities and National Grid incentive funding  Hoover All Purpose Room - $75,000 to supplement state earmark Water and Sewer Rates No water and sewer rate increases proposed for FY27 for both volumetric rates and base fees No transfers to reserves – already at 10% goal Rates projected to meet all revenue obligations with no transfers from retained earningsQuestions A B C D E F G Department, Board, Committee, Agency or Fees, Charges or Other Restrictions or Conditions Officer Authorized to Receipts Credited to Program of Activity Expenses Payable from on Expenses Payable from Other Requirements/ Fund # Revolving Fund Spend from the Fund Fund Fund Fund Reports Fiscal years Supplies, administrative fees and permits for Veterans Service Officer any programs related to Veteran Services and Fiscal Year 2027 and 2607 Veterans and Board Donations Melrose Community events. $2,000 Annual Cap subsequent years Costs associated with the various programs sponsored by the Recreation Department Registration and User including the Director and Assistant Director's fees collected for salary, program coordinator salaries as well as Recreation Department supplies and equipment needed to run the Fiscal Year 2027 and 2652 Recreation Park Commission sponsored programs program. $500,000 Annual Cap subsequent years $15,000 Annual Cap. State-Mandated certificates of inspections, Salaries related to Director of Inspectional Fees from inspections of multifamily inspections, equipment, contracted contracted inspectors are Fiscal Year 2027 and 2658 Inspectional Services Services multifamily homes inspectors, education and printing. only paid from this fund. subsequent years Director of Health Fees associated with Costs associated with flu clinics, sale of bike Fiscal Year 2027 and 2659 Health Department public health programs helmets, salaries and CPR classes $60,000 Annual Cap subsequent years Fees associated with excessive false alarm responses from private $10,000 Annual Cap. No homes and businesses salaries are paid from this Fiscal Year 2027 and 2665 Police False Alarm Chief of Police throughout the City Maintenance of Police Department Fleet fund subsequent years Rental Fees and Custodial charges received from activities hosted by user groups and organizations that Supplies and maintenance costs associated do not reside within the with parks, fields and playgrounds where Fiscal Year 2027 and 2669 Park Permits Park Commission City. permits are issued. $40,000 Annual Cap subsequent years Fees associated with the $30,000 Annual Cap. No rental of this building Fees related to maintaining the Beebe Estate in salaries are paid from this Fiscal Year 2027 and 2750 Beebe Estate Beebe Estate Trustees and donations a safe and sanitary manner. fund subsequent years Council on Aging and Milano Center Programs and services, minibus related expenses and costs associated with maintaining the Milano Center in a safe and sanitary manner, Salary for Fiscal Year 2027 and 2811 Council on Aging Council on Aging Director Donations Social Service Coordinator $65,000 Annual Cap subsequent years OFFICE OF PLANNING AND CITY OF MELROSE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 LORI MASSA, AICP Telephone - (781) 979-4190 Director & City Planner M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Melrose City Council FROM: Lori Massa, Director & City Planner CC: Kerriann Golden, CFO/Auditor Lauren Grymek, Chief of Staff DATE: April 17, 2026 RE: Housing Production Plan Update – Free Cash Request The Office of Planning and Community Development respectfully requests that the City Council approve an appropriation of free cash in the amount of $75,000 to hire a consultant for technical assistance to update the City’s Housing Production Plan (HPP), which will expire in April 2027. Revisiting the City’s housing needs and goals will not only help the City plan for future development, but having a current, state approved, HPP is also required to apply for temporary safe harbor if the City still does not have 10% of the total year-round housing units on our Subsidized Housing Inventory. To meet the requirements of a state approved plan, an HPP must contain the following elements: • Housing needs and demand assessment • Housing goals for the next five years • Analysis of factors affecting development • A development framework and identification of opportunity sites • Numeric production targets • Recommendations for the city to achieve its housing goals and an actionable implementation plan Ensuring that the updated HPP includes the information above will require careful research and data collection, and opportunities for public engagement. With the help of a consultant, the resultant document will be a robust and useful planning document that will help guide the City’s housing and development policies and goals for the next 5 years. City Auditor CITY OF MELROSE AUDITOR’SCity Hall, OFFICE 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 Fax - (781) 662-2182 Free Cash Orders for Fiscal Year 2026 “Free cash” is a term used to describe any remaining, unrestricted funds from the previous fiscal years. After it is “certified” by the state, free cash use requires a recommendation from the Mayor and an appropriation from the City Council. More information on free cash is available on the state’s website (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/free-cash). Council Order Item APPRO Balance of Free ID Amount Cash Dep/Fund Description Status Certified $5,558,450.00 2026-612 $20,020.00 5,538,430.00 Dept - 162 Poll Pads and a label Printer Approved Fund - 2026-614 $50,000.00 5,488,430.00 2543 Melrose Cultural Council Approved Chamber and City Event 2026-615 $25,000.00 5,463,430.00 Dept - 121 Support Approved 2026-1147 $170,000.00 5,293,430.00 Dept - 423 Sidewalk Plow A&O 2026-1148 $880,000.00 4,413,430.00 Dept- 931 DPW Vehicles A&O 2026-1149 $865,000.00 3,548,430.00 Dept-931 DPW Snow and Ice Deficit A&O Fund - 2026-1150 $244,944.00 3,303,486.00 1620 School Department A&O 2026-1151 $10,000.00 3,293,486.00 Dept- 422 Bike Racks A&O 2026-1145 $9,000.00 Dept - 141 Tax Impact Notices Mailing Submitted 3,284,486.00 2026-1164 $75,000.00 Dept - 175 Housing Production Plan Submitted 3,209,486.00 2026-1165 $70,000.00 Dept - 175 Downtown Parking Study Submitted 3,139,486.00 2026-1169 $30,000.00 Dept - 543 Welcome Home Veterans Sign Submitted 3,109,486.00 Fund – 2026-1170 $150,000.00 Affordable Housing Trust Submitted 2,959,486.00 8270 Boiler replacement and HVAC 2026-1171 $50,000.00 Dept – 693 Submitted 2,909,486.00 controls 2026-1172 $12,193.20 Dept- 300 Vape Detectors MVMMS Submitted 2,897,292.80 2026-1173 $72,180.00 Dept - 300 MHS Band Uniforms Submitted 2,825,112.80 Basketball & Lacrosse 2026-1174 $44,296.32 Dept-300 Submitted 2,780,816.48 Uniforms, Scorer table 2026-1175 $710,000.00 Dept- 401 Ell Pond Park Design Submitted 2,070,816.48 2026-1176 $400,000.00 Dept - 422 Lebanon TIP Project Submitted 1,670,816.48 2026-1177 $20,000.00 Dept - 401 School Signage Submitted 1,650,816.48 2026-1178 $3,000.00 Dept - 162 Census Mailer Submitted 1,647,816.48 *The first three appropriation requests listed were approved at the 4/6/26 City Council meeting. As requests are submitted by the administration and approved by the City Council, the table above will be updated accordingly and shared with subsequent orders. From: Massa, Lori To: Chen, Jason Cc: Grymek, Lauren Subject: Re: Housing production plan funding Date: Friday, May 8, 2026 1:02:49 PM Attachments: Outlook-preview.pn.png Hi Jason, Thanks for your efforts to find ways to save money and your confidence in the planning staff. We are a small but mighty group. With the number of projects on our plates hiring consultants to help with some initiatives is needed. We have regulatory requirements related to our case work and response to permits, and therefore we do not have the ability to control how much time we can devote to other projects...and we'd like to continue to do other projects. Increasing staff to do the work is a more expensive option. Housing Production Plan: Wakefield and Andover did their HPP update with consultants: Wakefield used JM Goldson LLC - funded by a grant Andover used MVPC - their regional planning agency - funded through the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) Community Planning Grant, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) Planning Assistance Grant, and through District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) funds We have applied for and received several grants for planning. The timing for a grant for the HPP didn't work out. We are very close but still not there for 'permanent' safe harbor so a current and State compliance HPP is needed to be able to be eligible for temporary safe harbor. We have used the current HPP twice to gain temporary safe harbor. Previous parking study: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/DocumentCenter/View/133/Downtown- Parking-Study-PDF?bidId= Parking is always a hot button topic. Having the study done professionally will legitimize the results. Working with staff, residents, boards/commission are important but having an outside/unbiased view is beneficial, especially for this topic. Constructing parking is expensive and can have negative consequences for walkability/vibrancy and traffic. Understanding if/where there are issues and if we can manage parking more efficiently is the best first step. Please let me know if you would like to discuss. Thanks, Lori From: Chen, Jason <jchen@cityofmelrose.org> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 8:23 AM To: Massa, Lori <lmassa@CityofMelrose.org>Cc: Grymek, Lauren <lgrymek@CityofMelrose.org> Subject: Housing production plan funding Hi Lori, Thanks for submitting the HPP and parking study free cash requests. I read through the housing production plan again this week and I appreciate the requirement to update it every 5 yrs for safe harbor status. A number of communities including Wakefield and Andover have updated it without consultants by using the expertise of volunteers and staff within the community. Wakefield’s 2026 report is similar in scope and depth to ours. preview.png Housing-Production-Plan-FY- 2026-2030-PDF PDF Document · 13.9 MB I think it would be a great opportunity for community volunteerism and engagement. To your credit, the current housing production plan (2022) is thorough and looks like an excellent foundation to update and edit. Perhaps we can use similar demographic data and economic trends from by referencing nearby towns like Winchester and Wakefield with recently updated plans. I am trying to find ways for us to save money while maintaining high standards and meeting requirements. I have high confidence in you and our staff and community to resourcefully and collaboratively update this plan and expect it will be well received by the community. The parking study is another line item which I question. I’d rather spend $70k building more parking, than funding a study that says we need more or less parking. Would you please send examples of previous parking studies for Melrose, and what we learned from them? Do we have traffic / urban planners in the community that can volunteer to review previous studies, check if assumptions are still valid, and make a recommendation? Thanks for taking my feedback, and happy to chat anytime. Jason Sent from my iPhone ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.****From: Massa, Lori To: Chen, Jason Cc: Grymek, Lauren; Romanul, Devin; Vandiver, Kimberly Subject: Re: Questions for tomorrow Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 2:27:18 PM Hi Councilor Chen, To give you some context on creating housing, from a colleague in Cambridge and a recent Boston Globe article, developing housing in Boston and Cambridge costs between $600,000 to $1 million per unit. We spent $140,000 for the Melrose Affordable Housing Corporation to get $300,000 of Federal HOME funds to be able to purchase and renovate 3 units to create permanently affordable units. This is a huge win for Melrose. Affordable housing takes planning, any type of support, and a long-term approach because it is not quick or easy to create. There is no way to say if I put this much money in, this is how many units I will get. We are relaying on others to request the money to build housing and if we don't have any, we won't get requests or affordable units outside of those required by zoning. I’m hoping that we can figure out a way to update the housing production plan for less than $75,000. 80% of that document looks like routine verbiage that does not appear to require deep domain knowledge. Would you please suggest other ways to accomplish the goal? The updated Housing Production Plan should not be a routine verbiage of information. We want to be using updated, innovative data to come up with new goals, policies and actions including preferred development sites. We received a $100,250 grant to implement some of the remaining actions in the current plan. With the number of projects on our plates hiring consultants to help with some initiatives is needed. We have regulatory requirements related to our case work and response to permits, and therefore we do not have the ability to control how much time we can devote to other projects...and we'd like to continue to do other projects. Increasing staff to do the work is a more expensive option. Community engagement and education is an important part of planning and stripping this out of a plan's scope to reduce the price is possible but I wouldn't recommend it. When do you expect us to reach 10% and will our current plan still be up-to-date when that happens? Do we lose safe Harbor after our housing production plan is five years old from the date it was published? There are 2 different state "approvals" of HPPs. One is the approval after it is created. The other is certification of the plan if you would like to claim temporary safe harbor because an unwanted 40B project is going to be proposed and the ZBA has approved the required number of units in that calendar year. If we don't have an approved HPP, we can't ask the state to certify it for temporary safe harbor if the ZBA has approved the required number of units in the calendar year. Info on our website that may be helpful: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/173/Comprehensive-Permit- Information--40B We would need about 50 units to get to 10% but this number is always changing. Find more here: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/DocumentCenter/View/1865/Subsidized-Housing-Inventory-Update-8152025 I’m not convinced that we should spend $70,000 on the parking study. Can you please help me understand what the key questions we want the consultant to answer? What is the current parking utilization at different points of the week? What worked or did not work from the last plan from 2012? What are the current best practices and recommendations to best manage parking? To answer a question from your other email: Sources of funding for the trust: There have been 8 projects that have had to contribute to the Affordable Housing Trust since 2007; there was a small payment for administrative costs that we received for managing the sale of an affordable unit that we could put into the trust; free cash from 2021; and interest at a variable rate. The affordable housing requirements went into effect in 2004 and we amended them in 2019. The zoning ordinance requires that project that have 8 or more residential units provide 15% as affordable. If the fraction is less than 0.5 there is a payment required. If the fraction is 0.5 or higher, it rounds up to a unit. For project with 5, 6, or 7 units have the option of providing 1 affordable unit or making a contribution to the Trust Fund. It is better to have affordable units built as part of the project; however, small projects are hard to pencil out and therefore a payout is an option. It is unusual for municipalities to require any contribution to affordable housing for smaller projects as we do. The City demands a lot of development to satisfy various goals and if we press too much, we are not going to get development. I have no way of estimating how many projects will require payment into the trust and how many projects will be needing trust funds to happen. Melrose is fortunate to have recent projects proposed, approved, and construction is happening - other municipalities are seeing a big slowdown. Development cycles and market conditions greatly impact future growth. The Housing Production Plan helps to frame where we would like to see development next. Most of the sites identified in the current plan are permitted or developed. Here are webpages that will hopefully have some additional helpful information: Information on the MBTA Communities Law, which includes a development list from the fall of 2025: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/783/MBTA-Communities-LawInformation on affordable units in Melrose: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/370/Affordable-Housing Thanks, Lori From: Chen, Jason <jchen@cityofmelrose.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 9:22 AM To: Massa, Lori <lmassa@CityofMelrose.org> Cc: Grymek, Lauren <lgrymek@CityofMelrose.org>; Romanul, Devin <dromanul@cityofmelrose.org>; Vandiver, Kimberly <kvandiver@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: Questions for tomorrow Hello Lori, I hope you are wellI hope you are well. I wanted to send ahead a few questions I had prior to tomorrow’s meeting. Regarding the affordable housing trust free cash request, I’m still not convinced that this is a cost- effective way to add affordable housing units in Melrose. The $150,000 we spent to have three deeded affordable units does not move the needle in my view. I’m willing to be convinced if there’s other more cost-effective mechanisms. I’m hoping that we can figure out a way to update the housing production plan for less than $75,000. 80% of that document looks like routine verbiage that does not appear to require deep domain knowledge. Would you please suggest other ways to accomplish the goal? I understand we need an up-to-date housing production plan to reach safe Harbor. When do you expect us to reach 10% and will our current plan? Still be up-to-date when that happens? Do we lose safe Harbor after our housing production plan is five years old from the date it was published? I certainly understand the importance of reaching safe Harbor given the risks that summit Avenue presents. I’m not convinced that we should spend $70,000 on the parking study. Can you please help me understand what the key questions we want the consultant to answer? I will look more closely at your departmental budget today and send ahead any questions that I have. Please let me know if it’s easier to speak by phone. Thank you for your leadership and organization. JasonSent from my iPhone ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** OFFICE OF PLANNING AND CITY OF MELROSE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 LORI MASSA, AICP Telephone - (781) 979-4190 Director & City Planner M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Melrose City Council FROM: Lori Massa, Director & City Planner CC: Kerriann Golden, CFO/Auditor Lauren Grymek, Chief of Staff DATE: April 17, 2026 RE: Downtown Parking Study – Free Cash Request The Office of Planning and Community Development respectfully requests that the City Council approve an appropriation of free cash in the amount of $70,000 to hire a consultant for technical assistance to update the Downtown Parking Study that was created in 2012. The original report helped provide a framework for managing downtown parking and offered a series of recommendations to best ensure that the parking needs of residents and visitors are met. Many of the recommendations were implemented such as the creation of the Merchant Parking Program. However, because it has been over 14 years since downtown parking was completed, it is time to reevaluate parking utilization and best practices for management. The need to balance the supply and availability of parking spaces for business patrons and employees while maintaining a walkable and pedestrian-friendly environment is critical. We recommend dedicating funding to hiring a consultant to review current parking regulations and analyze parking utilization during the week and on the weekends to determine whether the existing parking supply is managed appropriately and whether the regulations and/or the location of parking should be adjusted. Based on the findings, the consultant will provide recommendations for improving the parking supply and availability. The goal of the updated parking study is to continue to provide an environment downtown that supports mobility, adaptability, and economic development. City Auditor CITY OF MELROSE AUDITOR’SCity Hall, OFFICE 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 Fax - (781) 662-2182 Free Cash Orders for Fiscal Year 2026 “Free cash” is a term used to describe any remaining, unrestricted funds from the previous fiscal years. After it is “certified” by the state, free cash use requires a recommendation from the Mayor and an appropriation from the City Council. More information on free cash is available on the state’s website (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/free-cash). Council Order Item APPRO Balance of Free ID Amount Cash Dep/Fund Description Status Certified $5,558,450.00 2026-612 $20,020.00 5,538,430.00 Dept - 162 Poll Pads and a label Printer Approved Fund - 2026-614 $50,000.00 5,488,430.00 2543 Melrose Cultural Council Approved Chamber and City Event 2026-615 $25,000.00 5,463,430.00 Dept - 121 Support Approved 2026-1147 $170,000.00 5,293,430.00 Dept - 423 Sidewalk Plow A&O 2026-1148 $880,000.00 4,413,430.00 Dept- 931 DPW Vehicles A&O 2026-1149 $865,000.00 3,548,430.00 Dept-931 DPW Snow and Ice Deficit A&O Fund - 2026-1150 $244,944.00 3,303,486.00 1620 School Department A&O 2026-1151 $10,000.00 3,293,486.00 Dept- 422 Bike Racks A&O 2026-1145 $9,000.00 Dept - 141 Tax Impact Notices Mailing Submitted 3,284,486.00 2026-1164 $75,000.00 Dept - 175 Housing Production Plan Submitted 3,209,486.00 2026-1165 $70,000.00 Dept - 175 Downtown Parking Study Submitted 3,139,486.00 2026-1169 $30,000.00 Dept - 543 Welcome Home Veterans Sign Submitted 3,109,486.00 Fund – 2026-1170 $150,000.00 Affordable Housing Trust Submitted 2,959,486.00 8270 Boiler replacement and HVAC 2026-1171 $50,000.00 Dept – 693 Submitted 2,909,486.00 controls 2026-1172 $12,193.20 Dept- 300 Vape Detectors MVMMS Submitted 2,897,292.80 2026-1173 $72,180.00 Dept - 300 MHS Band Uniforms Submitted 2,825,112.80 Basketball & Lacrosse 2026-1174 $44,296.32 Dept-300 Submitted 2,780,816.48 Uniforms, Scorer table 2026-1175 $710,000.00 Dept- 401 Ell Pond Park Design Submitted 2,070,816.48 2026-1176 $400,000.00 Dept - 422 Lebanon TIP Project Submitted 1,670,816.48 2026-1177 $20,000.00 Dept - 401 School Signage Submitted 1,650,816.48 2026-1178 $3,000.00 Dept - 162 Census Mailer Submitted 1,647,816.48 *The first three appropriation requests listed were approved at the 4/6/26 City Council meeting. As requests are submitted by the administration and approved by the City Council, the table above will be updated accordingly and shared with subsequent orders. From: Massa, Lori To: Chen, Jason Cc: Grymek, Lauren; Romanul, Devin; Vandiver, Kimberly Subject: Re: Questions for tomorrow Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 2:27:18 PM Hi Councilor Chen, To give you some context on creating housing, from a colleague in Cambridge and a recent Boston Globe article, developing housing in Boston and Cambridge costs between $600,000 to $1 million per unit. We spent $140,000 for the Melrose Affordable Housing Corporation to get $300,000 of Federal HOME funds to be able to purchase and renovate 3 units to create permanently affordable units. This is a huge win for Melrose. Affordable housing takes planning, any type of support, and a long-term approach because it is not quick or easy to create. There is no way to say if I put this much money in, this is how many units I will get. We are relaying on others to request the money to build housing and if we don't have any, we won't get requests or affordable units outside of those required by zoning. I’m hoping that we can figure out a way to update the housing production plan for less than $75,000. 80% of that document looks like routine verbiage that does not appear to require deep domain knowledge. Would you please suggest other ways to accomplish the goal? The updated Housing Production Plan should not be a routine verbiage of information. We want to be using updated, innovative data to come up with new goals, policies and actions including preferred development sites. We received a $100,250 grant to implement some of the remaining actions in the current plan. With the number of projects on our plates hiring consultants to help with some initiatives is needed. We have regulatory requirements related to our case work and response to permits, and therefore we do not have the ability to control how much time we can devote to other projects...and we'd like to continue to do other projects. Increasing staff to do the work is a more expensive option. Community engagement and education is an important part of planning and stripping this out of a plan's scope to reduce the price is possible but I wouldn't recommend it. When do you expect us to reach 10% and will our current plan still be up-to-date when that happens? Do we lose safe Harbor after our housing production plan is five years old from the date it was published? There are 2 different state "approvals" of HPPs. One is the approval after it is created. The other is certification of the plan if you would like to claim temporary safe harbor because an unwanted 40B project is going to be proposed and the ZBA has approved the required number of units in that calendar year. If we don't have an approved HPP, we can't ask the state to certify it for temporary safe harbor if the ZBA has approved the required number of units in the calendar year. Info on our website that may be helpful: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/173/Comprehensive-Permit- Information--40B We would need about 50 units to get to 10% but this number is always changing. Find more here: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/DocumentCenter/View/1865/Subsidized-Housing-Inventory-Update-8152025 I’m not convinced that we should spend $70,000 on the parking study. Can you please help me understand what the key questions we want the consultant to answer? What is the current parking utilization at different points of the week? What worked or did not work from the last plan from 2012? What are the current best practices and recommendations to best manage parking? To answer a question from your other email: Sources of funding for the trust: There have been 8 projects that have had to contribute to the Affordable Housing Trust since 2007; there was a small payment for administrative costs that we received for managing the sale of an affordable unit that we could put into the trust; free cash from 2021; and interest at a variable rate. The affordable housing requirements went into effect in 2004 and we amended them in 2019. The zoning ordinance requires that project that have 8 or more residential units provide 15% as affordable. If the fraction is less than 0.5 there is a payment required. If the fraction is 0.5 or higher, it rounds up to a unit. For project with 5, 6, or 7 units have the option of providing 1 affordable unit or making a contribution to the Trust Fund. It is better to have affordable units built as part of the project; however, small projects are hard to pencil out and therefore a payout is an option. It is unusual for municipalities to require any contribution to affordable housing for smaller projects as we do. The City demands a lot of development to satisfy various goals and if we press too much, we are not going to get development. I have no way of estimating how many projects will require payment into the trust and how many projects will be needing trust funds to happen. Melrose is fortunate to have recent projects proposed, approved, and construction is happening - other municipalities are seeing a big slowdown. Development cycles and market conditions greatly impact future growth. The Housing Production Plan helps to frame where we would like to see development next. Most of the sites identified in the current plan are permitted or developed. Here are webpages that will hopefully have some additional helpful information: Information on the MBTA Communities Law, which includes a development list from the fall of 2025: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/783/MBTA-Communities-LawInformation on affordable units in Melrose: https://www.cityofmelrose.org/370/Affordable-Housing Thanks, Lori From: Chen, Jason <jchen@cityofmelrose.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 9:22 AM To: Massa, Lori <lmassa@CityofMelrose.org> Cc: Grymek, Lauren <lgrymek@CityofMelrose.org>; Romanul, Devin <dromanul@cityofmelrose.org>; Vandiver, Kimberly <kvandiver@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: Questions for tomorrow Hello Lori, I hope you are wellI hope you are well. I wanted to send ahead a few questions I had prior to tomorrow’s meeting. Regarding the affordable housing trust free cash request, I’m still not convinced that this is a cost- effective way to add affordable housing units in Melrose. The $150,000 we spent to have three deeded affordable units does not move the needle in my view. I’m willing to be convinced if there’s other more cost-effective mechanisms. I’m hoping that we can figure out a way to update the housing production plan for less than $75,000. 80% of that document looks like routine verbiage that does not appear to require deep domain knowledge. Would you please suggest other ways to accomplish the goal? I understand we need an up-to-date housing production plan to reach safe Harbor. When do you expect us to reach 10% and will our current plan? Still be up-to-date when that happens? Do we lose safe Harbor after our housing production plan is five years old from the date it was published? I certainly understand the importance of reaching safe Harbor given the risks that summit Avenue presents. I’m not convinced that we should spend $70,000 on the parking study. Can you please help me understand what the key questions we want the consultant to answer? I will look more closely at your departmental budget today and send ahead any questions that I have. Please let me know if it’s easier to speak by phone. Thank you for your leadership and organization. JasonSent from my iPhone ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** City Auditor CITY OF MELROSE AUDITOR’SCity Hall, OFFICE 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 Fax - (781) 662-2182 Free Cash Orders for Fiscal Year 2026 “Free cash” is a term used to describe any remaining, unrestricted funds from the previous fiscal years. After it is “certified” by the state, free cash use requires a recommendation from the Mayor and an appropriation from the City Council. More information on free cash is available on the state’s website (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/free-cash). Council Order Item APPRO Balance of Free ID Amount Cash Dep/Fund Description Status Certified $5,558,450.00 2026-612 $20,020.00 5,538,430.00 Dept - 162 Poll Pads and a label Printer Approved Fund - 2026-614 $50,000.00 5,488,430.00 2543 Melrose Cultural Council Approved Chamber and City Event 2026-615 $25,000.00 5,463,430.00 Dept - 121 Support Approved 2026-1147 $170,000.00 5,293,430.00 Dept - 423 Sidewalk Plow A&O 2026-1148 $880,000.00 4,413,430.00 Dept- 931 DPW Vehicles A&O 2026-1149 $865,000.00 3,548,430.00 Dept-931 DPW Snow and Ice Deficit A&O Fund - 2026-1150 $244,944.00 3,303,486.00 1620 School Department A&O 2026-1151 $10,000.00 3,293,486.00 Dept- 422 Bike Racks A&O 2026-1145 $9,000.00 Dept - 141 Tax Impact Notices Mailing Submitted 3,284,486.00 2026-1164 $75,000.00 Dept - 175 Housing Production Plan Submitted 3,209,486.00 2026-1165 $70,000.00 Dept - 175 Downtown Parking Study Submitted 3,139,486.00 2026-1169 $30,000.00 Dept - 543 Welcome Home Veterans Sign Submitted 3,109,486.00 Fund – 2026-1170 $150,000.00 Affordable Housing Trust Submitted 2,959,486.00 8270 Boiler replacement and HVAC 2026-1171 $50,000.00 Dept – 693 Submitted 2,909,486.00 controls 2026-1172 $12,193.20 Dept- 300 Vape Detectors MVMMS Submitted 2,897,292.80 2026-1173 $72,180.00 Dept - 300 MHS Band Uniforms Submitted 2,825,112.80 Basketball & Lacrosse 2026-1174 $44,296.32 Dept-300 Submitted 2,780,816.48 Uniforms, Scorer table 2026-1175 $710,000.00 Dept- 401 Ell Pond Park Design Submitted 2,070,816.48 2026-1176 $400,000.00 Dept - 422 Lebanon TIP Project Submitted 1,670,816.48 2026-1177 $20,000.00 Dept - 401 School Signage Submitted 1,650,816.48 2026-1178 $3,000.00 Dept - 162 Census Mailer Submitted 1,647,816.48 *The first three appropriation requests listed were approved at the 4/6/26 City Council meeting. As requests are submitted by the administration and approved by the City Council, the table above will be updated accordingly and shared with subsequent orders. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND CITY OF MELROSE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 LORI MASSA, AICP Telephone - (781) 979-4190 Director & City Planner M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Melrose City Council FROM: Lori Massa, Director & City Planner CC: Kerriann Golden, CFO/Auditor Lauren Grymek, Chief of Staff DATE: April 29, 2026 RE: Affordable Housing Trust Fund – Free Cash Request The Office of Planning and Community Development respectfully requests that the City Council approve an appropriation of free cash in the amount of $150,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). The AHTF, which was established by the City Council in 2020, has a mission of creating, preserving, and supporting diverse affordable housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households in Melrose over their lifespan, in collaboration with municipal and community partners. As outlined in the Board of Trustees’ five year action plan, the AHTF has three goals: securing sustainable and diverse funding sources, supporting the creation of more affordable homes, and educating the community about local housing needs to build support for more affordable housing. Since the beginning of 2026, the Trustees have engaged with stakeholders, conducted public outreach, and approved a funding request from the Melrose Affordable Housing Corporation (MAHC) to assist with the purchasing of three units that will be deed restricted, affordable units in perpetuity. However, because the Trust’s primary source of revenue is from housing developments required to pay into the Trust, which is sporadic and unpredictable, the Trust does not have a stable source of income. Therefore, with the support of this free cash, the Board can continue to work towards meeting the goals of the AHTF while supporting community partners and accomplishing the City’s housing targets. From: Jen McAndrew <mccarthy.mcandrew@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 7:40 AM To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofmelrose.org> Cc: Massa, Lori <lmassa@cityofmelrose.org>; Grymek, Lauren <lgrymek@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: Appropriation to Affordable Housing Trust CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the city's domain. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe that this message is spam, please use the "Report Spam" button in Outlook to report it. Dear City Council Members, I hope you and your families are doing well. I know it's a very busy time for the Council, and particularly tonight with several meetings on your docket. Thank you for all your work on behalf of Melrose. This year, I am part Warning: Unusual sender <mccarthy.mcandrew@gmail.com> You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions. Dear City Council Members, I hope you and your families are doing well. I know it's a very busy time for the Council, and particularly tonight with several meetings on your docket. Thank you for all your work on behalf of Melrose. This year, I am particularly encouraged, given the will of the voters and the passage of the override, that Melrose is in the fortunate position of having some resources to allocate to important priorities and much-needed investments. While there are many high-priority investments for consideration on your agenda, I am reaching out in strong support of one in particular: the appropriation from free cash of $150,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust (Item ID # 2026- 1170). The establishment of the Affordable Housing Trust was an important step forward for a community like Melrose. Now you have the opportunity to take another step by adding funds to the Trust to support its mission. I think this does a few things. First, it is a signal of the City's values. This is not just theoretical. It shows the Commonwealth, at a time where there is (rightly, in my mind) pressure on municipalities to address the state's housing crisis, that Melrose is serious about affordable housing. Secondly, it establishes the precedent with the community, and with others considering Melrose as their home, that making these investments--perhaps annually, when resources allow--is something that the Mayor and, if you approve it, the Council are willing to do. There may be some who likely wish the amount was even higher, and I understand that. But to me this is an important step. A few of you have probably heard me say that my life's motto is "progress is being made, more work remains." (It certainly applies to being the parent of teens, as many of you can attest!) It's also true of our civic life together. Voting for this appropriation is a step for progress, even if more work remains. My best to you all and my gratitude for your service, Jen McAndrew 12 Sears Avenue OFFICE OF PLANNING AND CITY OF MELROSE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 LORI MASSA, AICP Telephone - (781) 979-4190 Director & City Planner M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Melrose City Council FROM: Lori Massa, Director OPCD Ingrid Winkler, Conservation Agent CC: Kerriann Golden, CFO/Auditor Lauren Grymek, Chief of Staff DATE: May 1, 2026 RE: Treating the Towners, Swains, and Ell Ponds – Free Cash Request The Office of Planning and Community Development respectfully requests that the City Council approve an appropriation of free cash in the amount of $37,000 for the Conservation Commission to undergo a project at Towners Pond, which will set it on an effective maintenance plan and also address area residents’ complaints related to the condition of the pond. The Conservation Commission is responsible for the maintenance of Towners, Swains, and Ell Ponds. Towners Pond has a nuisance-level growth of water lilies that is impacting its overall pond health. The proposed treatment plan includes the application of a systemic herbicide (Sonar) to control the nuisance vegetation, followed by the subsequent removal of vegetative material through hydro-raking. The quoted cost for the hydro-raking is $2,700 per day and we expect that it will take 5 to 10 days total over 2 to 3 years depending on how much material is removed to complete the work. DPW would handle the removal and disposal of the plant material. We have recently learned that there are new environmental permitting requirements for hydro- raking, which will add extensive costs. The costs are for coordination, filing fees, and sampling. The estimated permitting costs based on phone conversations with consultants is $10,000. Therefore, we are requesting $37,000 above our annual budget to cover the costs related to regulatory permitting, compliance, and the work of hydro-raking. There is a $14,000 budgeted line-item for Conservation Maintenance. The amount had been $9,925 per year until FY24 when it was increased to $14,000. Even with the budget line item in the past the Conservation Commission has requested free cash historically for larger pond maintenance projects. Available records, while not complete, indicate that the City previously invested at a significantly higher level in pond management. For example, the pond management budget exceeded $37,000 in 1998, not including an additional estimated $23,000 allocated for Swains Pond management. Hydro raking of Towners Pond may have been completed in 1998 (postponed from previous year due to low water conditions) at a cost of approximately $22,000, and again in 2009 and 2010. Sonar treatments were also routinely applied to Swains and Towners Ponds through approximately 2015 but have not been utilized in recent years, until this year. Over the past decade, pond management efforts have been limited compared to historical practices, with the exception of the 3-year water chestnut harvesting effort in Ell Pond. At present, Towners Pond is showing the most signs of neglect and requires immediate and more intensive treatment. The budgeted amount covers routine maintenance and those dollars will be more effectively spent after the hydro-raking occurs. With the support of this free cash, the Conservation Commission can effectively maintain Towners and the other ponds within their jurisdiction. Without additional intervention, conditions are likely to worsen. City Auditor CITY OF MELROSE AUDITOR’SCity Hall, OFFICE 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4110 Fax - (781) 662-2182 Free Cash Orders for Fiscal Year 2026 “Free cash” is a term used to describe any remaining, unrestricted funds from the previous fiscal years. After it is “certified” by the state, free cash use requires a recommendation from the Mayor and an appropriation from the City Council. More information on free cash is available on the state’s website (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/free-cash). Council Order Item APPRO Balance of Free ID Amount Cash Dep/Fund Description Status Certified $5,558,450.00 Approved 2026-612 $20,020.00 5,538,430.00 Dept - 162 Poll Pads and a label Printer 4/6/26 Approved 2026-614 $50,000.00 5,488,430.00 Fund - 2543 Melrose Cultural Council 4/6/26 Approved 2026-615 $25,000.00 5,463,430.00 Dept - 121 Chamber and City Event Support 4/6/26 2026-1147 $170,000.00 5,293,430.00 Dept - 423 Sidewalk Plow A&O 2026-1148 $880,000.00 4,413,430.00 Dept- 931 DPW Vehicles A&O 2026-1149 $865,000.00 3,548,430.00 Dept-931 DPW Snow and Ice Deficit A&O 2026-1150 $244,944.00 3,303,486.00 Fund - 1620 School Department A&O 2026-1151 $10,000.00 3,293,486.00 Dept- 422 Bike Racks A&O 2026-1145 $9,000.00 3,284,486.00 Dept - 141 Tax Impact Notices Mailing A&O 2026-1164 $75,000.00 3,209,486.00 Dept - 175 Housing Production Plan A&O 2026-1165 $70,000.00 3,139,486.00 Dept - 175 Downtown Parking Study A&O 2026-1169 $30,000.00 3,109,486.00 Dept - 543 Welcome Home Veterans Sign A&O 2026-1170 $150,000.00 2,959,486.00 Fund – 8270 Affordable Housing Trust A&O Boiler replacement and HVAC 2026-1171 $50,000.00 2,909,486.00 Dept – 693 controls A&O 2026-1172 $12,193.20 2,897,292.80 Dept- 300 Vape Detectors MVMMS A&O 2026-1173 $72,180.00 2,825,112.80 Dept - 300 MHS Band Uniforms A&O Basketball & Lacrosse Uniforms, 2026-1174 $44,296.32 2,780,816.48 Dept-300 Scorer table A&O 2026-1175 $710,000.00 2,070,816.48 Dept- 401 Ell Pond Park Design A&O 2026-1176 $400,000.00 1,670,816.48 Dept - 422 Lebanon TIP Project A&O 2026-1177 $20,000.00 1,650,816.48 Dept - 401 School Signage A&O 2026-1178 $3,000.00 1,647,816.48 Dept - 162 Census Mailer A&O 2026-1202 $37,000.00 1,610,816.48 Dept - 175 Treatment of ponds Submitted 2026-1237 $17,000.00 1,593,816.48 Dept – 651 AED Units for Parks Submitted Projected overtime through year 2026-1238 $400,000.00 1,193,816.48 Dept – 221 end Submitted 2026-1239 $30,000.00 1,163,816.48 Dept – 221 Motor vehicle repair Submitted 2026-1242 $560,000.00 603,816.48 Fund - 8401 City Stabilization fund Submitted *Approved appropriation requests are noted with the date of the City Council meeting in which a final vote occurred. As requests are submitted by the administration and approved by the City Council, the table above will be updated accordingly and shared with subsequent orders. Final Study Report May 22, 2026 Proposed Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District Melrose Historic District Commission & Melrose Historical Commission Prepared for the City of Melrose Massachusetts Office Planning and Community Development TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Sheet ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 14 District Boundary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15 Property Index………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 Lynde Family Geneology and Houses ………………………………………………………………………………………. 17 Architectural Description and Assessment ……………………………………………………………………………… 22 Significance .................................................................................................................................. 29 Ordinance ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30 Public Comments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Appendix A- Sources and Bibliography ......................................................................................... 31 Appendix B- Preliminary Drawings ............................................................................................... 33 Appendix C- Massachusetts Historic Commission Form B …………….......................................7 pages Appendix D- Massachusetts Historical CommissionAdvisory Letter………………….………………..1 page Appendix E- Melrose Planning Board Recommendation Letter……………………………………………1 page Appendix F- City of Melrose, Historic Districts Ordinance................................................... 3 pages 2 SUMMARY SHEET Contact Information Lori Massa, AICP Director, Office of Planning & Community Development City of Melrose, 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 781-979-4193 lmassa@CityofMelrose.org Study Committee Members – Existing Melrose Historic District Commission Members of the Melrose Historic District Commission: • Michael Coleman, Chair • Richard Curl • Kevin Erb • Ryan Murphy • Lindsay Toghill • Robert Tullis Historical Commission Members of the Melrose Historical Commission: • Shane Egan, Chair • Joseph Hunt, Vice Chair • Rebecca Blumenthal, Secretary • Darren Brown, Treasurer • George Bibilos • Cathy Giliberto • Gentry Andrews Date of Public Hearing & City Council Vote • A public hearing was be held no sooner than 60 days following submission of the Preliminary Study Report to the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the Melrose Planning Board. The date of the public hearing with the Melrose Historic District Committee as the Study Committee was May 12, 2026. • The Melrose Historic District Commission voted to forward the Final version of the report to the Melrose City Council. • The City Council will consider the matter on June 1, 2026. Total Number of Properties Affected by the Proposed Local Historic District The proposed Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District will affect: • 1 property address, 244 Main Street Melrose MA • 1 parcel, approximately 18,516 square feet or 0.425 acres of land • 1 property owner • 1 historic building, greater than 100 years old • 1 detached outbuilding, 50 years or older Conclusion of the Study Report The building is worthy of preservation and designation as a single-parcel Local Historic District. 3 INTRODUCTION In Massachusetts since 1955 and in Melrose since 1982, Local Historic Districts (LHDs) have been used to protect valued historic resources. As noted in Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 40 C, LHDs have three major purposes: • to preserve and protect the distinctive characteristics of buildings and places significant in the Commonwealth and its cities and towns; • to maintain and improve the settings of those buildings and places; • and to encourage new designs compatible with existing buildings in the district. MGL Chapter 40C is the framework under which cities and towns establish districts within their communities, outlining the process for identifying districts and gaining approval for their designation. Over Massachusetts 120 cities and towns have embraced this planning tool, thereby protecting thousands of the Commonwealth’s most valued properties. In Melrose, the northern section of downtown along Main Street (from West Emerson Street to just south of East Foster Street) has been designated an LHD. This Melrose Town Center Historic District includes Melrose City Hall, the adjacent Main Fire Station, Memorial Hall, the Coolidge School, the Baptist Church & Methodist Church, and several downtown commercial buildings. This area and the buildings within it were also added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. The National Register is the federal government’s official list of U.S. areas deemed to be worthy of preservation. The Register, and criteria for adding locations, was established following the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In addition to Melrose’s LHD, our city also contains five other National Register properties and shares two more with adjacent communities. Those National Register properties are: • The Beebe Estate- the historic West Foster Street house, built in 1828, listed on the NRHP in 1981. • Larrabee’s Brick Block- the commercial and residential building at 500-504 Main Street, a relatively unaltered 19th century structure in the Town Center Historic District. It was built in 1880 by John Larrabee, and listed on the NRHP in 1984. • Melrose Public Library- located at 69 West Emerson Street, an Andrew Carnegie library. It was built in 1904 with subsequent additions made, and listed on the NHRP in 1988. • The Phineas Upham House- located at 255 Upham Street, a traditional Colonial Period Saltbox house. The Upham House was built in 1703 and listed on the NRHP in 1990. • The Trinity Episcopal Church- located at 131 West Emerson St. The main church building was constructed in 1886, and listed on the NHRP in 1995. • The Middlesex Fells Reservation Parkways- the series of roadways within and bordering on the Middlesex Fells Reservation. Shared with Malden, Medford, Stoneham and Winchester, it was listed on the NHRP in 2003. • The Lynn Fells Parkway- part of the Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston, it runs from Stoneham in the west to Saugus in the east. It was listed on the NHRP in 2003. Historic District Commissions oversee the Local Historic Districts. Their chief concerns are to avoid demolition of significant buildings and to review proposed publicly visible changes to those buildings and landscapes. LHDs do not halt change or development, but instead they 4 allow for a process of public review and thoughtful consideration of proposed changes, making certain that the changes are in keeping with the history and integrity of properties within the district. Just as important, Local Historic Districts benefit the whole city by preserving the city’s architectural integrity and unique cultural heritage, and therefore foster community pride. This Study Report presents a rationale for establishing a single-parcel local historic district at 244 Main Street, the Benjamin Lynde House, originally built by Capt. John Lynde in 1693 and rebuilt by Benjamin after a fire in 1819. The house is one of four (or possibly six) surviving structures of a larger number of early homes built by the Lynde family, one of the most significant early Melrose families who were settlers and farmers in what was then known as North Malden. (The family name is pronounced with a ‘long I’ as in “The students LINED up single file in the schoolyard.”) The other three surviving houses verified to be Lynde houses are: • The 1702 Joseph Lynde house, a largely intact First Period colonial, also still stands at 409 Lebanon Street (corner of Grove Street), where it faces and terminates the eastern end of Lynde Street as that street winds its way in a lazy S curve from its start at Main Street just north of Wyoming Avenue. This is MEL.50 in the MACRIS inventory. • The 1829 Alvin Lynde house survives on the east side of Main Street across and uphill from the Benjamin Lynde House. This small house, known as “Little Mount Vernon” for its white porch and once-commanding view over Main Street (early 1930s houses were built in between its porch and Main Street), is undoubtably the inspiration for the road names of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Potomac Street. The rear of the house faces the corner of these two roads and it has a 106 Mt. Vernon address. This is MEL.74 in the MACRIS inventory. • The c.1700 Jabez Lynde / Grundy House survives at 407 Washington Street, where it was built by Capt. John Lynde for his son Thomas at the same time and about 1,650 feet (100 rods) west of Capt. John’s own house (see below). Originally this was a First Period style house. It has been remodeled and now appears to be a simplified early Victorian Vernacular farmhouse. According to Goss, History of Melrose, 1902, pp 75-76: “Originally it had a very large chimney and fireplace, wide front door through which huge fire logs were taken, and 3x4 diamond-paned windows, the glass secured by lead instead of putty.” It is MEL.205 in the MACRIS inventory. Two houses that are likely to be surviving Lynde family houses are: • The house at 531 Lebanon Street, a five-bay center-entry “colonial” built in 1834. It has the same wide front door opening as the Jabez Lynde house once had. This is MEL. 236 in the MACRIS inventory. The name G. Lynde is assigned to a house in this location on the 1852 F.G. Sidney Melrose map. On the 1856 unattributed map, the G. Lynde house is shown and Lebanon Street is labeled Lynde. On the 1875 Beers Melrose Center map the house is labeled George Lynde, and he is shown owning all Lebanon Street frontage from Upham Street to East Emerson Street. A house belonging to A.P Lynde (A.W. Lynde on an 1889 map) appears on the northwest corner of Lebanon and East Emerson, with its barn on the northeast corner (now the hospital parking lot), but it seems they were demolished. • An 1824 house at 350 Washington Street is possibly another 8th or 9th generation Lynde family house. It is labeled Estate of Aaron Lynde on an 1899 George H. Walker map, and it commands the south end of Lynde Avenue. This is MEL.248 in the MACRIS inventory. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other Lynde family homes were unfortunately destroyed long ago, including two notable structures: • The c.1700 house of Capt. John Lynde once stood near Washington Street on the west side of the railroad tracks close to what is now the Saugus town line (George Washington is said to have tied his horse to an elm tree in its front yard). This is the house built at the same time as the Jabez Lynde / Grundy house, 100 rods west and adjacent to the Saugus town line. • The 1670 house of Ensign Thomas Lynde, the first English settler in Melrose, once stood at the corner of Main Street and Banks Place (once Goodyear Avenue) on what is now the parking lot of Hunt Photo. This house was documented in the 1933 Historic American Building Survey (H.A.B.S. number MASS-464). Our subject, the house at 244 Main Street, was the home of Benjamin Lynde, born October 2, 1758, who as a 16-year old Minuteman mustered with other North Malden farmers at what is now Gooch Park to join up with Captain Benjamin Blaney’s company on April 19th, 1775 to head to Lexington, where the shot heard 'round the world would ring out to signal the start of the American Revolution. Fortunately, Benjamin Lynde survived the war to return home and thrive. Later in life, he and his family lived through a fire in 1819 and the rebuilding of his home in 1820; that is the structure that is the subject of this study. Ultimately, he would live to the age of 70, passing away in 1829. The house stayed in the Lynde family throughout the 19th Century, long after Benjamin passed. Warren Lynde, born 1799, farmed the land until his death at the age of 89 in 1888, when it was taken over by Warren’s son Henry Lynde. It would be a shame to see this proud, historic home, a symbol of Melrose’s history and participation in the American Revolution, potentially destroyed or altered. Establishing this single property as a Local Historic District recognizes and preserves it as a treasured asset. 11 12 13 METHODOLOGY On November 18, 2025 the Melrose Historic District Commission (MHDC) unanimously voted to consider designating the property at 244 Main Street as a single parcel historic district and serve as the study committee. On December 1, 2025 the MHDC voted unanimously to support the creation of this single parcel historic district. The MHDC had conducted the initial research on the property in collaboration with the Historic District Commission in the preparation of a study report. This LHD would be referred to as the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District. This property contains the two-story Lynde house and a one-story freestanding garage structure. The study committee then engaged in historical research on the Lynde family, architectural research on the structures and the land, and documentation of the existing conditions. Sources appear in the bibliography of this report. A 90% draft of the Preliminary Report was presented back to the MHDC on January 13, 2026 and they voted unanimously to finish the Preliminary Report and forward it on to the Melrose Planning Board and the Massachusetts Historic Commission for their comments, which are due to the MHDC within 60 days. Research and community outreach continued during this time. Single parcel LHDs are not uncommon in Massachusetts. According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, “The city of Somerville has over 200 single building local historic districts. Other single building local historic districts have been established in Brookline, Huntington, Sharon, Somerville, Springfield, West Springfield and Wellesley.” (Massachusetts Historical Commission, Revised 2021, Establishing Local Historic Districts, 5. Boston, MA.) Often, the creation of a single parcel LHD is prompted when the sale of a building that is important to the historic and cultural fabric of a community is anticipated. This is the case for the subject property. It is up for sale along with the abutting property. The properties are marketed as a redevelopment site. Many community members were alarmed by the real possibility of the demolition of the 244 Main Street house with it being marketed in this way and contacted their city councilors. The Melrose City Council approved a demolition review ordinance on December 1, 2025 that applies to structures built on or before the year 1899 and structures that are on or subject to the pending application for listing on the National Register. The review period is not to exceed twelve months from the Historical Commission’s vote determining that a building is preferably preserved. The Council approved an amendment to the Administrative Code of the City of Melrose to expand the authority of the Historical Commission to include regulatory authority as is necessary for the demolition review ordinance to be enforced. 14 DISTRICT BOUNDARY The proposed district boundary is comprised of the current lot lines of the land parcel at 244 Main Street. Study included a review of aerial photography, Melrose Public GIS Maps Online (mapsonline.net), and historic maps. Although the colonial-era Lynde farm included substantial land area on the east side of Main Street and the west side of the MBTA railroad tracks (once the Boston and Maine RR) and stretched southward from #262 Main Street all the way to Banks Place (once Goodyear Avenue), this farmland has been developed over time (some by the Lynde family itself) to include whole neighborhoods of houses, the Wyoming Cemetery, and some of Pine Banks Park. Farmyard buildings that were once immediately adjacent to the south and southwest of the Benjamin Lynde house, as shown in 1889 and 1899 George Walker Maps, no longer exist. Therefore, limiting the proposed LHD to a single parcel is considered sufficient to protect the Benjamin Lynde House and the important public view of it from Main Street without affecting the rights or options available to immediate abutters. That means only the current owners of the parcel and the included structures on that property will be affected by restrictions that will be in place when the district is approved. Joseph M. Kevane and Maureen Cremin are the current owners, as shown by massgis.maps.arcgis.com. 15 Proposed District 16 Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District Proposed Boundary PROPERTY INDEX Address Parcel ID Inventory Date of Historic Architectural No Construction Name Style 1. 244 Main Street C5 0 24 Mel.33 169 & 1819 Lynde, Federal Benjamin House LYNDE FAMILY GENEOLOGY AND HOUSES Note: The information below is taken from various sources, including the “Early Settlers” section of Ancient Melrose and Some, Information about its Old Homesteads, Families & Furnishings, a pamphlet published by The Melrose Historical Society, 1915. This pamphlet was compiled by Levi S. Gould and Franklin P. Shumway, with excerpts ad libitum from E. H. Goss, Esq’s History of Melrose. Information is also taken from Goss’ History of Melrose itself, from Melrose newspapers, and from various genealogical and obituary sources. The information is presented more chronologically than in these sources’ more narrative organization. The history of the Lynde family in Melrose is integral to the history of the city of Melrose. The Benjamin Lynde house at 244 Main Street lies at the heart of this history. It (or its immediate predecessor) is the oldest remaining Lynde home in Melrose, and the story of the generations who lived there is defined by service to the nation. The home lies witness to the changing landscape that surrounds it: agrarian life yielding to industrialization and urbanization. GEN 1- Deacon Thomas Lynde, born in England 11 January 1593, became a freeman in 1634. He and his family arrived in Boston by 1634 as part of the Great Puritan Migration. He died 30 December 1691. He was among the early settlers in Charlestown. He bought a tract of then- waterfront land which was known through the time of the Revolution as Lynde's Point. Subsequently it was the site of the State Prison and is now Bunker Hill Community College. He was one of the Deputies to the General Court for several years, serving first in 1636. His brother was Simeon Lynde of Louisburg Square, Boston As part of the ‘great allotment,’ the Lynde family received 13 parcels of land north of Charlestown “above the pondes.” Part of this was 80 acres of land lying in Rockefeilde.” Concerning this tract is a 1638 record in the Charlestown Archives stating “Inasmuch as it apprs yt [that] the Land in the great Lotts yt was laid out to Thomas Line [Lynde] & Richd Sprague prooves altogethr unusefull being nothing but Rockes wch was wholly besides or [our] intent, & only through oversight of the Surveyors wee Judge it to bee Just & equall yt they have allowance elswhere to theire satisfaction they leaveing the afforesd Rocks to lye Common." So by 1639 Deacon Thomas Lynde was granted better farm and hay field land by “Mount Prospect”, on the north side of Waite’s Mount on what was then known as the “Mystic Side” of Charlestown. This area stretching to the border of Reading (including present day Wakefield) was incorporated as Malden in 1649. This Lynde land grant would come to define much of the southern part of the town of Melrose, which was incorporated 1850. Deacon Thomas’ house was built near today’s entrance of the Forest Dale Cemetery on Forest Street on the Malden side of today’s Malden-Melrose town line. 17 GEN 2- Ensign Thomas Lynde, eldest son of Deacon Thomas Lynde, born in England 7 Feb. 1615, died 15 Oct. 1693, aged 77 years, was the first settler of Melrose and the progenitor of the Lynde family in North Malden, later Melrose. Ensign Thomas Lynde was a prominent figure in his community. His fellow militiamen honored him with the title of Ensign. Ensign Thomas Lynde may have lived for a while in the ‘Forest Dale Cemetery’ house built by his father, but soon after, about 1645, he built his homestead just south of Boston Rock (then known as Lynde’s Hill) on the south side of the present Sylvan Street, near what is now the north-western entrance to Wyoming Cemetery. This was the first house built on Melrose territory. The home stood for over 200 years but only a cellar hole and well remained by 1900 (visible until the cemetery wall was built). A story was told among the Lynde descendants about this house. During a very severe winter in those early times, a long-continued snow storm completely buried the house from sight; relatives and neighbors went to the house on snowshoes and could only communicate with the snow-trapped family from the top of the chimney, through which they lowered provisions to avoid starvation. The Lyndes were instrumental in the original 1653 routing of the ‘Reading Road’ through north Malden, passing by this home and to the east of Boston Rock. In 1670 Ensign Thomas Lynde built a new home, assumed to be for his son Deacon Joseph Lynde, on the corner of Main Street and what is now known as Banks Place, earlier known as Goodyear Avenue. This house’s address was 86 Main Street. Soon after, Ensign Thomas left his old home under Boston Rock and went to live with Joseph, where Thomas remained until his death in 1693. Also upon the completing the 86 Main Street house, Ensign Thomas petitioned the town in 1671 to move the 1653 Reading Road from running to the east of Boston Rock to instead run to its west past this new home and the more northern stretches of the Lynde land holdings towards Reading. Over the next generation of home building the Lynde family would define the landscape of southern Melrose along the route as it proceeded north along today’s Main Street towards Wyoming Avenue before turning northeast up Lynde Avenue to join Lebanon Street north towards Wakefield. Ensign Thomas’ farm embraced a region as follows: Beginning at the southwestern corner and extending northerly along the line of Washington Street to near Wyoming Avenue; then easterly along the line of Wyoming Avenue to (or nearly to) Lebanon Street, then southerly, embracing the territory of Boston Rock, Wyoming Cemetery, Pine Banks Park, and Forest Dale Cemetery, to Forest Street in Malden; then westerly to Washington Street, embracing "Island Hill," between Main Street and the later 1845 Boston and Maine Railroad, which in early days was surrounded by the meadows of Three Mile Brook. (By Ensign Thomas’ will, dated Oct. 3, 1693, on file in the Probate Court at East Cambridge, he divided his farm between his sons Deacon Joseph and Capt. John; giving Joseph the southern portion and the house at 86 Main Street, and giving John the northern portion.) Deacon Joseph Lynde’s son, Colonel Joseph Lynde enlarged and modernized the home in the mid-1700s and imported many fixtures from England during his renovation. In 1915 the still- 18 standing farm was described as “beautifully situated in the valley between ranges of hills, its spacious mansions, shaded by tall ancestral elms, its well-tilled acres, large and commodious barns well-filled with the products of their farm, flocks of sheep and herds of cattle, all indicated one of the good old-fashioned New England homesteads.” In 1881 this Lynde farm, along with 175 acres, was sold to Elijah Converse of Malden. The Boston Rubber Company was subsequently built just south of this home, and to its east over 100 acres now form the Pine Banks Park. The 86 Main Street Ensign Thomas Lynde House was the oldest home in Melrose until its destruction in 1956. As the Melrose Free Press noted, this demolition to make way for a supermarket parking lot (now the parking lot for Hunt Photo) destroyed a historic landmark that was built 100 years before the Revolution and had housed seven generations of the Lyndes. GEN 3- Thomas Lynde, first son of Ensign Thomas, born 25 March 1647, died c. 1681. He does not figure into our story of Melrose houses. GEN 3- Capt. John Lynde, second son of Ensign Thomas, b. 25 October 25 1648, d. 17 Sept 1723. Capt. John then occupied the original house at the foot of Boston Rock near the entrance to the Wyoming Cemetery. In 1693 Capt. John Lynde left the Boston Rock homestead and built a new house at what is now 244 Main Street on his inherited northern farm land. (This 1693 house burned extensively in 1819, see Benjamin Lynde below.) The old Boston Rock homestead, first built by Ensign Thomas Lynde, was abandoned. By the time of the Revolution, Lynde descendants had resided in this home for 80 years. GEN 3- Deacon Joseph Lynde, third son of Ensign Thomas, born 13 Dec. 1652, died 2 January 1735. He served as a Selectman for 15 years and as a Legislator for several years in the decades preceding the Revolution. He is the person who enlarged and modernized the 86 Main Street home in the mid-1700s. It is Deacon Joseph’s genealogical line leads to Benjamin. GEN 4- Ensign Joseph Lynde, first son of Deacon Joseph, b. 2 Sept 1690, d. 16 March 1763. He lived in the house at 244 Main Street. GEN 5- Joseph Lynde III, first son of Ensign Joseph, b. 4 July 1716, d. 4 July 1798. He both was born and died on the Fourth of July. When he was born, the date meant nothing to colonists. When he died, it was the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. GEN 6- Lieut. Benjamin Lynde, second son of Joseph Lynde III, born Oct. 2, 1758, died Sept 26, 1829 (Joseph III’s first son, Joseph IV, was b. 10 February 1746, d. 20 January 1805.) It is from the 1693 home at 244 Main Street that Benjamin Lynde, at age 16 years / 6 months, answered the call to take up arms in the early hours of April 19, 1775, marching with his militia against British forces retreating from Lexington and Concord. Lieutenant Benjamin Lynde inherited the home at 244 Main Street from his father Joseph III in 1798 with 60 acres of land encompassing much of the ‘hill pasture’ of Boston Rock as well as 15 acres called “Island Hill”, a rise of ground surrounded by reedy marsh on the Melrose-Malden line since leveled by industry and development. (Although now level ground, this hillock is still marked by the bend in an otherwise straight stretch of Main Street near the Melrose-Malden line and by the name of an avenue stretching through the apartment complex at Oak Grove.) 19 The 244 Main Street house of Joseph Lynde III, with its contents, burned on the night of April 10, 1819, the family barely escaping with their lives. It is thought that the northwest 50 percent of the house burned and that the foundation, some of the frame, and the front two rooms were incorporated into the present Federal Style “capacious mansion,” built the following year (1820) by Benjamin Lynde, now age 62. This is the house that is the subject of our proposed single- parcel Local Historic District. GEN 7- Warren Lynde, born May 15, 1799, died in 1888 at the age of 89 years. Son of Benjamin. Warren inherited this home from his father in 1829 and his tenure farming this property stretched nearly throughout the entire 19th century until his passing in 1888. It appears on 1900s maps as Warren’s residence. When he inherited the Benjamin Lynde house, there were barely 35 homes in the area then known as North Malden. Within 20 years the railway would cut across ancestral Lynde lands. Melrose incorporated as a town in 1850 and during Warren’s final decade the population of Melrose nearly doubled to 8500. He passed the home and farm to his son Henry Lynde who continued to operate a thriving truck farm business until he sold it to a Dr. Murphy in 1921. The Lyndes of 244 Main St. had a long-history of service to the nation. Captain John Lynde who built the 1693 home served as Selectmen in Malden for many years and fought with Major Willard in the 1676 King Philip’s War and was Captain of the Malden military company around 1700. Seventy-five years later young Benjamin Lynde marched with Captain Blaney’s company in defense of Concord and Lexington on April 19, 1775. Benjamin Lynde’s grandson, also named Benjamin enlisted in the Union Army in 1862 at the age of 30 and died one year later in Baton Rouge, Louisiana of battlefield disease following the brutal Siege of Port Hudson that secured Union control of the Mississippi River. The long tradition of military service embodied in the Lynde family continued in one of the final generations of Lyndes to call 244 Main Street home. Frank Warren Lynde was born at the Benjamin Lynde house in 1876 and managed the Lynde family farm in his youth with his father Henry. His son Dick was an airplane instructor who was killed in Pensacola while training for service in Europe in WWII.) Lynde homes built subsequent to the Benjamin Lynde House at 244 Main Street: The expanding Lynde family continued to build homes across North Malden. In 1700 Captain John Lynde also built another First Period home for his son, also named John, b. 19 November 1680, d. before 16 September 1750, on the west side of what would become the Boston and Maine (now MBTA) train tracks that cut through Melrose in 1845. This house burned in the early 1900s. At the same time he built a house for his son Thomas at what is now 407 Washington Street. It was the last house before reaching the Stoneham line on the rough cart path between this home and 86 Main Street that would become Washington Street and a main road to Stoneham. It passed to Jabez Lynde, born January 10, 1744; then to Jonathan Lynde, born January 15, 1785, died 1869, and then to his grandson Franklin G. Lynde. It is labeled S. Lynde on an 1852 map. Another Lynde homestead was built in 1702 along the Reading Road. This Joseph Lynde House at 409 Lebanon St. was named after Benjamin Lynde’s brother who lived there until his death in 1798. Here lived Lynde descendants for more than 250 years. It stands at the end of Lynde St. 20 by a small park once known as Louisburg Square in honor of ancestor Simeon Lynde. In 1856 the 30 acres of farmland associated with this house, situated between Grove and Upham Street and east of Lebanon Street, were bought, surveyed and developed as house lots and The Common park, forming much of today’s East Side neighborhood. In 1829, just across the street from the Benjamin Lynde house, Benjamin’s son Daniel Lynde, b. 27 April 1795, d. 19 September 1857, built a charming Greek Revival home that still looks across its hill towards 244 Main St. Known as “little Mt. Vernon” (106 Mt. Vernon Avenue) this home lent its name to the neighborhood that grew up around it in the late 19th and 20th centuries. This home is known as the Alvin Lynde house for Daniel’s son Alvin, b. 4 November 1833, d. 23 February 1899, who lived there for 65 years until his death. Alvin Lynde was one of the best- known residents of Melrose in his lifetime, having served as station agent for the Boston and Maine railroad at Wyoming Station for 38 years. An effort to more clearly organize this information about early Lynde generations and their houses is diagrammed below. 21 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT The Benjamin Lynde House as it stands today at 244 Main Street, Melrose (December 2025) is a center-entry, five-bay, wood framed & sheathed building that, due to its construction date of 1820 and its visible characteristics, falls squarely into the Federal Style of American domestic architecture. Dates for the time period encompassing Federal architecture are typically given as 1780 – 1840, and it is referred to as a refined American neoclassical style, an evolution from the Colonial and Georgian, referencing Roman and Adamesque design in Europe, and inspired by America’s hard-won independence from England and its new-found political culture as a constitutional federal republic. Federal style buildings often have massing of simple cubic forms (with additions of secondary cubic forms), bi-laterally symmetrical facades that feature classical details like columns pilasters, swags and urns, entrances with fanlights, and larger windows (than in colonial buildings) to increase daylight in the interior rooms. They often have elegant and light interiors, sometimes with oval/circular rooms and fine moldings. This committee has not visited the interiors of the Benjamin Lynde house, so we cannot describe them. It is rumored that the front two rooms may be 1693 survivors of the fire. Before describing the house’s exterior architectural characteristics, we should make clear that the committee has not had the opportunity to measure the building; all dimensions and geometry noted below is approximated from photographs. The committee hopes to be able to measure the building and visit the interiors in the future to facilitate more accurate documentation. The exterior of the Benjamin Lynde house conforms to typical Federal style characteristics. The massing of the primary component of the house (assumed to be the oldest part) is a rectangle approximately 41 feet across (E-W) by 24 feet deep (N-S) in plan. It is two stories tall with a shallow hip roof having an approximate pitch of 5 on 12 (5” rise in every 12” run). The building sits on a foundation wall of local stone (probably granite) capped by wood water table trim approximately 8” tall. Its top horizontal trim (like an architrave) is approximately 6” tall and consists of a flat component capped by a profiled bed molding directly under the projecting square-edged eave. The height of the walls from bottom of water table to underside of eave is approximately 18 feet to 19 feet tall. The front facade is sheathed with wood clapboards with approximately 3” exposed to the weather. This tight-spacing of the clapboards contributes significantly to the “old” appearance of the house. The sides and rear of the house have more widely spaced clapboards, approximately 4” exposed to weather on many walls. The main facade has cornerboards of approximately 9” width. About 2 feet below the bottom of the eave, the two front cornerboards have a double line of horizontal, square-edged 3/4” x 2” applied trim that wrap the corners onto the sides. It is not entirely clear what these double- trim elements are, but they appear in some old photos of the house. In any event, they impart to the cornerboards the appearance of pilasters, as if they could be the abacus/echinus and astragal of a simplified classical order’s capital. Perhaps they are strapping that once supported a more accurate and elaborated capital. Such elaborated capitals seem to be shown in a c. 1900 photo, although the details are fuzzy. The clapboards are painted a moss-green, although the paint has faded and peeled and is in somewhat poor condition. All other trim (cornerboards, window casings, eaves, etc.) are painted a slightly lighter shade of the same moss green. Old photographs of the house seem to show that it was once painted white. 22 c.1900 Photo- from “History of Melrose” by Eldrige H. Goss 1947 Photo- The Melrose Camera Club, photo at Melrose Public Library 2025 Photo- Melrose Historical Commission 23 The main facade has a bi-laterally symmetrical arrangement of five windows side-to-side, one window in the center flanked by a pair of more closely-set windows to each side. On the first floor, the location of the central window is occupied by the front door. The windows are double-hung, six-over-six, with exterior jamb and head casings of approximately 4 ½” width consisting of a flat component framed by a profiled bed molding. The sills are approximately 2½” to 3” thick and have a square-edged profile. The windows, from inside face of casings and sill, measure approximately 2’-7” wide x 4’-10” tall. The glass within the sash muntins shows no evidence of waviness or hand blown circular patterns that would indicate that any glass pieces are particularly old. Modern screen panels have been added in front of the lower sash such that the sash can be raised in good weather without allowing flies to come inside. These screen panels appear not to be mechanically fixed in place. Old photos show shutters on the windows; no shutters exist today. The front door in the center of the ground level of the main facade is reached by walking northward along a sloping walkway with two steps, mounting a granite stepping stone, and then a single step up to a wood entry porch. This entry porch is covered with a small hip roof whose square-edged eave and simple architrave are supported by two square free-standing columns, one at each outside corner of the porch and roof. The column faces are approximately 8” wide on each side. The columns have simple moldings that form Doric or Tuscan style bases and capitals. These columns have the same or similar profiles as those supporting the east side porch. The roofed entry porch appears to have been added to the house more recently; a 1947 photo shows the house without an entry porch. The columns supporting the east side porch also appear to have been modified, old photos show round lathe-turned porch columns. Perhaps the front entry porch was added and the east side porch columns were revised at the same time. Without the entry porch, the front doorway seems to have had a classical entry hood, supported on two brackets or triglyphs, which surmounted a half-ellipse fanlight above the door. The current entry porch roof replaced or hides the door hood (it may still be extant behind the roof). The elliptical fanlight is still visible. The main facade faces almost directly due south, at an approximate 98 degree angle to Main Street. This slight angle deviation from the 90 degree perpendicular imparts a “presence” to the primary view of the house from Main Street. The angled view corridor from Main Street to the main/front/south facade of the house is important to its contextual appearance. This view corridor, and the open space in front of and to the S.S.E. of the house that makes it possible, should be protected. As should the direct views of the side/east of the house from Main Street and the open space to the east that makes such “drive-by” views possible. 24 Secondary components of the Benjamin Lynde house’s massing appear to be additions to the 41 foot x 24 foot primary ‘main house’ component. The most prominent of these are a two-bay, single-story covered porch on the east side of the main house, and a two-bay wing or ell on the northeast side of the primary house. As just noted, the porch’s three east-side free-standing columns appear to have been modified along with the entry porch, as they match the entry porch’s columns almost exactly. They are slightly wider/fatter, and they may therefore contain the older round/lathe-turned posts hidden within their current square column profile. The balusters of the handrail around the porch are round and lathe-turned, and appear similar to those shown in old photos. The porch has an almost-flat roof, while old photos show it to have a sloped roof with a hip-return at its south end. South /Front Facade- 2025 photo by Rob Tullis, Melrose Hist. Dist. Comm. East Facades facing Main Street- 2025 photo by Rob Tullis, Melrose Hist. Dist. Comm. 25 Adjacent to the porch and extending northward from it along Main Street is an ell that currently has two window bays on its first and second floors. Old photos show this “east ell” as five window bays long. The eave of the east ell’s roof is lower than that of the main house, as are its windows. It appears therefore that the east ell has lower floor levels than those in the main house. Old photos also show the porch structure, with lathe-turned posts, extending northward in front of the east wall of the ell all the way to its north end. None of this extended porch exists today. In c.1925 the northernmost three bays were detached from the ell, moved two house lots north to 256 Main Street, and re-fashioned into a separate house. At that time the posts that support the covered entry porch at the 256 Main Street house were either salvaged from the long porch on the east side of the Benjamin Lynde House, or those posts were duplicated. A photo from the 1992 MACRIS MEL.440 inventory form shows these lathe-turned posts in place. They were replaced by square-boxed posts in 2002, when the owner of the house, while turning into her driveway in her SUV was hit from behind by a truck traveling south on Main Street and driven forcefully into the front entry posts, fracturing them (the owner and her infant in the SUV were not injured). This northernmost three bay structure was apparently the kitchen of Warren Lynde, who inherited the Benjamin Lynde house in 1829 and lived there until his death in 1888. Perhaps, wary of the fire that burned the original 1693 house (and likely started in its kitchen), Warren located his kitchen as far north from the core of the house as he could; a literal instance of being “once burned and twice shy.” To the north of the remaining two-bay portion of the ell stands a smaller one-story addition whose east-facing facade is set back from the ell by about 10 feet and contains a door centered between two single windows. While it may never have been used as a shed, for identification purposes we will call it the “north shed.” Both the east ell and this north shed have clapboards with approximately 4” exposed to the weather. 26 To the west of the main house component is a flat-roofed, one-story “sun room” addition. This addition is not evident in the c. 1900 photo but is shown in the 1947 photo. It is symmetrically opposite (around the center of the south/main facade) the east porch, and it may have once been its equivalent that eventually got “closed in” with multiple windows, or it may have been built with those windows. Its south-facing wall has three side-by-side-by-side windows (shaded with a metal awning) and its west-facing wall has two pairs of three side-by-side-by-side windows set a bit apart where a central structural post would be. Because the land topography drops off to the southwest of the front facade and rises to the north of the house, and the sun room’s floor appears to be level with that of the main house, the sun room sits up above the surrounding grade with a taller amount of stone foundation wall showing. Access is made from the driveway (to the west of the sunroom) through a full-height door in the west foundation wall, presumed to be into a basement beneath the sun room (and likely the entire main house). North of the main house component is another addition. This “north addition” may consist of more than one generation of building. It sits hard against what was likely the north/rear of the main house and is concealed from the Main Street view by the east ell. This north addition essentially nestles into the inside corner formed by the main house and east ell. It extends westward approximately 5 feet past the west wall of the main house. Wrapping around the northwest corner of this addition is an open deck. This addition, also sheathed in clapboards and featuring double-hung, six-over-six windows, is assumed to have been built later than the east ell. To the west of the house is a freestanding, one-story, hip-roofed garage, approximately 21 feet wide E-W by 25 feet deep N-S, with two side-by-side garage doors across its south facade and two windows on its east facade. Judging by its “drop” or “dutch lap” siding and its side-hinged garage doors, this structure probably dates from the 1920s or 1930s, not long after it became common to keep personal automobiles at one’s own home. (Early 20th century community garage buildings were built along Tremont Street and elsewhere in Melrose at the time when cars were not kept at home.) Views of the southwest corner of the main house showing sun room and garage Photos by Rob Tullis Melrose, Hist. Dist. Comm. 27 Farmyard buildings that were once immediately adjacent to the south and southwest of the Benjamin Lynde house, as shown in 1889 and 1899 George Walker maps, no longer exist. One of these two buildings, the one closest to Main Street, is labeled Henry Lynde on the 1889 map. It appears to have been located on what is now the vacant 236 Main Street lot and does not appear on the 1899 map. A barn appears on both maps and appears to have been located west of the current house at 238 Main Street, in what is now the backyard of the house at 163 Derby Street. Should any demolition or excavation be done in the vicinity of these two former farm buildings, it should be sensitive to possible archeological evidence that may be uncovered. To review, the nicknames used here to describe the components of the existing Benjamin Lynde House and its additions are shown in this diagrammed aerial photo. 28 SIGNIFICANCE The Benjamin Lynde House at 244 Main Street Melrose is significant for a number of reasons: • It is one of only a few remaining homesteads of the Lynde Family, the first English settlers of what is now Melrose, and whose family legacy is closely tied to the history of the town and the land. • It is one of the few remaining farm houses whose relationship to the land define and remind us of the agricultural history of this part of Massachusetts, and its evolution from agrarian to industrial to urban and suburban uses. • Its construction and situation influenced the network of colonial roadways that linked Charlestown northward to Malden, Melrose, Wakefield, and Reading and thus influenced and directed that evolution. Main Street might not be where it is today if not for this house and the Benjamin Lynde farm. • Its 1693 version was the house from which 16 year old Benjamin Lynde left on April 19th 1775 to muster with other North Malden farmers to march to Lexington and Concord and pursue the British army on its retreat to Boston. • It contains the remnants of the earlier 1693 First Period Colonial home that burned in 1819. It remains to be seen how much of the foundation and two front rooms survive from 1693. • It is a well-preserved and authentic 1820 Federal Style house, built by Benjamin Lynde, and exhibits many hallmarks of that style and time period. The Melrose Historic District Commission and the Melrose Historical Commission therefore feel that it is worthy of preservation and of designation as a single-parcel Local Historic District. While these Commissions hope to gain access to the interior of the house in the near future and make forensic observations as to the age and originality of the various components of the house, we predict that, should complete preservation not be possible and certain components be deemed less worthy of protection than others, the following is a ranking of the house components from most significant to least significant: 1. Main House Block, approximately 41 x 24 feet, 2 stories Most Significant 2. East Porch, approximately 19 x 12 feet, one story Very Significant 3. East Ell, approximately 18 x 14 feet, 2 stories Very Significant 4. North ‘Shed,’ approximately 15 x 11 feet, 1 story Somewhat Significant 5. West ‘Sunroom,’ approximately 19 x 12 feet Somewhat Significant 6. North Additions (probably more than one) 17 x 35 feet Low Significance 7. North and Northwest Deck Not Significant 8. Freestanding Garage Not Significant 29 ORDINANCE Melrose’s existing historic district ordinance would apply to this proposed local historic district, which is attached as Appendix F. Section131 -4.1 would be added to include the Benjamin Lynde House Historic District in the Ordinance. §131-4.1 Benjamin Lynde House Historic District A. There is hereby established, under the provisions of MGL c. 40C, a historic district to be known as the "Benjamin Lynde House Historic District," shown on a plan titled "Proposed Benjamin Lynde House Historic District" dated ______, showing in a boundary around the property at 244 Main Street, parcel ID C5 0 24, said plan having been approved and signed by the City Engineer, placed on file at the offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Inspectional Services, recorded in South Middlesex District Registry of Deeds and included herewith as part of this chapter. PUBLIC COMMENTS On May 12, 2026, the Historic District Commission held a public hearing on the creation of a single-building Local Historic District for the Benjamin Lynde House at 244 Main Street, and public comments were heard. Approximately a half-dozen Melrose residents spoke, all in favor of creation of the District. The comments noted the importance of the Lynde family and this house in Melrose’s history, the good exterior condition of the current 1820 house and its level of authenticity as a representative of Federal Style architecture, Benjamin Lynde’s role in the American Revolutionary war, and even the international importance of “the shot heard ‘round the world.” That it was, in fact, heard round the world, and that American independence and the sacrifice made for it in 1775 still have significance not only to Americans but to those in other countries today. One comment, submitted in writing, noted that it is important to recognize that members of the Lynde family held slaves and to recognize the role of enslaved people in the history of colonial settling of America and early Melrose. At least four members of the Lynde family held slaves (as per Elbridge Goss). Deacon Thomas Lynde, his son Deacon Joseph, his son Ensign Joseph, and Jabez Lynde each had one to three slaves. Slaves were also held by some of the other Melrose settler families, the Vintons, Spragues, Greens, and Barretts (that we know of). Slavery was abolished in Massachusetts through two court cases (Brom & Bett vs. John Ashley in 1781 and the Quock Walker case in 1783) following principles outlined in the Commonwealth’s Constitution of 1780 which stated “all men are born free and equal.” While slavery was not formally declared illegal in America until ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, by 1790 Massachusetts was the only state with zero slaves recorded in the federal census (Wikipedia). It appears that no slaves were held by Benjamin Lynde, nor was slavery associated with the construction of the 1820 house. 30 APPENDIX A- SOURCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY This Final Study Report was principally authored and compiled by Robert Tullis, Melrose Historic District Commission. Assistance with identifying resources was provided by Shane Egan, Melrose Historical Commission. Assistance with genealogical research was provided by Rebecca Blumenthal, Melrose Historical Commission. Compilation of Form B was provided by Ward Hamilton, MSc Historic Preservation. Please note, the City of Melrose’s Office of Planning and Community Development submitted a letter regarding the considerations for recommendation for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. MAPS- 1795 Plan of Malden, surveyed by Peter Tufts Jr, as published by Melrose Historical Society, 1915. 1852 Excerpt from Map of the City and Vicinity of Boston Massachusetts, F.G. Sidney, Rumsey Collection. https://shop.old-maps.com/massachusetts/towns/boston-ma-vicinity-1852- town/melrose-massachusetts-1852-old-town-map-custom-print-boston-vicinity/ 1856 Melrose Map, unattributed, Old Maps collection. https://shop.old-maps.com/massachusetts/towns/middlesex-co-ma-1856-town/melrose- melrose-massachusetts-1856-old-town-map-custom-print-middlesex-co/ 1875 Melrose Map, from County Atlas of Middlesex Massachusetts, J.B. Beers, Ward Maps LLC. https://wardmaps.com/products/melrose-massachusetts-1875 1875 Melrose Center, County Atlas of Middlesex Massachusetts, J.B. Beers, Ward Maps LLC. https://wardmaps.com/products/melrose-massachusetts-1876 1889 [South] Part of Melrose Map, George H. Walker Map, Ward Maps LLC. https://wardmaps.com/products/melrose-massachusetts-1889#:~:text=Publisher:%20Geo. 1899 1909 Melrose Map, Walker Lith. & Pub. Co., Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center. https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:x059c926k 2025 Melrose GIS Map https://www.mapsonline.net/peopleforms/mo4/index.php?site_id=1794 Sanborn Maps https://www.loc.gov/collections/sanborn- maps/?searchType=advanced?CITY=Melrose&stateID=23 BUILDING INFORMATION AND INVENTORIES- MACRIS (Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System) database and inventory forms https://maps.mhc-macris.net/ 31 HISTORY BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS- Goss, Elbridge Henry (1902), The History of Melrose, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts, Published by the City of Melrose MA, A.W. Dunton & Co. printers. Library of Congress Internet: https://archive.org/details/historyofmelrose02goss/page/n5/mode/2up Gould, Levi S. and Shumway, Franklin P., Ancient Melrose and Some, Information about its Old Homesteads, Families & Furnishings, The Melrose Historical Society, 1915. NEWSPAPERS- Melrose newspaper archives online (primarily used for tracking down obituaries) including the: • Melrose Reporter, • Melrose Journal, and • Melrose Free Press INTERNET- Geneology websites (used for, birth and death dates, family tree information): • Family Search.org, https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/ • WikiTree.com, https://wikitree.com • Geni.com, https://www.geni.com/people/ • Find a Grave, https://www.findagrave.com/ 32 APPENDIX B- PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS These drawings shown here were prepared by Robert Tullis using AutoCAD LT software. They were drawn from photographic information, cross-referenced with a Google Earth satellite view and with the Melrose GIS map for overall lot size and house footprint size. However, these drawings do NOT benefit from any on-site measurements and therefore their dimensional accuracy is approximate only. See following two pages for larger images. 33 34 35 APPENDIX C- MASSACHUSETTS HISTORIC COMMISSION FORM B 36 FORM B − BUILDING Assessor’s Number USGS Quad Area(s) Form Number C5 0 24 Boston MEL 33 MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION North MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD Town/City: Melrose BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Place: (neighborhood or village): Wyoming Photograph Address: 244 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 Historic Name: Bejamin Lynde House Uses: Present: Residential Original: Residential Date of Construction: 1820 Source: See Bibliography Style/Form: Adamesque Federal Style Architect/Builder: Unknown Exterior Material: Foundation: Stone Wall/Trim: Wood Locus Map Roof: Asphalt Outbuildings/Secondary Structures: See enclosed Architectural Description Major Alterations (with dates): See enclosed Architectural Description Condition: Good Moved: no yes Date: N/A Acreage: 0.4256 Setting: Residential Recorded by: Rob Tullis and Ward Hamilton Organization: Melrose Historic District Commission Date (month / year): 01/2026 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The Benjamin Lynde House is a center-entry, five-bay, wood framed and sheathed building that, due to its construction date of 1820 and its visible characteristics, falls squarely into the Adamesque Federal Style of American domestic architecture. Dates for the time period encompassing Federal architecture are typically given as 1780 – 1840, and it is referred to as a refined American neoclassical style, an evolution from the Colonial and Georgian, referencing Roman and Adamesque design in Europe, and inspired by America’s hard-won independence from England and its new-found political culture as a constitutional federal republic. Federal style buildings often have massing of simple cubic forms (with additions of secondary cubic forms), bi- laterally symmetrical facades that feature classical details like columns pilasters, swags and urns, entrances with fanlights, and larger windows (than in colonial buildings) to increase daylight in the interior rooms. They often have elegant and light interiors, sometimes with oval/circular rooms and fine moldings. The exterior of the Benjamin Lynde house conforms to typical Federal style characteristics. The massing of the primary component of the house (assumed to be the oldest part) is a rectangle approximately 41 feet across (E-W) by 24 feet deep (N-S) in plan. It is two stories tall with a shallow hip roof having an approximate pitch of 5 on 12 (5” rise in every 12” run). The building sits on a foundation wall of local stone (probably granite) capped by wood water table trim approximately 8” tall. Its top horizontal trim (like an architrave) is approximately 6” tall and consists of a flat component capped by a profiled bed molding directly under the projecting square-edged eaves. The height of the walls from bottom of water table to underside of eave is approximately 18 feet to 19 feet tall. The front facade is sheathed with wood clapboards with approximately 3” exposed to the weather. This tight spacing of the clapboards contributes significantly to the “old” appearance of the house. The sides and rear of the house have more widely spaced clapboards, approximately 4” exposed to weather on many walls. The main facade has cornerboards of approximately 9” width. About 2 feet below the bottom of the eave, the two front cornerboards have a double line of horizontal, square-edged 3/4” x 2” applied trim that wrap the corners onto the sides. It is not entirely clear what these double trim elements are, but they appear in some old photos of the house. In any event, they impart to the cornerboards the appearance of pilasters, as if they could be the abacus/echinus and astragal of a simplified classical order’s capital. Perhaps they are strapping that once supported a more accurate and elaborated capital. Such elaborated capitals seem to be shown in a circa 1900 photo, although the details are fuzzy. The clapboards are painted moss-green, although the paint has faded and peeled and is in somewhat poor condition. All other trim (cornerboards, window casings, eaves, etc.) are painted a slightly lighter shade of the same moss green. Old photographs of the house seem to show that it was once painted white. The main facade has a bi-laterally symmetrical arrangement of five windows side-to-side, one window in the center flanked by a pair of more closely-set windows to each side. On the first floor, the location of the central window is occupied by the front door. The windows are double-hung, six-over-six, with exterior jamb and head casings of approximately 4 ½” width consisting of a flat component framed by a profiled bed molding. The sills are approximately 2½” to 3” thick and have a square-edged profile. The windows, from inside face of casings and sill, measure approximately 2’-7” wide x 4’-10” tall. The glass within the sash muntin bars shows no evidence of waviness or hand-blown circular patterns that would indicate that any glass pieces are particularly old. Modern screen panels have been added in front of the lower sash such that the sash can be raised in good weather without allowing flies to come inside. These screen panels appear not to be mechanically fixed in place. Old photos show shutters on the windows; no shutters exist today. The front door in the center of the ground level of the main facade is reached by walking northward along a sloping walkway with two steps, mounting a granite steppingstone, and then a single step up to a wood entry porch. This entry porch is covered with a small hip roof whose square-edged eaves and simple architrave are supported by two square free-standing columns, one at each outside corner of the porch and roof. The column faces are approximately 8” wide on each side. The columns have simple moldings that form Doric or Tuscan style bases and capitals. These columns have the same or similar profiles as those supporting the east side porch. The roofed entry porch appears to have been added to the house more recently; a 1947 photo shows the house without an entry porch. The columns supporting the east side porch also appear to have been modified, old photos show round lathe-turned porch columns. Perhaps the front entry porch was added and the east side porch columns were Continuation sheet 1 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 revised at the same time. Without the entry porch, the front doorway seems to have had a classical entry hood, supported on two brackets or triglyphs, which surmounted a half-ellipse fanlight above the door. The current entry porch roof replaced or hides the door hood (it may still be extant behind the roof). The elliptical fanlight is still visible. The main facade faces almost directly due south, at an approximate 98 degree angle to Main Street. This slight angle deviation from the 90 degree perpendicular imparts a “presence” to the primary view of the house from Main Street. The angled view corridor from Main Street to the main/front/south facade of the house is important to its contextual appearance. This view corridor, and the open space in front of and to the S.S.E. of the house that makes it possible, should be protected. As should the direct views of the side/east of the house from Main Street and the open space to the east that makes such “drive-by” views possible. Secondary components of the Benjamin Lynde House’s massing appear to be additions to the 41 foot x 24 foot primary ‘main house’ component. The most prominent of these are a two-bay, single-story covered porch on the east side of the main house, and a two-bay wing or ell on the northeast side of the primary house. As just noted, the porch’s three east-side free-standing columns appear to have been modified along with the entry porch, as they match the entry porch’s columns almost exactly. They are slightly wider and they may therefore contain the older round/lathe-turned posts hidden within their current square column profile. The balusters of the handrail around the porch are round and lathe-turned, similar to those shown in old photos. The porch has an almost-flat roof, while old photos show it to have a sloped roof with a hip-return at its south end. Adjacent to the porch and extending northward from it along Main Street is an ell that currently has two-window bays on its first and second floors. Old photos show this “east ell” as five window bays long; we are assuming that the final/northernmost three window bays of this ell were demolished. The eave of the east ell’s roof is lower than that of the main house, as are its windows. It appears therefore that the east ell has lower floor levels than those in the main house. Old photos also show the porch structure extending northward in front of the east wall of the ell all the way to its north end. None of this extended porch exists today. To the north of the remaining two-bay portion of the ell stands a smaller one-story addition whose east-facing facade is set back from the ell by about 10 feet and contains a door centered between two single windows. While it may never have been used as a shed, for identification purposes we will call it the “north shed.” Both the east ell and this north shed have clapboards with approximately 4” exposed to the weather. To the west of the main house component is a flat-roofed, one-story “sunroom” addition. This addition is not evident in the circa 1900 photo but is shown in the 1947 photo. It is symmetrically opposite (around the center of the south/main facade) the east porch, and it may have once been its equivalent that eventually got “closed in” with multiple windows, or it may have been built with those windows. Its south-facing wall has three side-by-side-by-side windows (shaded with a metal awning) and its west- facing wall has two pairs of three side-by-side-by-side windows set a bit apart where a central structural post would be. Because the land topography drops off to the southwest of the front facade and rises to the north of the house, and the sunroom’s floor appears to be level with that of the main house, the sunroom sits up above the surrounding grade with a taller amount of stone foundation wall showing. Access is made from the driveway (to the west of the sunroom) through a full-height door in the west foundation wall, presumed to be into a basement beneath the sunroom (and likely the entire main house). North of the main house component is another addition. This “north addition” may consist of more than one generation of building construction. It sits hard against what was likely the north/rear of the main house and is concealed from the Main Street view by the east ell. This north addition essentially nestles into the inside corner formed by the main house and east ell. It extends westward approximately 5 feet past the west wall of the main house. Wrapping around the northwest corner of this addition is an open deck. This addition, also sheathed in clapboards and featuring double-hung, six-over-six windows, is assumed to have been built later than the east ell. To the west of the house is a freestanding, one-story, hip-roofed garage, approximately 21 feet wide E-W by 25 feet deep N-S, with two side-by-side garage doors across its south facade and two windows on its east facade. Judging by its “drop” or “dutch lap” siding and its side-hinged garage doors, this structure probably dates from the 1920s or 1930s, not long after it became common to keep personal automobiles at one’s own home. Continuation sheet 2 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: The Benjamin Lynde House was originally built by Capt. John Lynde in 1693 and rebuilt by Benjamin after a fire in 1819. The house is one of three surviving structures of a group of colonial homes built by the Lynde family, one of the most significant early Melrose families who were settlers and farmers in what was then known as North Malden. The 1702 Joseph Lynde house also still stands at 409 Lebanon Street (corner of Grove Street), where it faces and terminates the eastern end of Lynde Street as that street winds its way in a lazy S curve from its start at Main Street just north of Wyoming Avenue. The 1829 Alvin Lynde house survives on the east side of Main Street across and uphill from the Benjamin Lynde House. This small house, known as “Little Mount Vernon” for its white porch and once commanding view over Main Street (early twentieth century houses were built in between its porch and Main Street), is undoubtably the inspiration for the road names of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Potomac Street. The rear of the Alvin Lynde House faces the corner of these two roads. Other Lynde family homes were unfortunately destroyed long ago, including two notable structures. The circa 1700 house of Capt. John Lynde once stood near Washington Street on the west side of the railroad tracks adjacent to what is now the Saugus town line (George Washington is said to have tied his horse to an elm tree in its front yard). Also, the 1670 house of Ensign Thomas Lynde, the first English settler in Melrose, once stood at the corner of Main Street and Banks Place (once Goodyear Avenue) on what is now the parking lot of Hunt Photo. This house was documented in the 1933 Historic American Building Survey (H.A.B.S. number MASS-464). The house at 244 Main Street was the home of Benjamin Lynde who, as a 16-year old Minuteman mustered with other North Malden farmers at what is now Gooch Park to join up with Captain Benjamin Blaney’s company on April 19th, 1775, to head to Lexington, where the shot heard 'round the world would ring out to signal the start of the American Revolution. Fortunately, Benjamin Lynde survived the war to return home and thrive. Later in life, he and his family lived through a fire and rebuilding of his home in 1819. Ultimately, he would live to the age of 70, passing away in 1829. The house stayed in the Lynde family throughout the nineteenth century, long after Benjamin passed. The history of the Lynde family in Melrose is integral to the history of the city of Melrose and the Benjamin Lynde house at 244 Main Street lies at the heart of this history. It (or its immediate predecessor) is the oldest remaining Lynde home in Melrose, and the story of the generations who lived there is defined by service to the nation. The home has born witness to the changing landscape that surrounds it: agrarian life yielding to industrialization and urbanization. Thomas Lynde was born in England on January 11, 1593, and became a freeman in 1634. He and his family arrived in Boston by 1634 as part of the Great Puritan Migration. He died on December 30, 1691. He was among the early settlers in Charlestown. He bought a tract of then waterfront land which was known through the time of the Revolution as Lynde's Point, subsequently the site of the State Prison and now Bunker Hill Community College. He was one of the Deputies to the General Court for several years, serving first in 1636. His brother was Simeon Lynde of Louisburg Square in Boston. As part of the ‘great allotment,’ the Lynde family received 13 parcels of land north of Charlestown “above the pondes.” Part of this was 80 acres of land lying in Rockefeilde.” Concerning this tract is a 1638 record in the Charlestown Archives stating “Inasmuch as it apprs yt [that] the Land in the great Lots yt was laid out to Thomas Line [Lynde] & Richd Sprague prooves altogethr unusefull being nothing but Rockes wch was wholly besides or [our] intent, & only through oversight of the Surveyors wee Judge it to bee Just & equall yt they have allowance elswhere to theire satisfaction they leaveing the afforesd Rocks to lye Common." By 1639, Thomas Lynde was granted better farm and hay field land by “Mount Prospect”, on the north side of Waite’s Mount on what was then known as the “Mystic Side” of Charlestown. This area, stretching to the border of Reading (including present day Wakefield), was incorporated as Malden in 1649. This Lynde land grant would come to define much of the southern part of the town of Melrose, which was incorporated in 1850. Thomas Lynde’s house was built near the current entrance to the Forest Dale Cemetery on Forest Street on the Malden side of the Malden-Melrose line. John Lynde (25 Oct 1648 – 17 Sep 1723) was the second son of Thomas and occupied the original house at the foot of Boston Rock near the entrance to the Wyoming Cemetery. In 1693, John Lynde left the Boston Rock homestead and built a new house at what is now 244 Main Street on his inherited northern farm land. This 1693 house burned extensively in 1819. The old Boston Rock homestead, first built by Thomas Lynde, was abandoned. By the time of the Revolution, Lynde descendants had resided in Continuation sheet 3 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 this home for 80 years. Joseph Lynde (2 Sep 1690 - 16 Mar 1763) also lived in the house at 244 Main Street. His son, Joseph Lynde III (4 Jul 1716 - 4 Jul 1798) was both born and died on the Fourth of July. When he was born, the date meant nothing to colonists; when he died, it was the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Lynde, second son of Joseph Lynde III (02 Oct 1758 - 26 Sep 1829) was born in North Malden and it was from the 1693 home at 244 Main Street that he, at age 16 years / 6 months, answered the call to take up arms in the early hours of April 19, 1775, marching with his militia against British forces retreating from Lexington and Concord. Benjamin Lynde inherited the home at 244 Main Street from his father Joseph III in 1798 with 60 acres of land encompassing much of the ‘hill pasture’ of Boston Rock as well as 15 acres called “Island Hill,” a rise of ground surrounded by reedy marsh on the Melrose-Malden line since leveled by industry and development. Although now level ground, this hillock is still marked by the bend in an otherwise straight stretch of Main Street near the Melrose-Malden line and by the name of an avenue stretching through the apartment complex at Oak Grove. The 244 Main Street house of Joseph Lynde III, with its contents, burned on the night of April 10, 1819, the family barely escaping with their lives. It is thought that the northwest 50 percent of the house burned and that the foundation, some of the frame, and the front two rooms were incorporated into the present Adamesque Federal Style “capacious mansion,” built the following year by Benjamin Lynde, then aged 62 years. This is the house that is the subject of the building inventory form. Warren Lynde, born May 15, 1799, died in 1888 at the age of 89 years. Son of Benjamin, Warren inherited this home from his father in 1829 and his tenure farming this property stretched nearly throughout the entire nineteenth century until his passing in 1888. The building appears on 1900s maps as Warren’s residence. When he inherited the Benjamin Lynde house, there were barely 35 homes in the area then known as North Malden. Within 20 years the railway would cut across the ancestral Lynde lands. Melrose was incorporated as a town in 1850 and during Warren’s final decade the population of Melrose nearly doubled to 8500. He passed the home and farm to his son, Henry Lynde, who operated a thriving truck farm business until he sold it to a Dr. Murphy in 1921. The Lyndes of 244 Main St. had a long history of service to the nation. Captain John Lynde, who built the 1693 home, served as Selectmen in Malden for many years and fought with Major Willard in the 1676 King Philip’s War. He was captain of the Malden military company around 1700. Seventy-five years later, young Benjamin Lynde marched with Captain Blaney’s company in defense of Concord and Lexington on April 19, 1775. Benjamin Lynde’s grandson, also named Benjamin, enlisted in the Union Army in 1862 and, at the age of 30, died one year later in Baton Rouge of battlefield disease following the brutal Siege of Port Hudson. The long tradition of military service embodied in the Lynde family continued with one of the final generations of Lyndes to call 244 Main Street home. Frank Warren Lynde was born at the Benjamin Lynde house in 1876 and managed the Lynde family farm in his youth with his father, Henry. His son, Dick, was an airplane instructor who was killed in Pensacola while training for service in Europe during WWII. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES Corey, Deloraine Pendre. The History of Malden, Massachusetts, 1633-1785. University Press: John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, 1898. Goss, Elbridge Henry. History of Melrose, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts. The City of Melrose, 1902. Hurd, David Hamilton. History of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, Volume 3. J.W. Lewis & Co.: Philadelphia, 1890. Secretary of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War. Wright & Potter Printing Co.: Boston, 1903. Continuation sheet 4 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form Check all that apply: Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district Criteria: A B C D Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G Statement of Significance by Ward Hamilton, MSc Historic Preservation The property is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to its direct association with Benjamin Lynde, a veteran of the American Revolution, and its high level of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Lynde family was among the first settlers of Melrose (formerly North Malden), having first built a house on this location in 1693 and thence engaging in agriculture there. Benjamin Lynde (1758-1829) was born on the site and, on April 19, 1775, marched with the Malden Militia to Concord and Lexington. He went on to serve further in the American Revolution. After the war, he married and raised his family there. After a fire devastated the homestead in 1819, he then built the existing building the following year. Benjamin Lynde lived in this home until his death in 1829. The property contributes to a potential single-building historic district representing the historic development of Melrose during the period of significance from approximately 1693-1829. The resource retains integrity of location, design, materials, and association consistent with the district’s historic character. The property is significant under Criterion A for its association with events and broad patterns of history, specifically the American Revolution and early agriculture, which played a significant role in the development of Melrose (formerly North Malden), Massachusetts. The property is significant under Criterion B for its association with Benjamin Lynde, a person significant in the history of Melrose (formerly North Malden), Massachusetts, whose contributions to the American Revolution and early agriculture are directly linked to the property during its period of significance. The property is significant under Criterion C as an example of Adamesque Federal-style architecture, retaining distinctive characteristics of its type, period, and method of construction. The property is significant under Criterion D because it has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to the understanding of historic activities related to settlement in the area, given its proximity to the Wyoming Quarry archeological resource area. Further, as this specific site has been continuously inhabited since at least 1693, there is a high degree of likelihood that home burials occurred there during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Alterations to the building, while extensive, do not detract from the character-defining features that date to the circa 1820 period of significance. The property retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association sufficiently enough to convey its historical significance according to the following criteria: Continuation sheet 5 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 Setting – the character of the location and how the Benjamin Lynde House is situated in relationship to other features, such as the ca. 1820 streetscape and neighboring buildings of significance, is reflected in its setting. Materials – the Benjamin Lynde House still retains most elements that were originally combined to construct the building, including much of the historic building fabric. Design – the Benjamin Lynde House reflects the massing and character-defining features of the historic Adamesque Federal building style. Location – the Benjamin Lynde House is located in the same location where the building was originally constructed in 1820 and has never been moved or relocated from another site. Workmanship – evidence of the builder’s craft skills and technology is immediately apparent in the character-defining features of the systems of the building envelope. Feeling – the Benjamin Lynde House conveys an expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of the early nineteenth century time period when the building was constructed. Association – a direct link between exists Benjamin Lynde, who built the house in 1820, and who was also a veteran of the American Revolution. The Benjamin Lynde House is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to its direct association with American Revolution veteran Benjamin Lynde, who constructed the building in 1820, and its high level of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Ward Hamilton, the author of this NRHP Criteria Statement Form, meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior's professional standards (36 CFR part 61) as an architectural historian qualified to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities. Continuation sheet 6 APPENDIX D- MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION ADVISORY LETTER 37 APPENDIX E- MELROSE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION LETTER 38 CITY OF MELROSE PLANNING BOARD City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 GREGORY SAMPSON Telephone - (781) 979-4190 Chair March 12, 2026 The Melrose Historic District Commission of the City of Melrose, Massachusetts RE: Proposed Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District To the Commissioners of the Melrose Historic District Commission: At its meeting on March 9, 2026, the Planning Board reviewed and discussed the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District Preliminary Study Report. Board Members agreed that the report was helpful in explaining the history of the house and property, and its significance to Melrose. Based on the information outlined in the report, the Board recommended that the property is designated as a Local Historic District. Respectfully yours, Gregory Sampson Planning Board Chair Attachment: Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District Preliminary Study Report dated February 12, 202 cc: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis Lori Massa, OPCD Director & City Planner Members of the Planning Board Members of the Historic District Commission APPENDIX F- CITY OF MELROSE, HISTORIC DISTRICTS ORDINANCE 39 City of Melrose, MA May 22, 2026 Proposed for inclusion of the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District Chapter 131 HISTORIC DISTRICTS § 131-1. Short title; authority. § 131-4.1 Downtown Melrose Historic District. § 131-2. Purpose. 131-4.2 Benjamin Lynde House Historic § 131-3. Historic District Commission. District. § 131-5. Jurisdiction of Commission. [HISTORY: Adopted by the Board of Aldermen of the City of Melrose 7-16-1979 by Ord. No. 19504B (Rev. Ords. 1989, §§ 2-331 to 2-337). Amendments noted where applicable.] § 131-1. Short title; authority. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Historic Districts Ordinance" under authority of MGL c. 40C. § 131-2. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics or architecture of buildings and places significant in the history of the commonwealth and the City and through the maintenance and improvement of settings for such buildings and places and the encouragement of designs compatible therewith. § 131-3. Historic District Commission. A. In accordance with the Historic Districts Act, MGL c. 40C, there is hereby established the Melrose Historic District Commission, which shall have all the powers and duties of a historic district commission under the General Laws. The position of Board member on the Historic District Commission shall be designated as a "Special Municipal Employee" as that term is defined in MGL Chapter 268A. [Amended 3-7-2016 by Order No. 2016-103] B. All members and alternate members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. The Commission shall consist of seven members, including one member, where possible, from two nominees submitted by the local historical societies; one member, where possible, from two nominees submitted by the Massachusetts chapter of the American Institute of Architects; one member, where possible, from two nominees submitted by the Boston Society of Landscape Architects; and one member, where possible, from two nominees submitted by the Eastern Middlesex Board of Realtors. The Commission shall also include a lawyer and one or more residents or owners or renters of property in the historic district to be administered by the Commission. C. When the Commission is first established, two members shall be appointed for a term of one year, two shall be appointed for a term of two years and three shall be appointed for a term of three years, and their successors shall be appointed in a like manner for terms of three years. When the Commission is first established, one alternate member shall be appointed in like manner for a term of one year, one alternate member for a term of two years and one alternate member for a term of three years, and their successors shall be appointed in like manner for terms of three years. All vacancies shall be filled in like manner for the unexpired term.City of Melrose, MA § 131-3 MELROSE CODE § 131-4 D. All members of the Commission shall serve without compensation. E. The Commission shall elect annually a Chair and Vice Chair from its own number and a Secretary from within or without its own number. F. The Historic District Commission shall adopt rules and regulations for the conduct of its business not inconsistent with the provision of the Historic Districts Act. The Commission may, subject to appropriation, employ clerical and technical assistants or consultants and incur other expenses appropriate to the carrying on of its work and may accept money gifts and expend the same for such purposes. G. Meetings of the Historic District Commission shall be held at the call of the Chair and shall be called at the request of two members of the Commission and in such other manner as the Commission shall determine in its rules. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. When taking action under the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Section 11 of the Historic Districts Act1 the Commission shall make its determination within 45 days after the filing of the application for a certificate of appropriateness or such further time as the applicant may, in writing, allow. § 131-4.1 Downtown Melrose Historic District. A. There is hereby established, under the provisions of MGL c. 40C, a historic district to be known as the "Downtown Melrose Historic District," shown on a plan titled "Proposed Downtown Melrose Historic District" dated July 16, 1979, showing in general a boundary following rear property lines of properties bordering Main Street from the intersection of West and East Foster Streets to the south side of West and East Emerson Streets, said plan having been approved and signed by the City Engineer, placed on file at the offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Inspectional Services, recorded in South Middlesex District Registry of Deeds and included herewith as part of this chapter.2 [Amended 8-21-2017 by Ord. No. 2018-4] The District is included, as was originally approved, on the plan titled "Melrose Local Historic Districts" dated June 1, 2026. B. The establishment of the historic district under this section shall take effect when all the Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. § 131-4.2 Benjamin Lynde House Historic District. A. There is hereby established, under the provisions of MGL c. 40C, a historic district to be known as the "Benjamin Lynde House Historic District," shown on a plan titled "Melrose Local Historic Districts" dated June 1, 2026, showing in a boundary around the property at 244 Main Street, parcel ID C5 0 24, said plan having been placed on file at the offices of Planning, City Clerk and Inspectional Services, recorded in South Middlesex District Registry of Deeds and included herewith as part of this chapter. B. The establishment of the historic district under this section shall take effect when the map showing the boundaries of the district is filed with the City Clerk and recorded in the Registry of Deeds. 1. Editor's Note: See MGL c. 40C, § 11. 2. Editor's Note: Said plan is included as an attachment to this chapter.City of Melrose, MA § 131-5 HISTORIC DISTRICTS § 131-5 § 131-5. Jurisdiction of Commission. A. The following categories of buildings or structures or exterior architectural features may be constructed or altered within a historic district without review by the Historic District Commission: (1) Temporary structures or signs, subject, however, to such conditions as to duration of use, location, removal and similar matters as the Commission may reasonably specify. (2) Terraces, walks, driveways, sidewalks and similar structures, or any one or more of them, provided that any such structure is substantially at grade level. This is not to be construed as to include parking lots. (3) Storm doors and windows, screens, window air conditioners, antennas and similar appurtenances. (4) Paint colors, except for paint proposed for masonry or any materials now not painted. (5) Signs of not more than one square foot in area in connection with use of a residence for a customary home occupation or for professional purposes, provided that only one such sign is displayed in connection with each residence and if illuminated is illuminated only indirectly. (6) The reconstruction, substantially similar in exterior design, of a building, structure or exterior architectural feature damaged or destroyed by fire, storm or other disaster, provided that such reconstruction is begun within one year thereafter and carried forward with due diligence. B. The authority of the Commission shall be limited to exterior architectural features within the designated district which are subject to view from a public way. T S CITY OF MELROSE N I D A R M Y B R

S 23-25 18 15 T 20 20 14 9 662 590 1 12-16 562 576 10-12 516 530 496-498 638 660 500-504 630 6 478 484-490 506 532-546 608-612 616 MAIN STREET 667-669 675 543-547 663-665 475-4781 527-535 653-655 503-509 U 647 511-521 P E S T . Melrose Downtown Historic District Order No. 19504-B ³ Approved 7/16/1979 1 inch = 125 feetFORM B − BUILDING Assessor’s Number USGS Quad Area(s) Form Number C5 0 24 Boston MEL 33 MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION North MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD Town/City: Melrose BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Place: (neighborhood or village): Wyoming Photograph Address: 244 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 Historic Name: Bejamin Lynde House Uses: Present: Residential Original: Residential Date of Construction: 1820 Source: See Bibliography Style/Form: Adamesque Federal Style Architect/Builder: Unknown Exterior Material: Foundation: Stone Wall/Trim: Wood Locus Map Roof: Asphalt Outbuildings/Secondary Structures: See enclosed Architectural Description Major Alterations (with dates): See enclosed Architectural Description Condition: Good Moved: no yes Date: N/A Acreage: 0.4256 Setting: Residential Recorded by: Rob Tullis and Ward Hamilton Organization: Melrose Historic District Commission Date (month / year): 01/2026 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The Benjamin Lynde House is a center-entry, five-bay, wood framed and sheathed building that, due to its construction date of 1820 and its visible characteristics, falls squarely into the Adamesque Federal Style of American domestic architecture. Dates for the time period encompassing Federal architecture are typically given as 1780 – 1840, and it is referred to as a refined American neoclassical style, an evolution from the Colonial and Georgian, referencing Roman and Adamesque design in Europe, and inspired by America’s hard-won independence from England and its new-found political culture as a constitutional federal republic. Federal style buildings often have massing of simple cubic forms (with additions of secondary cubic forms), bi- laterally symmetrical facades that feature classical details like columns pilasters, swags and urns, entrances with fanlights, and larger windows (than in colonial buildings) to increase daylight in the interior rooms. They often have elegant and light interiors, sometimes with oval/circular rooms and fine moldings. The exterior of the Benjamin Lynde house conforms to typical Federal style characteristics. The massing of the primary component of the house (assumed to be the oldest part) is a rectangle approximately 41 feet across (E-W) by 24 feet deep (N-S) in plan. It is two stories tall with a shallow hip roof having an approximate pitch of 5 on 12 (5” rise in every 12” run). The building sits on a foundation wall of local stone (probably granite) capped by wood water table trim approximately 8” tall. Its top horizontal trim (like an architrave) is approximately 6” tall and consists of a flat component capped by a profiled bed molding directly under the projecting square-edged eaves. The height of the walls from bottom of water table to underside of eave is approximately 18 feet to 19 feet tall. The front facade is sheathed with wood clapboards with approximately 3” exposed to the weather. This tight spacing of the clapboards contributes significantly to the “old” appearance of the house. The sides and rear of the house have more widely spaced clapboards, approximately 4” exposed to weather on many walls. The main facade has cornerboards of approximately 9” width. About 2 feet below the bottom of the eave, the two front cornerboards have a double line of horizontal, square-edged 3/4” x 2” applied trim that wrap the corners onto the sides. It is not entirely clear what these double trim elements are, but they appear in some old photos of the house. In any event, they impart to the cornerboards the appearance of pilasters, as if they could be the abacus/echinus and astragal of a simplified classical order’s capital. Perhaps they are strapping that once supported a more accurate and elaborated capital. Such elaborated capitals seem to be shown in a circa 1900 photo, although the details are fuzzy. The clapboards are painted moss-green, although the paint has faded and peeled and is in somewhat poor condition. All other trim (cornerboards, window casings, eaves, etc.) are painted a slightly lighter shade of the same moss green. Old photographs of the house seem to show that it was once painted white. The main facade has a bi-laterally symmetrical arrangement of five windows side-to-side, one window in the center flanked by a pair of more closely-set windows to each side. On the first floor, the location of the central window is occupied by the front door. The windows are double-hung, six-over-six, with exterior jamb and head casings of approximately 4 ½” width consisting of a flat component framed by a profiled bed molding. The sills are approximately 2½” to 3” thick and have a square-edged profile. The windows, from inside face of casings and sill, measure approximately 2’-7” wide x 4’-10” tall. The glass within the sash muntin bars shows no evidence of waviness or hand-blown circular patterns that would indicate that any glass pieces are particularly old. Modern screen panels have been added in front of the lower sash such that the sash can be raised in good weather without allowing flies to come inside. These screen panels appear not to be mechanically fixed in place. Old photos show shutters on the windows; no shutters exist today. The front door in the center of the ground level of the main facade is reached by walking northward along a sloping walkway with two steps, mounting a granite steppingstone, and then a single step up to a wood entry porch. This entry porch is covered with a small hip roof whose square-edged eaves and simple architrave are supported by two square free-standing columns, one at each outside corner of the porch and roof. The column faces are approximately 8” wide on each side. The columns have simple moldings that form Doric or Tuscan style bases and capitals. These columns have the same or similar profiles as those supporting the east side porch. The roofed entry porch appears to have been added to the house more recently; a 1947 photo shows the house without an entry porch. The columns supporting the east side porch also appear to have been modified, old photos show round lathe-turned porch columns. Perhaps the front entry porch was added and the east side porch columns were Continuation sheet 1 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 revised at the same time. Without the entry porch, the front doorway seems to have had a classical entry hood, supported on two brackets or triglyphs, which surmounted a half-ellipse fanlight above the door. The current entry porch roof replaced or hides the door hood (it may still be extant behind the roof). The elliptical fanlight is still visible. The main facade faces almost directly due south, at an approximate 98 degree angle to Main Street. This slight angle deviation from the 90 degree perpendicular imparts a “presence” to the primary view of the house from Main Street. The angled view corridor from Main Street to the main/front/south facade of the house is important to its contextual appearance. This view corridor, and the open space in front of and to the S.S.E. of the house that makes it possible, should be protected. As should the direct views of the side/east of the house from Main Street and the open space to the east that makes such “drive-by” views possible. Secondary components of the Benjamin Lynde House’s massing appear to be additions to the 41 foot x 24 foot primary ‘main house’ component. The most prominent of these are a two-bay, single-story covered porch on the east side of the main house, and a two-bay wing or ell on the northeast side of the primary house. As just noted, the porch’s three east-side free-standing columns appear to have been modified along with the entry porch, as they match the entry porch’s columns almost exactly. They are slightly wider and they may therefore contain the older round/lathe-turned posts hidden within their current square column profile. The balusters of the handrail around the porch are round and lathe-turned, similar to those shown in old photos. The porch has an almost-flat roof, while old photos show it to have a sloped roof with a hip-return at its south end. Adjacent to the porch and extending northward from it along Main Street is an ell that currently has two-window bays on its first and second floors. Old photos show this “east ell” as five window bays long; we are assuming that the final/northernmost three window bays of this ell were demolished. The eave of the east ell’s roof is lower than that of the main house, as are its windows. It appears therefore that the east ell has lower floor levels than those in the main house. Old photos also show the porch structure extending northward in front of the east wall of the ell all the way to its north end. None of this extended porch exists today. To the north of the remaining two-bay portion of the ell stands a smaller one-story addition whose east-facing facade is set back from the ell by about 10 feet and contains a door centered between two single windows. While it may never have been used as a shed, for identification purposes we will call it the “north shed.” Both the east ell and this north shed have clapboards with approximately 4” exposed to the weather. To the west of the main house component is a flat-roofed, one-story “sunroom” addition. This addition is not evident in the circa 1900 photo but is shown in the 1947 photo. It is symmetrically opposite (around the center of the south/main facade) the east porch, and it may have once been its equivalent that eventually got “closed in” with multiple windows, or it may have been built with those windows. Its south-facing wall has three side-by-side-by-side windows (shaded with a metal awning) and its west- facing wall has two pairs of three side-by-side-by-side windows set a bit apart where a central structural post would be. Because the land topography drops off to the southwest of the front facade and rises to the north of the house, and the sunroom’s floor appears to be level with that of the main house, the sunroom sits up above the surrounding grade with a taller amount of stone foundation wall showing. Access is made from the driveway (to the west of the sunroom) through a full-height door in the west foundation wall, presumed to be into a basement beneath the sunroom (and likely the entire main house). North of the main house component is another addition. This “north addition” may consist of more than one generation of building construction. It sits hard against what was likely the north/rear of the main house and is concealed from the Main Street view by the east ell. This north addition essentially nestles into the inside corner formed by the main house and east ell. It extends westward approximately 5 feet past the west wall of the main house. Wrapping around the northwest corner of this addition is an open deck. This addition, also sheathed in clapboards and featuring double-hung, six-over-six windows, is assumed to have been built later than the east ell. To the west of the house is a freestanding, one-story, hip-roofed garage, approximately 21 feet wide E-W by 25 feet deep N-S, with two side-by-side garage doors across its south facade and two windows on its east facade. Judging by its “drop” or “dutch lap” siding and its side-hinged garage doors, this structure probably dates from the 1920s or 1930s, not long after it became common to keep personal automobiles at one’s own home. Continuation sheet 2 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: The Benjamin Lynde House was originally built by Capt. John Lynde in 1693 and rebuilt by Benjamin after a fire in 1819. The house is one of three surviving structures of a group of colonial homes built by the Lynde family, one of the most significant early Melrose families who were settlers and farmers in what was then known as North Malden. The 1702 Joseph Lynde house also still stands at 409 Lebanon Street (corner of Grove Street), where it faces and terminates the eastern end of Lynde Street as that street winds its way in a lazy S curve from its start at Main Street just north of Wyoming Avenue. The 1829 Alvin Lynde house survives on the east side of Main Street across and uphill from the Benjamin Lynde House. This small house, known as “Little Mount Vernon” for its white porch and once commanding view over Main Street (early twentieth century houses were built in between its porch and Main Street), is undoubtably the inspiration for the road names of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Potomac Street. The rear of the Alvin Lynde House faces the corner of these two roads. Other Lynde family homes were unfortunately destroyed long ago, including two notable structures. The circa 1700 house of Capt. John Lynde once stood near Washington Street on the west side of the railroad tracks adjacent to what is now the Saugus town line (George Washington is said to have tied his horse to an elm tree in its front yard). Also, the 1670 house of Ensign Thomas Lynde, the first English settler in Melrose, once stood at the corner of Main Street and Banks Place (once Goodyear Avenue) on what is now the parking lot of Hunt Photo. This house was documented in the 1933 Historic American Building Survey (H.A.B.S. number MASS-464). The house at 244 Main Street was the home of Benjamin Lynde who, as a 16-year old Minuteman mustered with other North Malden farmers at what is now Gooch Park to join up with Captain Benjamin Blaney’s company on April 19th, 1775, to head to Lexington, where the shot heard 'round the world would ring out to signal the start of the American Revolution. Fortunately, Benjamin Lynde survived the war to return home and thrive. Later in life, he and his family lived through a fire and rebuilding of his home in 1819. Ultimately, he would live to the age of 70, passing away in 1829. The house stayed in the Lynde family throughout the nineteenth century, long after Benjamin passed. The history of the Lynde family in Melrose is integral to the history of the city of Melrose and the Benjamin Lynde house at 244 Main Street lies at the heart of this history. It (or its immediate predecessor) is the oldest remaining Lynde home in Melrose, and the story of the generations who lived there is defined by service to the nation. The home has born witness to the changing landscape that surrounds it: agrarian life yielding to industrialization and urbanization. Thomas Lynde was born in England on January 11, 1593, and became a freeman in 1634. He and his family arrived in Boston by 1634 as part of the Great Puritan Migration. He died on December 30, 1691. He was among the early settlers in Charlestown. He bought a tract of then waterfront land which was known through the time of the Revolution as Lynde's Point, subsequently the site of the State Prison and now Bunker Hill Community College. He was one of the Deputies to the General Court for several years, serving first in 1636. His brother was Simeon Lynde of Louisburg Square in Boston. As part of the ‘great allotment,’ the Lynde family received 13 parcels of land north of Charlestown “above the pondes.” Part of this was 80 acres of land lying in Rockefeilde.” Concerning this tract is a 1638 record in the Charlestown Archives stating “Inasmuch as it apprs yt [that] the Land in the great Lots yt was laid out to Thomas Line [Lynde] & Richd Sprague prooves altogethr unusefull being nothing but Rockes wch was wholly besides or [our] intent, & only through oversight of the Surveyors wee Judge it to bee Just & equall yt they have allowance elswhere to theire satisfaction they leaveing the afforesd Rocks to lye Common." By 1639, Thomas Lynde was granted better farm and hay field land by “Mount Prospect”, on the north side of Waite’s Mount on what was then known as the “Mystic Side” of Charlestown. This area, stretching to the border of Reading (including present day Wakefield), was incorporated as Malden in 1649. This Lynde land grant would come to define much of the southern part of the town of Melrose, which was incorporated in 1850. Thomas Lynde’s house was built near the current entrance to the Forest Dale Cemetery on Forest Street on the Malden side of the Malden-Melrose line. John Lynde (25 Oct 1648 – 17 Sep 1723) was the second son of Thomas and occupied the original house at the foot of Boston Rock near the entrance to the Wyoming Cemetery. In 1693, John Lynde left the Boston Rock homestead and built a new house at what is now 244 Main Street on his inherited northern farm land. This 1693 house burned extensively in 1819. The old Boston Rock homestead, first built by Thomas Lynde, was abandoned. By the time of the Revolution, Lynde descendants had resided in Continuation sheet 3 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 this home for 80 years. Joseph Lynde (2 Sep 1690 - 16 Mar 1763) also lived in the house at 244 Main Street. His son, Joseph Lynde III (4 Jul 1716 - 4 Jul 1798) was both born and died on the Fourth of July. When he was born, the date meant nothing to colonists; when he died, it was the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Lynde, second son of Joseph Lynde III (02 Oct 1758 - 26 Sep 1829) was born in North Malden and it was from the 1693 home at 244 Main Street that he, at age 16 years / 6 months, answered the call to take up arms in the early hours of April 19, 1775, marching with his militia against British forces retreating from Lexington and Concord. Benjamin Lynde inherited the home at 244 Main Street from his father Joseph III in 1798 with 60 acres of land encompassing much of the ‘hill pasture’ of Boston Rock as well as 15 acres called “Island Hill,” a rise of ground surrounded by reedy marsh on the Melrose-Malden line since leveled by industry and development. Although now level ground, this hillock is still marked by the bend in an otherwise straight stretch of Main Street near the Melrose-Malden line and by the name of an avenue stretching through the apartment complex at Oak Grove. The 244 Main Street house of Joseph Lynde III, with its contents, burned on the night of April 10, 1819, the family barely escaping with their lives. It is thought that the northwest 50 percent of the house burned and that the foundation, some of the frame, and the front two rooms were incorporated into the present Adamesque Federal Style “capacious mansion,” built the following year by Benjamin Lynde, then aged 62 years. This is the house that is the subject of the building inventory form. Warren Lynde, born May 15, 1799, died in 1888 at the age of 89 years. Son of Benjamin, Warren inherited this home from his father in 1829 and his tenure farming this property stretched nearly throughout the entire nineteenth century until his passing in 1888. The building appears on 1900s maps as Warren’s residence. When he inherited the Benjamin Lynde house, there were barely 35 homes in the area then known as North Malden. Within 20 years the railway would cut across the ancestral Lynde lands. Melrose was incorporated as a town in 1850 and during Warren’s final decade the population of Melrose nearly doubled to 8500. He passed the home and farm to his son, Henry Lynde, who operated a thriving truck farm business until he sold it to a Dr. Murphy in 1921. The Lyndes of 244 Main St. had a long history of service to the nation. Captain John Lynde, who built the 1693 home, served as Selectmen in Malden for many years and fought with Major Willard in the 1676 King Philip’s War. He was captain of the Malden military company around 1700. Seventy-five years later, young Benjamin Lynde marched with Captain Blaney’s company in defense of Concord and Lexington on April 19, 1775. Benjamin Lynde’s grandson, also named Benjamin, enlisted in the Union Army in 1862 and, at the age of 30, died one year later in Baton Rouge of battlefield disease following the brutal Siege of Port Hudson. The long tradition of military service embodied in the Lynde family continued with one of the final generations of Lyndes to call 244 Main Street home. Frank Warren Lynde was born at the Benjamin Lynde house in 1876 and managed the Lynde family farm in his youth with his father, Henry. His son, Dick, was an airplane instructor who was killed in Pensacola while training for service in Europe during WWII. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES Corey, Deloraine Pendre. The History of Malden, Massachusetts, 1633-1785. University Press: John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, 1898. Goss, Elbridge Henry. History of Melrose, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts. The City of Melrose, 1902. Hurd, David Hamilton. History of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, Volume 3. J.W. Lewis & Co.: Philadelphia, 1890. Secretary of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War. Wright & Potter Printing Co.: Boston, 1903. Continuation sheet 4 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form Check all that apply: Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district Criteria: A B C D Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G Statement of Significance by Ward Hamilton, MSc Historic Preservation The property is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to its direct association with Benjamin Lynde, a veteran of the American Revolution, and its high level of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Lynde family was among the first settlers of Melrose (formerly North Malden), having first built a house on this location in 1693 and thence engaging in agriculture there. Benjamin Lynde (1758-1829) was born on the site and, on April 19, 1775, marched with the Malden Militia to Concord and Lexington. He went on to serve further in the American Revolution. After the war, he married and raised his family there. After a fire devastated the homestead in 1819, he then built the existing building the following year. Benjamin Lynde lived in this home until his death in 1829. The property contributes to a potential single-building historic district representing the historic development of Melrose during the period of significance from approximately 1693-1829. The resource retains integrity of location, design, materials, and association consistent with the district’s historic character. The property is significant under Criterion A for its association with events and broad patterns of history, specifically the American Revolution and early agriculture, which played a significant role in the development of Melrose (formerly North Malden), Massachusetts. The property is significant under Criterion B for its association with Benjamin Lynde, a person significant in the history of Melrose (formerly North Malden), Massachusetts, whose contributions to the American Revolution and early agriculture are directly linked to the property during its period of significance. The property is significant under Criterion C as an example of Adamesque Federal-style architecture, retaining distinctive characteristics of its type, period, and method of construction. The property is significant under Criterion D because it has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to the understanding of historic activities related to settlement in the area, given its proximity to the Wyoming Quarry archeological resource area. Further, as this specific site has been continuously inhabited since at least 1693, there is a high degree of likelihood that home burials occurred there during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Alterations to the building, while extensive, do not detract from the character-defining features that date to the circa 1820 period of significance. The property retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association sufficiently enough to convey its historical significance according to the following criteria: Continuation sheet 5 INVENTORY FORM B CONTINUATION SHEET MELROSE 244 Main Street MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 MEL 33 Setting – the character of the location and how the Benjamin Lynde House is situated in relationship to other features, such as the ca. 1820 streetscape and neighboring buildings of significance, is reflected in its setting. Materials – the Benjamin Lynde House still retains most elements that were originally combined to construct the building, including much of the historic building fabric. Design – the Benjamin Lynde House reflects the massing and character-defining features of the historic Adamesque Federal building style. Location – the Benjamin Lynde House is located in the same location where the building was originally constructed in 1820 and has never been moved or relocated from another site. Workmanship – evidence of the builder’s craft skills and technology is immediately apparent in the character-defining features of the systems of the building envelope. Feeling – the Benjamin Lynde House conveys an expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of the early nineteenth century time period when the building was constructed. Association – a direct link between exists Benjamin Lynde, who built the house in 1820, and who was also a veteran of the American Revolution. The Benjamin Lynde House is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to its direct association with American Revolution veteran Benjamin Lynde, who constructed the building in 1820, and its high level of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Ward Hamilton, the author of this NRHP Criteria Statement Form, meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior's professional standards (36 CFR part 61) as an architectural historian qualified to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities. Continuation sheet 6 .From: Ward Hamilton <oldemohawkinc@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 12:46 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofmelrose.org> Cc: Massa, Lori <lmassa@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: ID # 2026-1291: Vote to establish the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the city's domain. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe that this message is spam, please use the "Report Spam" button in Outlook to report it. Good afternoon, President Freeman and members of the Melrose City Council. The purpose of this communication is to urge you to vote in favor of establishing the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District in Melrose. Local Historic Districts (LHDs) p Warning: Unusual sender <oldemohawkinc@gmail.com> You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions. Good afternoon, President Freeman and members of the Melrose City Council. The purpose of this communication is to urge you to vote in favor of establishing the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District in Melrose. Local Historic Districts (LHDs) protect buildings by regulating visible exterior alterations, preventing unnecessary demolitions, and requiring architectural compatibility for new construction. Established under the Commonwealth's Historic Districts Act, G.L. c. 40C, LHDs act as local zoning overlays governed by an appointed Local Historic District Commission. As you know, the Melrose Historic District Commission conducted a study to determine the feasibility of creating a single building LHD for the Benjamin Lynde House. This study was reviewed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the Melrose Planning Board, and the plan to create the LHD was endorsed by each. It was my honor to assist Melrose HDC commissioner Rob Tullis in drafting an updated building inventory form (MHC Form B attached). As part of that process, I drafted and submitted a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria Statement Form in an effort to have the Benjamin Lynde House listed on the NRHP. The building is eligible for inclusion due to its direct association with Benjamin Lynde, a veteran of the American Revolution, and because of its high level of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Lynde family was among the first settlers of Melrose, having built a house on the location in 1693 and thereafter engaging in agriculture here. Benjamin Lynde was born on the site in 1758 and, on April 19, 1775, marched with the Malden Militia to Concord and Lexington. He went on to serve further in the American Revolution and, after the war, married and raised his family there. After a fire devastated the homestead in 1819, Benjamin Lynde then built the existing house the following year where he lived until his death in 1829. This property is a critical historical resource and represents the early development of Melrose during the period of significance from approximately 1693-1829. Further, the Benjamin Lynde House retains integrity of location, design, materials, and association. The attached document provides additional detail. Thank you, in advance, for your consideration - especially as this comes before you during your busiest time of the year. I appreciate fully all that you do for the City of Melrose. Ward Hamilton ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** From: JOANNE EUSTACE <sjpmj@aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 12:47 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: Benjamin Lynde House Good morning Just another email from a concerned Melrose resident stating I am NOT in favor of the 60 unit apartment going up where the beautiful historic Lynde house stands Melrose has enough apartments being built at the present time and as I understand has reached its 40B requirement Please consider keeping Melrose beautiful Joanne Eustace Sent from my iPhone ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** From: Diana Cafarella <dianaeq@aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 5:47 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofmelrose.org> Subject: New business CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the city's domain. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe that this message is spam, please use the "Report Spam" button in Outlook to report it. Dear City Council, My name is Diana Cafarella of 18 Bellevue Ave. I’m writing to the City Council as I have been following the developments regarding the Benjamin Lynde House at 244 Main St. I am a strong supporter of historic pre Warning: Unusual sender <dianaeq@aol.com> You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions. Dear City Council, My name is Diana Cafarella of 18 Bellevue Ave. I’m writing to the City Council as I have been following the developments regarding the Benjamin Lynde House at 244 Main St. I am a strong supporter of historic preservation in Melrose and see the value in expanding the historic district(s) here. Fifty percent of our city, maybe more, was built before 1900. That isn’t our burden. That is our blessing that makes our city unique from surrounding towns. Do you want to see where we have been? You can take a look for yourself. We, and generations before us, have successfully preserved our city with only minimal safeguards in place. It’s miraculous actually. However, we are now at a precarious point in time in which major development is threatening our city. Boston is expanding outwards. People want to share in our city, and that is wonderful. But, a candid dialogue is needed about the parts of our city that are important to us. And, it’s more than just that downtown strip of Main Street that is currently “the historic district.” There are landmarks, neighborhoods, places that we can’t live without that make up the chapters of our history. 244 Main St is a perfect example of that, and it’s worthy of its own historic district. I urge you to please give careful consideration to what more can be done proactively toward better historic preservation here in Melrose. I think we can all agree that’s part of our reason for loving our city. Respectfully, Diana Cafarella Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.**** ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.****

Transcript

▶ 0:00 Kimberly Vandiver: I'll send you the email. Give me credit with someone. Hello, everyone. Good evening. The time is 6:03 PM on Thursday, June 4th. This is a meeting of the Appropriations and Oversight Committee. I'm Councilor Vandiver, the committee vice chair. Also joining me tonight are Councilors Park, Jamaludin, Kowal, Abramski, Chen, Finocchiaro, Williams, Karemchety, Councilor Romanul joining remotely, and President Freeman ex officio. This serves as a notice of quorum for the record, and in accordance with the open meeting law, tonight's meeting is being broadcast and recorded by MMTV. We have a very full agenda tonight, so I just want to remind people up front that we do have a limit on five minutes per person for public comment, and we have

▶ 1:00 Kimberly Vandiver: three rules that address the amount of time that councilors may speak per topic, which we can get to if needed. At this time, I will motion for approval of the minutes from the June 1st hearing. So moved. Second. Madam Clerk, will you call the roll? Yes. Vice Chair Vandiver? Yes. Sorry. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. All in favor. Thank you. And I'll also look for someone to open public comment. So moved. Second. We have a motion to open public comment. We will do entirely roll call tonight as we have someone remote.

▶ 2:09 Kimberly Vandiver: Will you call the roll to open public comment? Yes. Vice Chair Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. You can turn it on. Okay. Public comment is now open. This is the portion of the meeting where the public may speak to any item on our agenda tonight. Comments on other matters are also welcome. And as I stated, please try to limit your comments to five minutes in the interest of time tonight. Thank you. Good. Hi, everyone. Finn McSweeney, 160 West Wyoming Avenue. I'm here to support, with reservations,

▶ 2:57 the El Pond Park design spending. The specific aspect of this developing plan that I oppose is what I see as an assumption baked into the plan that we're going to have synthetic turf fields, at least one at the park. I oppose this for three reasons. The first is I think it's gonna scratch the itch we have in this community for easy button municipal spending that I think has been growing in recent years. We're getting on this hedonic treadmill of we have a tax base that's willing to support overrides, it's willing to support exclusions, and so we're going to spend money on a really nice salt shed. We're going to spend money on the third fire station. I think we have to check ourselves as a community, anything that's going to tempt

▶ 3:43 us into what we can spend a couple of million dollars on this solution, and it's just going to be easy. It's going to solve the problem. I think we have to be very wary of that as a community. The second reason is, while I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of our local youth sports organizations, they're incredible. Our kids in this community are so lucky to have organizations like them. I think that those organizations should be asked to substantiate the idea that turf fields in particular, which many of them are advocating for, are going to improve field access. This community has half as many kids as it had a generation ago. And as someone who has multiple kids in youth sports in this

▶ 4:25 community, I'm curious to see how a turf field would improve access to the fields. But to me, the main limitation in this community is time. It's not the field material. So I think that the organization should be asked just "What are your registration numbers? Show us how your scheduling blocks would improve with a turf field," and then we can debate that. And the third reason, and probably the most important, is that turf is disgusting. It's gross. I know it. Everyone around this table knows it. Go stand on the turf field at the high school tomorrow in the middle of the day. You will hate it. You will leave in two, three minutes. It stinks, smells bad. It's hot. It's like hanging out in a parking lot.

▶ 5:12 The number of organizations every year, from professional sports organizations to youth health organizations that come out in opposition to turf fields, synthetic turf fields, is growing every year. From children's health organizations who understand that children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental contaminants, and no one really knows, despite what the manufacturers will tell you, no one really knows what's in the turf fields. It's a major concern, all the way up to professional-level organizations. The NFL Players Association, the organization that probably has access to the best, most highest quality turf fields on the planet, opposes-synthetic turf fields and wants their players to play on grass fields. They're kicking up another stink about

▶ 5:58 this because of the World Cup, and the reason is because injury rates are higher on turf fields. They know this. Everyone knows this. I know that your sports organizations have included some comments in their letters that they're safer. They're just not. I think that's wishful thinking. So those are my reasons. I appreciate everyone's time. I think we should invest in L Pond, absolutely, but that aspect of the plan really concerns me, and I think we need to do more work before we move ahead into the spending real money phase of it. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Welcome. If you can sign in and then state your name and address, please. I would if there was a pen. Oh, we can get you one. Thank you.

▶ 6:45 Hi, my name is Susan Grossberg. I live at 98 East Wyoming Avenue. I'm here about item 2026-1175, the appropriations for the L Pond Park. And my concern is regarding the synthetic turf, and I'm going to quote Diana Conway, who is the president of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc. This is from a Beyond Plastics website page. And she says, "I would like to compare synthetic turf to a bad relationship. It gets dangerously hot, it's toxic to everyone around me, it's unsustainable, and it's really hard to get rid of." So it's an average field of 80,000 square feet, contains about 40,000 pounds of plastic carpeting and 400,000 pounds of infill, and the infill is from recycled tires or alternative materials,

▶ 7:49 many of which may not be tested, and some of which have been found to contain PFAS. Fields average a 10-year lifespan and then need to be disposed of, which is either done by landfill or incineration, so further putting communities at risk for chemical exposure. And synthetic turf fields have been shown to contain the following chemicals: benzene, a human carcinogen; arsenic, human carcinogen; styrene, anticipated to be a human carcinogen; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAH, human carcinogen; zinc, neurotoxin; cadmium, carcinogen; chromium, carcinogen, respiratory irritant; VOCs, SVOCs; hexane, toluene, formaldehyde, respiratory irritants, asthma triggers; neurotoxicants; phthalates, which are a reproductive toxicant;

▶ 8:50 crystalline silica, which is a respiratory irritant; latex, which is an allergen; and particulate matter, which is an asthma trigger. Additionally, being made of petrochemicals, they're highly flammable. As a result, many fields contain toxic flame retardants. Many also contain antimicrobials following the higher incidence of MRSA. I can't pronounce it, but the MRSA infections from playing on synthetic turf fields. This is not a healthy alternative for our children to play on. I would hope that you would consider not using synthetic turf on this field. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who wishes to speak? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, I have handouts. I don't know if there's enough.

▶ 10:06 I guess I'll sign in. I'll share that. I'm Pete Walter. I'm here in support of the Conservation Commission's appropriation for money for pond management. Since moving to Melrose a year ago, I've enjoyed all three of the ponds a lot. L Pond you probably hear about a lot because that's in downtown, and that's fun. I've had my granddaughter there, showing her the swans and the birds and it's just beautiful and it's fun. There's also Towner's Pond and Swain's Pond, which are kind of like the hidden gems. There are people that go hiking around Towner's Pond. There's a big rock that they go and sit and just kind of seek solitude and look at the beauty. Swain's Pond, there's always people fishing at it and just

▶ 11:10 relaxing. So they're a gem for a city like Melrose to have three ponds. They've recently been doing some work on Towner's Pond to deal with the lily pads because they overtake the pond and then it makes it so that the guys couldn't fish. It's just unattractive, and it's slowly filling the pond in. It's only six feet deep. It was created to generate ice for Boston. So it's not a real deep one, which is also another fun thing. Kids go ice skating on it. Hockey games are played there. So anyways If they could do things to make the ponds in Melrose more beautiful and more accessible, it would be a great thing. So thanks a lot. Thank you. Hello, welcome. Hello. My name is Paul Morgan. I live at 295 Swains Pond Avenue, which is

▶ 12:24 right on Towner's Pond. I'm here to support ID number 2026-1202. The ponds are a great resource. All the ponds in Melrose are a great resource to the community. We've lived on Towner's Pond for about 20 years. I love watching hockey games in the winter. I can watch five hockey games in the winter. I can see kids fishing. And it's not just on Towner's, it's on Swains, it's on L. Also, the ponds up at Mount Hood are critical to the community. Unfortunately, they're filling in. They're filling in with silt. In fact, to be honest, I haven't seen anybody fishing on Towner's Pond this year at all because it's too shallow. It used to be six feet deep, but there are islands forming on the pond. So it's really important for the community, I think, to start focusing more on

▶ 13:22 management of all the ponds. It's a resource that we could lose. All you have to do is go up to Mount Hood and take a look at the ponds. Pond number one at Mount Hood, it's turning into a swamp. The far side of Towner's Pond is already a swamp from silt filling it in. So we have an opportunity, we have time to start to manage that now, and this appropriation would help to start that, but it's a long-term project if we want to have these resources available going forward. So I hope you vote in favor of that. Thank you. Do we have additional people who'd like to comment? Thanks again. Hi, welcome. Hi. Thank you. I'm Sherry Qualters. I live at 41 Albion Street, and I'm here on behalf of myself and

▶ 14:25 a number of members of Zero Waste Melrose who couldn't be here. Some because of children's sports banquets. But I'm here to comment on 2026-1175, and we would also respectfully request that the design not include artificial turf for any fields. I was struck that FIFA has banned artificial turf for the World Cup soccer games, and also I believe the US Soccer Association opposes it. There's a lot of plastic in it, and over time it breaks down a little bit at a time, and all the plastic is going in the air. And there's PFAS, those forever chemicals that we can never get rid of. There's a lot of toxic chemicals as well that interfere with health, and it's been studied by organizations like the Children's

▶ 15:34 Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and other organizations. And it just would be great to have fields that don't heat up so much. The fields get really hot, as the other gentleman mentioned. When it's a hot day, the artificial turf gets even hotter than natural grass. So that's not ideal because we're getting a lot of hot days the beginning and end of the school year. So that's it. We just would like to register that we're hoping that the design can include a focus on grass instead of artificial turf. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak at public comment? Hello, everyone. Hello. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity. I'm here to speak in support of

▶ 17:07 Mark Garipay: item 2026-1175, the appropriation for 710,000 for the design and permitting of L Pond. I strongly believe we need to move this project forward to the next phase. This project is a project that has been studied and debated for the past six years on and off. As someone who sat around this horseshoe in your seats for six years, and as a member of the last two capital improvement planned program committees, I have consistently been a strong supporter of this project. And I ranked it probably in the top five both times. To provide some historical context, the city of Melrose has made very few substantial investments in our parks, fields, and recreational spaces over the last several decades. Aside from playground replacements

▶ 17:57 Mark Garipay: fencing, park redesigns, routine maintenance, and other wear and tear improvements. There have been no major city-funded investments in recreational facilities since the late 1970s. The Melrose High School baseball field was renovated right around 1984 through the generosity of a donation of Dr. Richard Morelli. Pine Bank's track and field projects, along with the Melrose High School athletic complex, facilities that are among the finest in the area, were funded through the Mount Hood Enterprise Fund rather than the city's operating budget. So in essence, the golfers in Mount Hood have been paying for all major developments in the park. So since 1970, the city of Melrose has not put any money through their budget into

▶ 18:44 Mark Garipay: fields, major improvements. It is important to remember that the vote before you tonight is not the final decision on the number of fields, the type of product that the fields are going to be, the paths, the parking configuration. This vote is simply for advancing this project into the next phase. That's all it is. Into the design and permitting phase, where those important discussions can take place. I'm sure the presenters tonight, I'm sure there'll be a presentation, but they will not have any of those answers because we haven't done the design. That will be up to the Park Commission. And I'm sure they will give you all ample time, all the councils, the public, the user groups time to come and give their opinions.

▶ 19:30 Mark Garipay: But they're the ones that have the ultimate authority to make that decision. You guys have the ultimate authority if it comes before you, whether you agree with it or not. But tonight, we're only voting, or I'm sorry, you're only voting to advance this forward to the next phase. So, Melrose has accomplished a great deal in recent years. We've made investments in public safety, infrastructure, critical equipment. Tonight we have the opportunity to continue moving this community forward, and this is one step of doing it. Like I said, I understand everyone's concerns. At the end of the day, we need a recreational facility that will work for everyone. This is just the next phase to get there. There are no final decisions on what it's going to be.

▶ 20:16 Mark Garipay: But we can't even decide on what we want the turf or grass, whatever it be, unless we get this passed tonight. So, I ask for your support on this and there'll be plenty of time, I'm assuming, through the Park Commission, who has the ultimate authority on what they want to do. And there'll be plenty of chance for comment on that. So, I appreciate your time, appreciate all you do, and good luck. Hope you guys don't have a long night. Sounds like it's going to be. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at public comment tonight? Don't see anyone standing up in the chamber. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online? No one online. Thank you. In that case, I would look for a motion to close public comment.

▶ 21:07 Kimberly Vandiver: Motion to close public comment. Second. A motion to close public comment by Councilor Finocchiaro and seconded by Councilor Karim Cheedy. And Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please? Vice Chair Van Devin? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karim Cheedy? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. Okay, and public comment is now closed. So we'll move on to our meeting tonight. I'll note we also will have two public hearings, one at 7:45 and one at, I believe, 8:00, that we'll get to. So tonight, we'll be hearing the department budget presentations

▶ 22:03 Kimberly Vandiver: for the Department of Public Works, as well as for information technology, planning and community development, and inspection services, as well as some related orders. So we'll start with some DPW related topics, I believe, beginning with ID number 2026-1175. Would you read the order, please? Yes. An appropriation from free cash account 01-324001 to DPW admin engineering department number 401 in the amount of $710,000 for design and permitting of L Pond Park. Great. And so I believe we have DPW director Elena Proakis-Ellis with us tonight, as well as the mayor and Parks Commission? We can just use everyone. Yeah. Wonderful. Good evening, Madam Chair and councilors. So joining me tonight is Jim Donahue, who is one of the

▶ 23:17 Jen Grigoraitis: volunteer members of our Park Commission, currently serving as its chair, Elena Proakis-Ellis, our DPW director, and Brandon Kunkel from Weston & Sampson, who is the consultant that was procured many years ago to design the feasibility study. They have a very Fancy and technical presentation. But before we get to that, just to do some framing, because I think as was mentioned in public comment, this is a project that has been in the public domain since 2020, when the city, funded through free cash, engaged in a feasibility study. So that is the first step for something like this, is to actually identify what could be feasible before we even move into design. This is about the L Pond Park and the surrounding field.

▶ 23:57 Jen Grigoraitis: So just that is a 19.1 acre active and passive recreational facility that surrounds L Pond. It's the largest recreational parcels of land in the city. Part of it is used by the Melrose Public Schools, most especially the middle school and high school, which are right across the street, during the school day for education, including physical education and some science classes. It is also used during after school hours, weekends, and as late as we can keep the lights on, by both high school athletes, recreational programming, and youth sports. The purview of the park is under the Park Commission. It also contains our veterans memorial at the Knoll, as well as our dog park, our Lyons tennis courts, our Monk Little

▶ 24:39 Jen Grigoraitis: League, our skate park, the Cabbage Patch field that's in front of the middle school, the Crystal Street tennis courts, and a parking lot that's utilized by both high school students during the school day and then users of the park on all other times. So it's a significant parcel of land, and as has been mentioned in public comment, this project was ranked number one on the capital improvement plan this year. Thank you to Councilor Park for serving as the council liaison to that. And it's appeared on previous CIPs and some portions of repair to the fields have been attempted going as far back as 2007, but there has been no significant investment in these facilities since then. So it is obviously a big undertaking.

▶ 25:19 Jen Grigoraitis: It's a big parcel of land. It serves a lot of user groups. It would be a complex project from both a regulatory perspective, a permitting perspective, as well as just a user group perspective. It's something that I think should we move forward with, it would certainly happen in a phased approach for many reasons. And it's also going to require a lot of careful planning. That process will involve experts that we have procured. It will involve DPW. It will involve the Park Commission, which is a public body with regulatory authority, as well as the Conservation Commission, which is also a public regulatory body. That is before anything would ever come before this body with any type of funding request attached to it.

▶ 25:56 Jen Grigoraitis: So it's really about having spent six years in this phase, getting ready to maybe move into the next phase. I think six years is probably too long for some people. Some people would like it to be a little bit longer. It feels just about right for government that it's taken us six years to get here. So that's what this is about very broadly, and I'll turn it over to you to talk about the technical. Sure. Okay. So Adrian, if you can put the presentation up. Yes. Thank you. So this is just our welcome slide. You can go to the next. So we're going to run through the project history, the schedule and goals, 25% design, stormwater management, which we're doing a little bit of right now, the cost estimate, and then any questions that you might have.

▶ 26:45 Next slide. So I know this has been mentioned several times now, but back in 2020, we started the feasibility study. We did a competitive process to select a consultant, and Weston & Sampson won that competitive process. We had a committee that actually still meets, consisting of representatives from the Park Commission, the Conservation Commission, various city departments, planning, parks, DPW, and we've had resident involvement as well. And so it was a really robust process. We had several public meetings, one public meeting in particular that I remember that was during COVID. I think we had more people on that call than I've ever had on a public meeting that was project specific. So we've heard a lot of feedback. And then in February 2025, we were

▶ 27:39 awarded a $1 million EPA grant for stormwater improvements. That grant could only be spent on stormwater. So design, permitting, and construction of just the stormwater elements of the project. So we're advancing that right now. And in construction season 2027, we expect for those stormwater improvements to take place. I'll show you in a minute what those are. And then as part of that project, we needed to bring the whole park to 25% design so that we had adequate information to size the stormwater components. So that's all been done, and so right now, Weston & Sampson is at 25% design. And so the funding that we're requesting tonight is to go from 25% design to 90% design of the whole park, and

▶ 28:27 then 100% design of whatever we decide the first phase is, bid ready plans of whatever that phase is. But we haven't come to any conclusions yet about that. During this extensive process of public input, we had different alternatives that we presented. Oh, sorry. Next slide. Thank you. You're welcome. Forgot to say next slide. So these were some of the takeaways from the public engagement. People use the fields, and they use the park for walking. The fields are in average condition. People were interested in accessibility and better drainage. The courts were also average condition, and people were, again, interested in accessibility and just general improvements. What is desired is better drainage of the fields, more

▶ 29:18 seating, improved walking paths and trails, and improvements to the pond and the waterfront. Next slide. Okay, so here are, again, some of the results. The field drainage problems wereOne of the main reasons why folks weren't satisfied with the park. Other comments were about lighting, programming, court repair. And then the answer, are the existing recreational facilities meeting the needs of the organization or program in terms of availability and performance? About half of the folks said yes, and about half said no. Next slide. So, in addition to the field use, of the other elements of the park, the one that had the most interest from the public was improved paths and trails, and then after that was cleaning up the pond and the waterfront.

▶ 30:22 And this whole presentation is in your packet and in the public packet, so if anyone wants to dig in more to the data, you can do that. Next slide. Oops. So, this was the preferred concept resulting from the feasibility study process. I'm not going to read all these little boxes all the way around, but the overall point that we're trying to make here is that this is a holistic look at the whole park. There are improvements proposed to the fields, the tennis courts, the wetland area that captures the water that comes across the parkway and makes it into the pond. So, improvements to water quality that enters the pond, which is mostly street drainage. Improvements to the knoll, an accessible path up the

▶ 31:15 knoll to access all the memorials. A walking trail around the entire perimeter of the park. When the whole thing, the whole walking trail is complete, it's actually a .75 mile loop, which is pretty nice for jogging or even kids on bikes and things. The parkway has always had an issue where DCR couldn't put a bike lane on that portion of the parkway because of all the drop-off and pickup activity from the schools. And so there will be a multi-use path behind the fence along that whole side of the park so that people can walk, bike, off of the parkway and not have to be in the area where people are pulling over their cars and dropping off children. There is a little outdoor classroom area. The dog park remains. This preferred concept does show

▶ 32:08 an adjustment of the shape of the parking. There were actually two alternatives, one which leaves the entrance as it is, and the other which splits it like this. I think at this point, we're leaning toward the one that leaves it as is, because otherwise we'd need another traffic light on the parkway, which I think we now have enough. Next slide. So, this is our schedule right now. We have the stormwater project advancing to the 100% design, and then we'll have the construction, as I mentioned, next summer of that. That will spend all the money from the EPA, all of the federal earmark. And then anything we do beyond that is city money, or we'd have to apply for other grants or earmarks or such.

▶ 32:59 So, we're showing construction starting on this phase of the project in April of 2027. And right now, we are here. Actually, we were here in May when we put the presentation together. Now we're in June. But we're advancing the final design plans for those stormwater elements. Next slide. Next slide, thank you. So, this is the 25% design plan, so you'll see that we did maintain that entrance and exit at the same place. And this runs through all of those major improvements. So, the paths, the courts, the fields, the knoll, the accessible path. Oh, there's a boat ramp that the school is actually also interested in having better access to launch a boat on the pond. The outdoor classroom, the wetland improvements,

▶ 33:48 and actually, there's also, I didn't mention before, these little fitness terraces that would be along the walking path. Next slide. This is just a different view, to be able to see the park from a little bit of a different angle. Next slide. So, we're envisioning an inclusive park with diverse programming, and I've said this a couple of times now, but the idea is to meet the needs of all the users of the park. This is not only a playing field project or only a water quality improvement project. It's a holistic look at the whole park to make it a real amenity for the whole community, where really if you want to do any sort of outdoor recreation or even just sit and look over the pond, there's something for everybody in this design. Next slide.

▶ 34:50 This shows the walking paths. One critical part of this that I haven't called out yet is that where the wetland comes in on the right-hand side there, it does require a little bridge, a little boardwalk, over the channel that comes in. I think that's actually going to be a nice amenity, too. It's bringing people a little bit closer to the wetland, which once improved, will be not an eyesore like it is now and should be a nice area for wildlife and to see a little bit of nature. And then that connects it to the Crystal Street courts without being on the parkway, which I think is also a nice amenity. Next slide. So, here are just some conceptual drawings. This shows that at the top of the knoll with an accessible path,

▶ 35:36 you could potentially have wheelchair access up to the top of the knoll, a nice vista of the parks down below.And access to the memorials as well. Next. And similarly, the multi-use path, we actually showed here the food co-op, since they would still continue to use that space as well. So Weston Sampson showed the food co-op on the right there. And you'll see the concept of a multi-use path, so wide enough for people to walk and cycle along that whole perimeter. This is the less exciting stuff. The pinkish lines are the stormwater pipes that would be installed now, and then the blue are rain garden depressed areas that would be installed now. So this is what EPA is paying for the construction of.

▶ 36:37 The yellow and the two hatched lines are the wetland borders and the buffer zone. So those are not pipes, but everything else that's a line there, the colored line is a pipe, and then the depressed rain garden areas. And we've worked around all the other uses of the park, so they shouldn't interfere with any of the playing fields or anything else. Next. So this is what the full stormwater build-out would look like. We would have to have drainage regardless of what the type of field is, whether it's natural turf or artificial turf on any of these fields. They would have all new drainage underneath them because the real crux of the problem right now is drainage. The groundwater is so close to the surface at certain times of year, and the fields

▶ 37:23 get very spongy. So the full build-out in this final design would account for drainage under all of those fields as well, including the cabbage patch across the street. Next slide. So for costs, the current project, as I mentioned, a million-dollar EPA grant, and then we have supplemental funding for the city's match. The cost estimate is 1.175 million, so that is fully funded. The design to bring the rest of the project to 90%, and then, like I said, bid ready documents for the next phase, which we're calling phase two, is $710,000. And then right now we have a cost estimate of 12.5 million to construct the entire project once the design is complete. But the exact costs will depend on exactly what we're designing, so that could

▶ 38:15 change depending on the various elements of the project. Next. And I'm not going to go through this in detail, but this is in your packet, and you can see how the prices break out for that 12.5 million into the different elements of the field in very broad brush strokes. Next slide. So that's just the park again. We can leave that up there while we're answering questions in case that's helpful. Yeah, I'll just make a few comments. So, thank you for having us today. I know that there's been a lot of ground covered, and I just want to reiterate a few things. One is, and Elena, you might be covering this through questions. Following the design study that would be funded based on the appropriation before you guys today,

▶ 39:15 there could be decisions for sequencing. It doesn't mean it's $12.5 million that would need to be expended right away. There could be a phasing. So from a financial perspective, I think you would think about it potentially in stages, and I think that would be a likely approach for how we would tackle the implementation. I think the other thing that I'd like to bring, and I've reflected this in a letter that I sent to you all a few weeks ago. Ultimately, while this is not the final decision, this is intended to move beyond concept towards the possibility of implementation. From the perspective of just the playing fields for a moment, one of the things that's pretty critical right now is continued

▶ 40:06 access. When you look at the demand for the field, we're at a point right now where it's not just a matter of whether we're going to have a nice field or not have a nice field. It's a matter of whether everyone's going to be able to play. And going back a few years and prior to being in the Park Commission, I was on the board of Miller Rose Youth Soccer, and served as president for five years, including during COVID. One of the things that was abundantly clear through that process was the importance for our youngest members of our community, not just those who are excellent athletes, but all of them, to be able to have access to the experiences of succeeding, of failing, of interacting with

▶ 40:56 others of their peers, and being active both for their physical as well as their mental health. And so one of the things that makes me passionate about this, is that we're at a point right now where if we are not able to improve the reliable access to safe fields, we're going to be starting to turn kids away. And so once again, oversimplifying it, it's not just a matter of whether we have nice fields or not nice fields, it's a matter of whether everyone can play. And I think that's one of the things at the core of this. If this is moved forward, there will be a very deliberative open process. I know there are lots of opinions as we think about what it would look like to improve all aspects of the Alpine Park.

▶ 41:52 Bradley Freeman: And we'll have a robust discussion in the public around that, and we'll look forward to that, but-I look forward to your decision tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Questions and comments from the council. I believe President Freeman was up first. Thank you very much, Councilor Vanderberg. And thank you all for coming tonight. I really like this project, I'm going to say that at the onset. Aside from the fields, which I'm a huge supporter of, I think the educational component is wonderful. I know Winthrop Elementary School was down at L Pond two days ago for a field trip, and I think these things like the walking bridge and the dock would only enhance those educational opportunities for the elementary

▶ 42:34 Bradley Freeman: school, as well as the middle school and high school that's right there. I also love the walking path. I think so many families go to Wakefield for an opportunity to walk in a safe loop, and if we can have some of those families stay here and experience Melrose, particularly while there's games going on, I just think it'd be a huge added addition for our city. I just want to talk one thing, and I had the privilege of serving with Jim on the Parks Commission for a while, and I think one thing we struggle with in Melrose, and I say this as someone who played football, and value our programs, we have a history of having some programs get priority access to fields and other programs struggling to get access.

▶ 43:09 Bradley Freeman: And I think it's becoming more and more of an equity access in Melrose. As we're trying to develop some new programs like field hockey and lacrosse, they're struggling to get field time. I think this project would address it, and short of this project, I think we need to have some hard conversations how we schedule fields and how we prioritize games versus practices. But I do think this would move us in the right direction and allow all those sports to thrive, and to Jim's point, allow as many youth and also high school athletes to compete as possible. So Jim, could you just talk a little bit about the equity issues that you hear about on the Parks Commission? Yeah. To your point, I think, without going through all of the examples, I think the most stark example is field

▶ 43:47 hockey, where we've got the exciting development of a new and growing program with a lot of interest from our kids in elementary school up through high school, as well as engaged parents who are looking to support its development, and they're struggling for fields. And when I talk about the challenges, essentially, we've got more demand than we have supply, and it hinders the ability to further develop those programs and give the kids the opportunities to participate in what are really healthy outlets for their physical as well as other aspects of their development. Yeah. I think when I look at this project, one thing I like is the fact that our high school athletes would theoretically all be able to play games at the high

▶ 44:45 Bradley Freeman: school instead of having to go over to Pine Banks where you're not drawing the same support from fans and friends. That's right. One quick question in terms of if this passes tonight and the design reaches 90% completion, and you look at the $12.5 million price tag, that's obviously a big number. Does this open us up for other funding opportunities, either state, federal, or philanthropic? Yes, I think it does. I think right now we are at a standstill. One of the biggest challenges is that the Noel Memorial is not ADA compliant, and so for us to go, even in this current federal administration, even for us to go after additional federal funding, that would be a hindrance. So until we have a design and are able to say

▶ 45:24 Jen Grigoraitis: how we're going to commit to doing some of those things, I think we're really limited. Our experience thus far is that even in what feels like a very contentious federal administration, we are continuing to have some success with earmarks. Catherine Clark was able to just secure us money for Memorial Hall. But they are not interested in concepts, and they are not interested in funding designs. They are interested in paying to put shovels in ground. So we need to have a design, we need to have permits, we need to have a holistic approach so that we can then figure out if there are pieces that we can use federal money to leverage. I think state money is certainly a possibility around some of the

▶ 46:03 Jen Grigoraitis: climate resiliency work. That's a harder sell within the federal government right now, but again, I think we have to have-- Nobody wants to pay for a design. They want to be able to come and cut a ribbon and say, "Look what we helped you do." And I think that's why we ask you all to fund the less glamorous but important part. Wonderful. Just one last comment before I move on. I do think, looking at the engineer now, if there's an ability in this project to insert a small little playground, I think a lot of parents with multiple children who are playing sports and want to play to entertain their little kids would really appreciate that so they can actually watch their kids play sports. Noted.

▶ 46:35 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you all very much. Councilor Karim Chehdi is up next. Oh, hey, I wasn't expecting. I figured everybody raised their hand already. After that, we'll have Councilor Williams to get-- You're on deck, Councilor Williams. Okay. Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate the time, energy, and efforts that have gone into this for so long. So I am generally in support of saying yes to the funding of going into the design phase, but I think this is a situation for me where it's a yes, and I do have a ton of concerns. One of the things that if we're really going to talk about equity and access, I think we really need to talk about it and what that means in terms of a process for design and whose

▶ 47:28 Manjula Karamcheti: voices are heard, whose voices have been ignored in the past. And I say that related to, again, what sports have access. We have an entire track program, which are some of the most diverse students in our district, who have to figure out ways to get to Pine Banks. So, if we're really talking about equity and access, I want to talk about it in terms of who's prioritized and who gets to use the fields. And regarding whose voices are heard, a small example is we have a playground in Ward 1 that's being put in, and folks were asked sort of what design they likedIt was general consensus across the board. There was one design that everybody wanted, and the rec department chose another design. And so,

▶ 48:19 Manjula Karamcheti: just in terms of if we're saying we're going to have a design process and voices are going to be heard, and people are going to be involved, I feel like I want some assurances that that's going to be the case. I think there are voices in our community that are often heard, and a lot of voices that aren't. So I guess I would love to hear a little more about what folks are thinking about in terms of an accessible and inclusive process. Because it does seem like the design that is in this feasibility study is pretty specific, and it's pretty detailed. So, what are really the opportunities for change and for people to say what they want? So I think I can take that one. The feasibility study phase was the phase during which the major

▶ 49:09 elements of the project were decided. So, at this point, we had over 400 responses to the survey. We advertised it through every channel we could possibly find, and it was also during COVID. That's when we had that meeting that had, I believe, between 80 and 100 participants on that virtual meeting. We had information posted online for months and months and gathered a lot of feedback. So, we've already done the phase where we're talking about the big holistic decisions. Is there going to be a track? I share your interest in having a track, but that's not part of this project. We've already gone through that phase of the decision-making. So the decisions at this time are more, what are we sizing the fields for? Which sports?

▶ 49:58 Field hockey is a great question. If we're looking at, is a field hockey field, I think it's the same as a regulation soccer field, but maybe it's a little different. I remember from my high school days. We already looked at the cabbage patch. Could that be striped? Is it big enough to put a regulation soccer field? Those are the types of decisions that we'd be making at this point on the fields, is the striping, the sizing. A playground, we might be able to fit a playground. Honestly, we have that little park up on Crystal Street. Maybe that's a good place to put a little play structure if we can fit one. So small changes like that we have room for, but the process has already gone beyond any major changes to the project.

▶ 50:47 So like- If I can- Oh, go ahead, sorry. Just really quickly. Yeah, of course. So I guess, I think one or two other things, one may be less obvious and one very obvious, I think one we talked through, was the first one being sequencing. Are we doing it all at once? Are we doing it in phases? If we're doing it in phases, what's done first? What's done second, et cetera, in addition to what Elaine already commented on. The other one that's obvious, based upon comments and perspectives, is going to be the type of surface, whether it's an artificial or a natural surface. I think that's obviously going to be a big part of the question. I know that one of the gentlemen, I think it was the first gentleman

▶ 51:34 who spoke in public comment, I thought his comments made a lot of sense. I think part of that process is going to be understanding what it is that the needs of the field are, what are the criteria that's going to be used in terms of reaching a decision about what type of a surface to implement, and then which of the different options would provide different levels of access. I think one of the things that he asked about is having the user groups come forward and demonstrate with data what are the demands for the field, and how would those demands be met under different types of surfaces. That'll be part of the conversation. And obviously, it's going to be a robust conversation. I know that there are strong opinions about it from many

▶ 52:32 Manjula Karamcheti: perspectives. And so, I think we will be among those that will-- I think, a significant portion of this is going to be directed through the Park Commission. In my role in that, I would look to have an inclusive process and look to have it data-driven and so I think that's going to be the process. Just a couple other comments/questions. I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't-- So, it sounds like it's less design, but more choices about the design. Correct. Just to be very clear about that. What is in the feasibility study is the outline of the plan. Yes. And then there will be decisions made regarding what's in the plan, but for instance, pickleball's a big thing in our community. I know there's been a petition

▶ 53:39 Manjula Karamcheti: for pickleball in some of the tennis courts in that area, but there's also been petitions against pickleball in that area. But I didn't see pickleball in the plan, so that's not an option. We're moving forward with striping one set of tennis courts for pickleball. That's happening this year. Okay. Yeah. So that will already be in-- It's not shown here because it's something that will have predated the plan. Got it. Okay, that's super helpful. But again, just to name more for transparencyThe thing is designed, and then what we're appropriating money for is the details of that design and the choices within, and that kind of thing. Yes, and I think for us as-- I have no experience in this world. Like yes, the feasibility versus design is lost, I think,

▶ 54:30 Jen Grigoraitis: for the technical thing. The crux of the problem is that these fields flood and weather. And so that is what is rendering them unusable, but that is what is exacerbating the wear and tear on them, so figuring out the drainage and therefore the associated permitting requirements. So the Conservation Commission is going to have to also have its own public process to review and approve whatever is under consideration because they also have jurisdiction because we're so close to wetlands. So I think there's going to be lots of public conversations. I know you all know this because of the roles you're in. We hear a lot of things from the public. We can very rarely deliver for everyone always, so there may

▶ 55:06 Jen Grigoraitis: be preferences for things that are then not going to be allowable by the Con Com or not going to be feasible, or we're going to also have to weigh the economics of. I think one of the big questions is, as you look at different types of surfaces, what is short-term investment versus maintenance versus long-term wear and tear and replacement for those of you that were on, I think maybe it might have been just me and Councilor Jamaleddine, I can't remember. We did have to replace the turf at Fred Green. That was-- And Councilor Williams- We were all there. ... that was $600,000. So, there's a lot of information and data, including public opinion and preference that we need to take in, that they will be

▶ 55:44 Jen Grigoraitis: synthesized by two public bodies to then come up with a recommendation that we would then have to both sequence and recommend funding to you all. Yeah. So I will just make my final comment, and it is a question as well in that, again, how detailed the feasibility study is. Turf is clearly identified as a recommendation within the feasibility study. And in a variety of roles that I've played in my life as a school administrator, I oversaw the concussion protocol within the high school and the post-hospitalization program for students who had concussions and injuries in athletics. Just want us to think very critically about the choices we make regarding turf. And personally, my daughter was the one who tore her ACL on the

▶ 56:36 turf on Fred Green. So I have strong opinions, and I know a lot of people do- ... on both sides, but I just really hope that we spend a lot of time and energy and are really thoughtful about what we choose. I do want to make one comment on that. So the feasibility study did conclude with-- The turf was what we were talking about at the end of the feasibility study. We've now carried it forward to the 25% design as part of this EPA grant. And in the 25% design, so we're much farther along than we were at the conclusion of the feasibility study. But in this 25% design, Weston & Sampson designed everything for the most conservative approach from the drainage perspective. So the way the drainage has presently been designed and the way the whole

▶ 57:24 25% design is working can accommodate either natural or artificial turf. So I would say from my perspective, that decision is very much up in the air and is very much going to be a community discussion. Thank you. Can I just make one other comment? And I know we've used the term design, and based on your questions, it seemed a understandable confusion about what that means and what the decision on it. Would I be accurate if I were to describe this design as primarily an engineering design, as opposed to the design of what is going to be included in terms of what types of fields and what types of- I think the best way to look at it is, in general, the programming of the overall park has sort of been framed up and

▶ 58:15 settled within the actual engineering and design, putting things together and how they're built. There's still a tremendous amount of opportunity to make changes or updates or nuances specific to how we actually build this thing, and obviously, stormwater is a great example, where we are taking a conservative approach to stormwater so that we don't limit the decisions in the future, depending on how this thing does ultimately get built. Is it being phased? Is it being all done at once? Are certain fields being taken offline for a certain period of time, and then that has to shift somewhere else? So we're trying to leave as many options open, knowing that there's still a lot of decisions to be made.

▶ 59:05 But the reason we're having to make some of these decisions now is that the requirements of the grant that the city had for the stormwater has to be spent by January 2028. So that'll be here before we know it, unfortunately. In general, I expect the actual design and engineering process of the park itself to go from 25% to basically shelf-ready 90% level, depending on how we ultimately phase it. It's going to take somewhere between 18 to 24 months minimally. That's mostly permitting time with the state agencies and local agencies. So there's still a lot of time ahead of us. Ultimately, you're probably looking at '29, 2030 groundbreaking- ... if this was to go forward as a single-phase project.

▶ 59:59 Ryan Williams: Great. Well, like I said, I am in support, and I have a lot of concerns. Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Karim Cheedy. And up next, we have Councilor Williams, followed by Councilor Finocchiaro Thank you. I'm going to double down a little bit on Councilor Karamcheti, and not repeat her initial point, which is that I love a lot about this. I would say 90% of it. I love the walking paths. I love the wetlands restoration. I love it deeply. I think it's a fantastic premise. I think that it's moving in the right direction, with an exception, which is turf. I think that I want to see it personally move forward, but I can't vote for it without a guarantee that there won't be synthetic turf in this design.

▶ 1:00:47 Ryan Williams: And the reason for this is that I've been on this council for a number of years, and I have often kicked the can down the road on decision-making and said, "This isn't the time. It's not the time to debate the third fire station. It's not the time to debate the salt shed. It's not the time to debate these things. Let's get this to the next phase, and then we can have a good faith conversation about what comes next." And I hear you all talking about the good faith conversation. But it's not enough for me, because I worry that the six years that came before this will turn into six years after this. And just like the people who were in the working group are almost all gone, except you, there's two people left. It's like

▶ 1:01:36 Ryan Williams: Rob and Elena are left. Everybody else is gone from the city. I just don't have a lot of faith that we're going to carry this through, and I want to tell you, I want to make comments about some of the reasons that I don't have a lot of faith. So Elena, you mentioned that there was a survey with 400 and some residents. This is true. This was the 2020 survey, and in that survey, drainage was named the number one priority at 49%, walking paths were similarly named very high, and synthetic turf was only named a priority by 5% of respondents. 50 some percent said that they had adequate access to fields. Now, I don't think that this survey is the gold standard, right? But it disappeared. It didn't appear in the Weston & Sampson report.

▶ 1:02:15 Ryan Williams: Instead, there was a 2022 follow-up survey that just said, "Here's the design we've chosen. What's your favorite part? Is it turf? Is it natural grass? Is it all these other things?" And about 44% of people said turf, 34% of people said natural grass, and that had around 260 respondents. So that split might be 10 or 15 people. So when we're talking about the public engagement, the 2020 survey results are entirely missing from the conversation, from the agenda packet, from the Elpon design, and the design itself sort of starts by saying, "The city wants synthetic turf, and here's how we're going to get there." And so, the design at 25%, that to me is 25% of three synthetic turf fields. The drainage pits that we drilled to test for water issues,

▶ 1:03:03 Ryan Williams: to me that was a test to see if we could get turf. All of these things that we have worked towards to get this moving have been predicated on the assumption that we're going to go with turf, and we've heard some arguments and I think we need to shore up some of the information that we're throwing around in here. I don't think that anybody has seen a single permit cancellation record. I don't think anybody has seen a number put to the number of kids who aren't able to play sports because they have natural grass. I have gone through two kids, K through three and four for soccer, a daughter who played field hockey in fifth grade, and a daughter who plays track right now. They have a couple of practices canceled every year at Elpon

▶ 1:03:44 Ryan Williams: because of really wet weather. And my daughter's track practice was canceled today because of the eighth grade graduation. It had nothing to do with field availability. I understand that we have limited field space. I don't think any community has unlimited field space, and I personally think that unless we can really demonstrate that there is a serious equity argument here, that we're sort of just throwing the word around without the evidence to back it up. I think that equity is a super hard conversation, as my colleague mentioned. I think it means a lot to a lot of people, and I think just asserting that having a permanent plastic field would mean more girls play sports is not enough for me. I don't see the proof.

▶ 1:04:27 Ryan Williams: But what I do see is that there's a lot of studies on injuries with turf, and we've got three councilors in the room, sort of, who have had kids injured with turf. I've got probably four studies here. The one I'm going to cite is the "British Journal of Sports Medicine" from 2007 that found double the rate of soft tissue injuries on 1,000 hours of artificial turf versus grass. I also have one from the "American Journal of Sports Medicine" that did a peer review of 53 studies that found consistently higher rates, in some cases three times higher rates, of foot and ankle injuries on artificial turf. Interestingly enough, the "British Journal of Sports Medicine" study actually called out that a lot of the studies or some of the

▶ 1:05:06 Ryan Williams: studies that support turf as being non-injurious are funded by the petrochemical industry and the turf industry. We know that there is a serious heat issue. We know that turf gets up to 170 or 200 degrees. We know that it potentially contains environmental toxins. We also know that people lie about their recycling. They say they'll recycle plastic, and then it goes on a cargo ship and disappears to Africa where it gets burned, or maybe it goes to Saugus and gets burned. And so I think that for me personally, we have a couple of potential pros. I need to know a lot more about the plastic grass is the reason why we can't have more girls' hours in sports because we're not making new fields. We're presumably just adding more hours to the existing fields, and my own personal

▶ 1:05:57 Ryan Williams: experience is that we're probably adding six to eight hours a year. This is just on my personal experience. I'm sure it's higher because of other kids. Does this result in more children playing sports, more girls playing sports, more low-income people playing sports? Or does it just result in the same people who are currently permitted to play sports having fewer cancellations and less of a scheduling problem? SoI've said a lot, and I apologize. I'm not trying to grandstand, and I hope you all know this is a conversation I want to have in earnest because I really like this, and it would be great to see this come to fruition. But I have very little faith that if we move this forward, that it will not reappear in 18 months

▶ 1:06:44 Ryan Williams: as a fully synthetic turf project with a great justification attached to it for why a small group of people had to make that choice. So I can't vote yes on this. With that, I have some ideas. I want to hear from my colleagues and other people and hear what they have to say. And that's all I have to say for right now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Williams. Next we have Councilor Finocchiaro, who will be followed by Councilor Coleman. Thank you. Thank you all for being here and for this fabulous presentation. This actually is amazing to me. I grew up here, went to the old middle school that used to get flooded. We'd have fish in the cafeteria. People would be kayaking down the Fellsway. So, I know, I think Mayor Dolan did some stormwater drainage thing with Elk Pond years

▶ 1:07:38 Cal Finocchiaro: ago. The fields there have always been soppy wet, and unplayable. I think they've gotten a little bit better over the years. This is sort of, I feel like the centerpiece, other than downtown of Melrose. There's so many fields, it's near the schools, gets a lot of use, and I definitely would like to continue investing in this space. First and foremost, so drainage is an important thing for me. And so if you can convince me that whether we put turf, although I'm not a fan of turf, or grass, and I would prefer grass, I'm just going to put that on record only because of... Well, for many reasons, but also where it's located. Okay. We are near this beautiful pond, and I am at tracks pretty much six months out of the year, and the

▶ 1:08:36 Cal Finocchiaro: smell off of the field, there's a huge difference between a grass field and a turf field. But I'm not going to get into that right now. But, I need to know that that drainage is going to fix everything that's going on there because there is, and I know you agree with this, there is an equity issue here. And it's more about not necessarily missing times, it's more about the quality of the field that I'm playing on. Like, "Oh, I get to play over here, but they're over there on that awesome," again, not awesome turf field . But it's new, right? And it's not soppy and there's not divots and that's an equity issue for me. So whether they're young kids playing or adults or field hockey, I think we need to have awesome fields over

▶ 1:09:31 Cal Finocchiaro: there that the kids feel proud playing on, and that we feel proud having people come to watch our kids or adults play. But the other part is the financial part. And, I'm more concerned about we appropriate the $710,000 and are we waiting 10 years to do this? Do we have to get the 12 and a half or whatever it is million to start? You might have already said this, so forgive me. Can we start smaller and do the drainage part? I'm very excited about the veterans' area and having it ADA accessible. That's really important to me because I look at that and when I go up to those memorials, especially the, I forget the name of it, the golden, at the top of the knoll, that makes me sad that it's a challenge to get people up there.

▶ 1:10:26 Cal Finocchiaro: So, even if we started with that, so if you could just talk a little bit about the financial piece, because we are here to appropriate a dollar amount. We can talk about turf and all that, which is, like I said, important to many of us, but I just want to know what are we getting, when, how much? Can we start small? So... You want to? I don't know. I- No, I have some- I can talk about the money. You can talk about the- Okay. Yeah. So, first of all, I want to emphasize again that this is not a artificial turf project. Mm-hmm . It may have started that way from a prior administration and a prior DPW and a prior Parks commission, and I think when the feasibility study began in 2019, when that request for proposals came out when Weston & Sampson was hired,

▶ 1:11:19 that may have been the emphasis. Mm-hmm. But through the public process and through the involvement of a lot of new faces, as Ryan mentioned- Mm-hmm ... this has become a holistic project to beautify this park, to make it available to all sorts of passive recreation. We heard the community loud and clear that the community was not solely interested in artificial turf playing fields, or just even in playing fields at all. That's very much not what we heard. I don't think we knew what to expect when we went into that big public process in 2020, but we heard loud and clear there is a large group of the population that just wants to enjoy the pond, that just wants to walk, that wants to play tennis.

▶ 1:11:59 Mm. There are all these interests and the original emphasis on just turf and playability of the fields became just one small component of the project. And then building on that, there was a lot of opposition to the idea of artificial turf in our public process. As Councilor Williams mentioned, probably only half of the people who were involved in the public meeting were in favor of artificial, and the other half were very opposed to artificial turf. SoI don't think any of us up here right now have any foregone conclusion that anything is going to be artificial turf. And I keep going back to something that Brandon's predecessor, who is now retired, Gene Bollinger, who was the project manager for this project in

▶ 1:12:47 the initial feasibility study, he said to me, "I've designed natural turf fields in areas with poor drainage and artificial turf fields in areas with poor drainage, and we can design a field that will perform better than what you have now, much better than what you have now, in either condition. The community just has to decide which direction you want to go." So, yeah. So I rely on the experts that we work with, and I've had that in my head for the last five years since he said it, that there shouldn't be an assumption that it has to be plastic in order for it to have more uptime and better drainage and better surface and not have divots and not have kids twisting their ankles and dirt on a hot day and dust bowls on a hot day because

▶ 1:13:33 the grass isn't growing and all that. A lot of these things can be solved with just a better designed field. I'll say a quick thing about the money, and then I know the mayor has comments about the money. We've seen it, another project that we're going to talk about a little later is the Lebanon Street tip project, where I have tried to just bleed money in in dribs and drabs, and all that we've seen is that the design gets more and more expensive the more we segment what we're doing. So this $710,000, I would strongly encourage us to move forward with the design of the whole project, not only because of what the mayor has said about funding opportunities, that outside funding agencies love to see shovel-ready

▶ 1:14:18 projects, and this can't be a shovel-ready project if it's piecemeal. And then secondly, for permitting, we've worked it so that we could permit the little bit of stormwater that we're doing with the grant, but at a certain point, permitting agencies will not let you segment a project. Mm-hmm. So we can't permit it piecemeal. At a certain point, we have to go forward with the permitting of the remainder of the project. Mm-hmm. And for instance, you can't permit if you're trying to do a better draining field, let's say, and you try to permit that separate than the wetland restoration and some of the other environmental improvements, you might have agencies that aren't willing to permit the field without seeing that you're also

▶ 1:15:05 Jen Grigoraitis: improving the environmental aspects of the project. So I feel like the plan as a whole is very permittable, but as soon as you start picking off individual pieces- Mm-hmm ... permitting agencies and even the public, if the public wants walking paths and they're asked to vote on funding for just a playing field, that might not get support because it's not including the elements that cover all the interests. Okay. That makes sense. I'm sorry, you were going to- No, I think on the funding aspect, we would certainly not be looking for $12 million in one fell swoop. That would be pretty unprecedented in this community. We typically have about $5 million in free cash a year. So I think as we move through the public process, it would certainly

▶ 1:15:50 Jen Grigoraitis: be thinking about how would you phase this. Some of it would have to be determined by where do we think we can leverage outside funding, and that may prioritize certain parts over another. This is a huge project, and this is likely going to go on if it were to move forward beyond any of our life in public service. And so I'm trying to recognize that we can continue to keep it sitting on a shelf, which I think there's a lot of great examples of that happening in this city, and we all know there are consequences for that. Or do we try to continue to move forward, make things better, give people an opportunity? I don't think that we can go back to conceptually what does this look like. That costs time and money.

▶ 1:16:26 Jen Grigoraitis: But I think thinking about how do we move forward now, I do feel like three of the people who would be involved in making these decisions who are sitting here before you now, I have no predetermined commitment to what the field surface look like. I also can't tell you that it gets to be grass because that's not my decision. We have two regulatory bodies that have to weigh in, and I want to respect their authority and their process. So I think it's trying to take what we know is a deteriorating, well-used facility and try to make it better and recognize that hopefully we carry the ball a little bit further along. Look at me with the sports metaphors. And then it gets picked up by whoever is also here for

▶ 1:17:05 Cal Finocchiaro: us, but I think we can look at the public safety buildings. We can look at some of the states of our current school buildings. There are capital needs that we have to make incremental decisions about so that we can eventually get to a more permanent, better solution. That makes a lot of sense. I think if I just was airing what Counselor Williams said, I think for us, or at least for me, I want to see this move forward too, but sometimes it's hard to appropriate money when you don't know what the ultimate, what it's going to end up as. Yep. And so if I can just circle back here. So say we appropriate this amount tonight, and then the design would be finalized, and then we come back to get the funding for the fields to be done?

▶ 1:17:52 Or- First it would go through- To get approved? ... so the approval of any final design recommendations would have to go through, I think it's first Conservation Commission and then Park Commission. Maybe depends. I don't know if there's really a prescribed- Okay ... order, but like regulatory wise, but we were intending to kick off this process with a presentation to the Park Commission- Yep. Mm-hmm ... as the first phase, but without any vote taken, just informational and public forum. And then I don't know what phase we would go to Con Com. Well, ultimately we wouldTry it. We're going to bring the entire park design to it. Usually, it's around 80%, 70 to 80% complete design. We have to prove to the Conservation Commission, to all the other

▶ 1:18:45 agencies, the state. There's a chance we may have to go to federal because it's a great pond. But anyway, we have to prove that the design is going to work. There's reports, there's drawings, there's specifications. So that's about 80%. Then from there, once we get buy-in and permits from all the various agencies, there will be final plan changes. They're going to all have their comments, their piece of the pie, in order to get the project to move forward. From there, we can then decide, all right, this is what we have funding for, this is what we want to get funding for. And then from there, we would finalize that into 100% bid-ready plan. So we're going to bring the entire park to 90% design, and then

▶ 1:19:39 through conversations, through permitting, we'll work with Elena and her team and the commission to say, "This is what we want to build in phase one or phase two," just so I'm clear. Phase one is the stormwater piece that we're designing now. Phase two is the next piece. So, that's typically how we imagine this is going to work. Okay. But then ultimately, for funding purposes, that's where we would come in? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, all right. I don't want to chew up the microphone anymore, so I don't know who's next. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Finocchiaro. So up next on deck, we have Councilors Cole, Chen, Obremski, and then if nobody else would like to speak for the first time, we will go to Councilor

▶ 1:20:27 Elizabeth Kowal: Williams for the second time. So, Councilor Coleman. Thank you. So I share a lot of the concerns that have been raised both by Councilor Williams and Councilor Finocchiaro. I'm struggling with this one. I love most of the design. I am very strongly anti-turf for many of the reasons that Councilor Williams mentioned. I also think I equate it to a snow cone. I think having a snow cone in the middle of the city with this beautiful pond that everybody can use for what ultimately is a small group of people on turf is just not okay. So I understand that's not what we're here for tonight, but I share a lot of this concern. I share a lot of the skepticism that-- and I hear you all tonight, and I want so badly to believe you that there is going to

▶ 1:21:12 Elizabeth Kowal: be this public forum. And Elena spent a lot of time talking to me about it, and she's been so patient and kind to me about it. But I'm skeptical about it, having lived through some of the other decisions that sort of got rammed through. So I'm skeptical about it. I'm having trouble. I hear you on we've got to do this whole thing because it involves permitting, and I believe you on all of that. But it's really hard for me, and possibly that's part because I'm new to have that leap of faith to turn over this. This is the largest money in free cash that we're giving out, and I'm struggling with the leap of faith that without a plan in place to follow up, that this money is not just going to disappear into the

▶ 1:21:58 Elizabeth Kowal: atmosphere, that we won't be able to get federal funding, that we won't be able to get more free cash or town money to do this. And so I'm just struggling with that, and I'm listening and I'm hearing, and I am a user of this and the idea of a walking path, the idea of the... I love the bridge, the wetlands. I love all of it. I love it. It'll be such a gem and such a great thing for this town, but I do have these reservations. And so I think what I would-- I guess my ultimate question is aside from two things. One is, I hear you about it starts to cost more if we do it piecemeal in terms of design, and that we may not get some permits. If we don't do X, we don't get a permit for Y. I hear that.

▶ 1:22:52 Elizabeth Kowal: But I am also hearing things like the feds like to see shovel-ready projects in order to give out grants. And so, I think there are a couple things that you can, and again, maybe it's not feasible. There does seem to be a way that we could use this money to get some of the designs for the veterans' soul to me is very important to make that ADA compliant, and I think there is federal money for that. I think you said that. I think there is federal money possibly available, for example, the walking path. And so what I'm just trying to rattle around in this brain of mine is, why don't we take that 710 and earmark it towards things that we know there's a very good chance that we can get federal funding for, and that way we've got a design and

▶ 1:23:38 Elizabeth Kowal: we have an end result, as opposed to what we're now saying is these things may kick out six, seven, eight, nine, 10 years, where we could deliver something maybe faster if we did that. So that's one question I have. The second one is, if we don't get federal funding for this, or let's say it's 12 million and we get six of that, where is the other six going to come from? Anyway, thank you for hearing me out as I sort of try to figure this out in my head. You want to take the first one? No, you can go ahead. You can go ahead with the second one. Okay. So I think on the funding, first of all, any funding request comes before this body for approval. So some of what I'm talking about is purely speculative, but obviously we as a

▶ 1:24:25 Jen Grigoraitis: community have gotten to a point after many years where we are not using free cash to backfill budgets. So that was a long-standing practice we were using. Many of you were here when we voted to spend 50% of our free cash to backfill existing school budgets. So thanks to the override, we have remedied that. This is why you're not seeing a lot of personnel additions in the city budget, is to try to ensure that we're being conservative, we're being frugal, that we're managing money so that we continue forward. SoMost of what we're asking for free cash this year is being driven by the CIP, as you all know. I know that's been part of your conversation. So to have this as the top-rated project, that's why we're

▶ 1:25:03 Jen Grigoraitis: asking for this. And then the hope would be that the pieces of this project, as we figured out both what is feasible, where we can get other money, what are the priority needs of the community, how are we serving people who have been left behind in terms of the use of this park, that would then be where we would make free cash requests for you. It's certainly going to take multiple years. Mm-hmm. Yeah. This is not going to be-- And I think that we would want to do that. But I'm also recognizing that, again, this is going to be long, and the longer we wait, nothing gets cheaper. And we're continuing to spend money just to keep the fields from further deteriorating. And I do, just to echo Councilor Finocchiaro point of view, it is

▶ 1:25:43 Jen Grigoraitis: about the lack of the quality of the surface and the fact that basically we have our largest piece of open space is really just playing fields, because we haven't been able to activate the other things around it. So we have Mount Hood. I think some people go up there, but I think when people really think about open space in Melrose, this is what they think about. And right now, it's largely a dog park, a parking lot for high school students, a memorial that people can't get to if they're not physically able to, and playing fields. Okay. And I don't want to be repetitive on the segmenting of the project, but the permitting agencies need to see the whole project in order to permit it. And as Brandon mentioned, the permitting phase would happen roughly at 80% design.

▶ 1:26:31 So you have to bring the whole project to 80% design, which out of 710,000, that gets us to 90%, maybe it's 600,000 that gets us to 80% in permits. So given that we can't segment the project, unless we truly don't plan on doing parts of the project, right? That's the other alternative is we say, "We're just never going to do X, Y, and Z." I don't even know what elements you'd take out, though, because I think there are people in the community who love all the individual components. And so I'm not sure what you decide at the outset that you're just going to leave behind. So I just think it's prudent to proceed with the entire design, the entire permitting, and then that's the point at which when you have the

▶ 1:27:16 90% design, when you can decide what do we want to construct. And if you can go back, Adrienne, one slide. I think it is the cost estimate piece. Yeah. So we've broken it up so that these different elements have different costs. These are the construction costs. So let's say you decide you want to do just the trails on both sides. You're looking at 3-point something million. If you want to make sure you have the wetland bridge connection, another 580,000, the wetland rehab, another 600,000. So, you can pick off pieces to do, but you have to have designed and permitted the whole park, or the elements aren't designed to accommodate the other elements that are part of the project, unless, like I said, you're going to

▶ 1:28:03 just leave them behind right from the get-go, decide to downsize the project, and then move forward with that. Mm-hmm. So from an engineering perspective, this is my strong recommendation to move forward with the whole project and not try to pick it apart. And who will decide, and forgive me if you've said this, there's just been a lot go-- Who will decide what the next phase is? So phase one, I understand, storm work. Got it. Who decides phase two? So a combination of the city council, because you have to vote on any funding, whether it's to accept a grant or to accept a loan or to fund outright with free cash or something. That's all council and the Park Commission has jurisdiction over the land itself,

▶ 1:28:47 so they will have to have voted. I would assume the Park Commission would vote what to bring to the council, unless there's an obvious choice of, "We got funding for X and Y and not for the rest of it." Sure. Then that kind of makes the decision for us. But I think the Park Commission would be heavily involved in the decision making of what to bring forward, and then the council ultimately would be in control of the funding. Mm-hmm. Thank you. And also the Con Com, I just want to mention. Right. The Con Com, obviously that all comes before. That comes during this initial permitting phase. But during the feasibility study, in a lot of our committee meetings, there was a lot of time spent talking about Con Com approval, and there was a real concern by

▶ 1:29:34 certain folks in the working group that Con Com wasn't going to approve the project. So this process, this $710,000, gets us over that hurdle, too, of regardless of what field type we're talking about, a decision will have to be made at some point before Con Com takes a vote. But then at that point, their vote has a three-year timeline of approval for a permit. And then anything we want to do after that from the components of the plan, we can act on with that Con Com order of conditions. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And up next, we have Councilor Chen. I really appreciate the optimism and creativity in this and going big. There's something to be said. That's how any good thing gets done, right?

▶ 1:30:24 Jason Chen: People have imagination and they say, "We're going to do this." Councilor Kowal summarized a lot of my financial concerns, which you addressed in piecemealing. The worrier in me and the frugal person says, "I don't want to be sitting here two years from now with a 90% design of the whole thing with a pathway to only fund a third of it." Unless we take the long game and say, "This might take 15 years, but we're going to stick with it and we have a vision," then if that's the way we go, then I just have to be patient. Right?The practical part of me says, "Let's just build something as quickly as we can. Be realistic about what it is. Bring the most benefit to people." It seems like it's a walking path, the ADA knoll, and maybe one of the fields

▶ 1:31:05 Jason Chen: that doesn't waterlog, right? And if we're just realistic that if we can get that in the next five years, and it has a good chance, and we spend less on design now, and we just go, how would we think about that approach? I know where you stand on, "Hey, let's go big," and it's more efficient to design all of it and permitting is likely, but if we limited our imagination a little bit and just said, "We're just going to do this, and it'll be great. And we'll start here, and if in the future we can do more." Some of the conversation has been about voices that have or haven't been included, and when decisions get made that people feel like they weren't a part of. That, to me, feels like we would be deciding to

▶ 1:31:48 Jen Grigoraitis: eliminate things that we've told the community were part of the plan without having had that process. And I completely understand this is six years old, but it's also to go back and redo this then resets the clock to where we were. So, I think I would feel a little like to have 11 people make that decision, even though you're elected officials and represent the whole city, that feels like we would be kind of undercutting the process, however imperfect it may have been, about what is the vision that's been presented to the community. Because this has lived on a website for six years. I also think that design and permitting is not the place to cut funding. I think $710,000 for a $12.5 million

▶ 1:32:33 estimated project, it seems like a lot of money because it's the biggest item for free cash for this year. But it's not, in the grand scheme of things, a ton of money to do the design and permitting for this type of project. And the benefit that you get from it is that then at that 90% phase, this 710,000 does include bringing whatever phase we decide to go with next to 100% bid-ready drawings. So, I want to emphasize that, too. So, this gets us a project that is shovel-ready, and that decision-making of cutting or paring back or phasing or looking at the long game of 15 years and actually coming up with a plan of how to phase and pay for the whole project, that's what happens after this phase or at the end of this phase of

▶ 1:33:22 design. And I think it's all absolutely what we should be doing, but I think we should be funding the design and the permitting, and then we decide, is there anything that we don't really want to fund moving forward? Because then at least you've designed everything to accommodate all aspects of the project, and then you can pick which ones you're going to execute. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Chen. Up next, we have Councilor Brembsky. Thank you. Hearing a lot of good comments and a lot of good questions from my colleagues, and I just wanted to make a comment. I'm definitely in favor of this. I love the design. I love every aspect of it. And I really think that the thing that's holding some of my colleagues back is the idea

▶ 1:34:13 of the artificial turf, and that's what I'm hearing. Someone referred to me as the quiet councilor the other day because I don't really talk all that much. But part of that is because I really do try to listen, and I try to listen when people talk and maybe part of my job as principal, I'm listening a lot. And in the context of this conversation, what I'm really hearing is that there has been no decision on the artificial turf, and that's what's being said. And also part of what I do is really trusting in individuals and trusting in processes. And when I say that, I say in terms of public trust. When people drop their kids off to me, they trust me every day. And that's an inherent trust. That trust isn't earned, it's sort of inherent, that I'm going to do right

▶ 1:35:19 by their kids. And I try to apply that to these conversations up here. You're coming up here, and we have to put our trust in you, but we also have to put our trust in the process, and nothing's really happened for me to lose that trust, right? There's no reason why you still don't have my trust and why the process doesn't have my trust. So, I trust in the process. I trust that this is good faith. I do think it's a lot of money. It's nearly three quarters of a million dollars. But I think that in terms of what I'm seeing in the design, I would like to see this move forward, and I am in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Brembsky. Did I miss anyone who wants to speak for the first time?

▶ 1:36:16 Maya Jamaleddine: Councilor Jamaleddine? Thank you. I actually raised my hand at the beginning, and then I said I want to listen to all my colleagues. And this is what I observed. I heard a lot of buzzwords that as politician, I learned that we use those buzzwords to either let something pass or let something not pass. So, I just wanted to be very mindful of what we're using and what goal are we trying to achieve. I do haveAnd this is something that sometimes I get blamed for, of. I have absolute trust in the administration and in the decision that they make. So this has nothing to do with the trust. But I have some concern about what I heard. Actually, let me back up a little bit. What I heard is very conflicting.

▶ 1:37:23 Maya Jamaleddine: I heard that there is no decision is made and that we are leaning more into grass. And then I heard from the mayor that, "I cannot promise you it's not going to be turf." So with that, it pulled me back, and it made me a little bit worried. Is that something that is going to leave a window that there is a chance that we're going to go with a turf? And if this is the case, I am concerned because every single time I send my kids to a game, I am concerned. I feel that I am harming them, and I don't want to be part of that. So if I do get a guarantee that there is no turf in that plan, I will 100% support it, regardless of the amount of money that we're going to spend, because I do believe that it is time

▶ 1:38:25 Maya Jamaleddine: to invest in this project and to support our kids as well in their sports and activities. But I want to make sure that when we're sending them to do that, we're not actually harming them on the other hand. I am 100% agree with you, Jim, about it's not about nice field or not nice field, it's about everybody able to play. But I also want everybody to be able to play for a longer time and not shorten their life. So that is my concern. 100% wanted to have it equitable, but want it to be healthy and be able to enjoy it for a longer life. That's my only question, and I hope to hear a clear and very aligned answer from both of you. From me and Alina? Yes. It's not up to me. Sorry. I mean, I think-

▶ 1:39:28 Jen Grigoraitis: I will make that clear. Yeah. And I don't mean to equivocate like a politician. I guess I will say, for those of you that know me well, I try not to throw my weight around. That's not normally how I govern, so I am not going to browbeat the Park Commission or the Con Com into a certain decision. So what I'm trying to say when I can't guarantee it is, it's not my call. There are two regulatory bodies that have to take votes to recommend something. I hope that they are very much tuning into this conversation. I think this is the first chance we've had to hear from all of you in the iteration of this council about what matters to you. Your values very much reflect mine on this issue, but it is

▶ 1:40:03 Jen Grigoraitis: not my decision alone. So I'm trying to be clear and honest about the fact that I don't get to decide what happens and what comes to you all. I think certainly if there was to be, I think having heard the feelings of this council, and if we were to be coming back to this iteration of this council for funding, I would be very hesitant to bring something that I know is not going to be successful based on what's being offered. I like to win, but also I want to see this project moving forward. But to Councilor Bremsky's point, there is a process. There are multiple bodies that get to weigh in on this. I know that that makes these decisions challenging because you all have to put some trust in other people, some of who you've appointed, some of who you haven't, but

▶ 1:40:43 Jen Grigoraitis: that we need to let them have their deliberations, their process, ask their questions, come to their determinations, and I want to be respectful of that, of their both expertise and the willingness that they have to serve in those roles. So that's why I'm not trying to hedge. I'm just trying to say, I can't make you a guarantee and I'm not going to do that because then that makes me not telling you the truth. Yeah. And I don't expect that you do that. Yeah. I'm used to you being very straightforward. However, even before when this started and you voted on it, you were among us. It was very clear said in a way that put us to vote on this, that there is no way that this field will work with grass.

▶ 1:41:35 Maya Jamaleddine: It was different administration, and this was the argument. That this field will never be able to work and be useful with grass, and we have to use turf. And that's where I am torn. So if before we were told there is no way we can use it as a grass and keep it as a grass, it has to be turf, and now that I'm hearing different argument that there is a chance and that there is hope which is what I want to hear. But where do I go from here? Can I? Yeah. Yeah. So I guess- Do the microphone. Yeah I guess I'll make a few comments. One, in the same way that any of us don't-- I am the chair of the Park Commission, and that is going to be one of the, I would say there are three regulatory bodies, this one being the third,

▶ 1:42:33 that really need to weigh in. I think while obviously if you all don't approve funding for whatever is put forth, it does not move forward. So ultimately that is a last stop in terms of the process. I am also one vote on the Park Commission, and so for-If I were to make any representation here that it 100% would be grass, I would be disingenuous. I cannot make that promise because of the process as defined within our system of government in the City of Melrose, is that it goes through the Park Commission. I can tell you that I do not approach this with any passion for... I know what you're talking about when you're talking about how things were presented before. I was not part of that process. I don't think you've ever heard me say that for

▶ 1:43:31 the one vote that I represent. What I'm passionate about is making sure that we're able to make the improvements to the L Pond Park. Based on my 10 years in youth soccer, I think a lot of it, I definitely come with a bent towards the opportunity for the youth to play. But obviously, I'm also very cognizant and very appreciative of all of the other aspects of the park for a variety of different members of our community who need to make the other resources in that facility accessible to others. I can commit to you that I will, for my part, I will be open-minded about this. I don't know. I heard people saying, without data, that it has to be a turf field. I could see a discussion if we do find, as we

▶ 1:44:31 go through this process, and it'll be interesting in terms of the design study, in terms of the experiences of other communities who've implemented grass fields in similar settings, the reliability of it, and the ability to provide reliable access. I, like others here, I have a son who tore his ACL on turf. I have a daughter who broke her tib-fib on turf. So I have exposure to that as well. So I can't make a representation that it would be 100%, whether I wanted to or not, I cannot make that representation with honesty. And if I'm going to maintain your trust, I don't think that that statement would be worthy of trust. And I respect that, Jim. Thank you so much. I know how this is one of the difficult conversations that we're going to have and difficult

▶ 1:45:30 Maya Jamaleddine: decision. And what I learned throughout those years is that if we're going to make a decision, we're going to make a decision on a clear understanding and plan for it. And I'm struggling to be able to make that decision, and I have a lot of uncertainty. Are we going to have consequences with what I am seeing? Absolutely. If we don't pass it, we're going to have consequences. We saw that during the override, and I know we're going to have it if we don't pass this time. That's part of the process. Are the consequences that we're going to have more harmful than if we have turf? That's the real question. I would like to save our kids' health and life and all the great activities and time for them,

▶ 1:46:40 Maya Jamaleddine: rather than sending them for short time and then suffer with all the other health consequences. So this is the time where we have to think about where to invest and what decision to make in terms of our kids. My last question, and I promise I'm going to make it brief. If we can save-- If it's brief. Otherwise, we can also come back to your question. We will have to gavel out soon for a public hearing. Promise to make it- Okay, go ahead. So if we vote yes on it, would we have any kind of say after, or that's out of our hands in terms of the turf or grass? So to me, and I guess as the mayor, maybe that matters, I think what I'm asking you tonight is for your permission to fund the beginning of a formal public process.

▶ 1:47:43 Jen Grigoraitis: So I think, and I know we all feel it, I sat around that horseshoe with you six years ago, I think there is some preexisting history with this project. I think there's some preexisting assumptions from everyone about that has left some kind of bad faith. And I think when I came into office, there were candidly bigger challenges than this, and so we also knew that this was really complicated and messy, and people are really passionate about it and are engaged, which is great. That's what we want to see in government. Maybe not every Monday and Thursday night, but on most of them. So it felt but to not to-- I didn't want to continue to do what we've been doing, which is allowing there to be kind of a swirl of conversation and speculation and

▶ 1:48:23 Jen Grigoraitis: assumptions that's not happening in any formal way, and that's not happening in the framework of here's what it is that we're trying to do. I think that is where we lose people, where people feel like we're not being candid. So I think for me, this is asking you all to say, "Yes, we want to move into this process where we begin to have public discussions, hear from the community," because I think there's a lot of opinions, and we need to hear all of them. Yours are all very important, but I don't want to say that we're disengaging the public on what we know is a very passionate topic. Within the confines of the Park Commission, of the Con Com, of a reinvigorated design group that's really been dormant

▶ 1:49:03 Jen Grigoraitis: because there was nothing to talk about. And I know that requires investment by you all, but it also has us sort of walking with some guardrails and some expectations of what it is that we're trying to do. So I think if this were to be funded, I'm happy to commit to working with the Park Commission and the Con Com to sort of develop what a process is going to look like when there's going to be points for people to weigh in, how we're going to manage that over the two years where this is going to be happening. But that's really ultimately what I feel like I'm asking you all, is do you want to begin that public conversation or do we kind of want to stay where we are? Which is we have a lot of people saying, "What's

▶ 1:49:41 Maya Jamaleddine: happening with this project? I heard it's going to be turf. I heard it's going to be grass. I heard it's never going to get done." Or do we want to say, "We're actually moving along and here now public is where we want you to come and tell us what you think?" Okay. I'm sold. If you can commit that we will have informational sessions or orders where you guys come and- Yep ... inform us about, to improve our transparency and to pay back to our constituents in terms of inform them about how many did we survey, how many responded, what does that reflect, and what is the next step. Mm-hmm. Absolutely. Okay. And it's going to take a long time, so we're going to be doing it for a couple of years. Okay.

▶ 1:50:30 Kimberly Vandiver: If I could just add, too, that the design budget does include public process. That's part of what's budgeted in the design process. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Thank you everyone for your comments. We will come back to this discussion. We have two public hearings that we need to have first. So, I'll take a motion to recess. So moved. Sure. Second. Okay. Motion to recess- Sure ... Councilor Williams, seconded Councilor Finocchiaro. We do need to take a roll call. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul?

▶ 2:04:17 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. Councilor Kowal. Yes. Councilor Abramsky. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor. Okay, the public hearing is now closed. So, here we go. We are coming back to Appropriations and Oversight, where we are discussing ID number 2026-1175. So- Item one ... mm-hmm. The second, yeah I believe Councilor Jamaleddine had finished her comments- I did, yes ... and questions. Councilor Park, were you in queue for questions? Mm-hmm. Yes, I was. I kinda lost my train of thought, but I'll do my best. So, as most of you know, I was on the CIP committee where we discussed this at length. And first of all, I would like to thank all my

▶ 2:05:31 fellow city councilors for bringing up such great comments and thoughtful insight into this whole project. For the record, I actually voted for this project, and it was very high on my priority list because ironically, it wasn't the fields or the soccer or the kids' activities I was thinking of. I was thinking of more of the general public as a whole in terms of how could this benefit us as a community. And I wanted to ensure that the funds that we put forth or the funds that we have now as a result of the override passing were used in a beneficial way for people to see and to experience. It's not just about the schools as a lot of people have touted about the override. This was a great example of showing how we can give

▶ 2:06:27 back to our community. And I don't think it is productive to potentially hold back a design for something where you potentially agree the vast majority of the benefits of this project if you don't necessarily get your way on the fields. I don't think, especially in this discussion and how this process is being played out, there's a lot more design and discussion in a public forum that should be had with regards to the fields. And I think, I guess I have two questions. One is I'd like to have one of you speak aboutThe process in which how these two commissions come up with their decision, I know public forum is part of it. And the second is, I'll hold off on that until you address that. But if, in fact,

▶ 2:07:40 the process in discussing what the fields will be, because that seems to be the very polarizing issue here, if the determination of what those fields are going to be is part going to be determined by the public process, then for me personally, I will fight like heck to make sure I get what I want. Just like I did when I fought for the override, just like I did when I fought to get a seat in this horseshoe. So, if you truly believe something and you think that a field, natural grass is the best way to do it, rally your friends, rally the people that you think would support this, make it impossible for the commission to go in another direction. But to my first question, what is the process in which the commissions would actually make a decision like

▶ 2:08:38 this? And how important or of an impact will the public forums be in weighing their discussion? And I'm sure that there's a cost aspect to this as well. So, I think you can speak to the Park Commission. Yeah. Would you be able to talk to the part of the- The Con- ... public engagement that exists within the design study? Oh, sure. Yes. And I can speak to the Con Com a little bit, too, with a little bit of knowledge of that process. So, in the design study itself, I know Councilor Jamaleddine was looking for guarantees. One thing that I can absolutely guarantee is that as the, I guess, de facto chair of the working group, the public process moving from here to any decision-making on the field is

▶ 2:09:29 of utmost importance to our committee, and we have zero desire to just move forward in one direction or another without the public. That was at the center of our whole feasibility study, and honestly, Weston & Sampson on this project did one of the best public processes that I've seen in the time I've been here, and that funding is built into this design to have that same level of assistance with that process. So, we are committed to having whatever it is, public meetings, surveys, whatever forums are appropriate to get the opinions of the community on this. We have no desire to just move something forward as a committee that's not supported by the community. And I think that's sort of been my MO in both this role and as city engineer over

▶ 2:10:22 the last 10 and a half years, is usually the projects that we try to bring forward are the ones that, with very few exceptions, are the ones that have broad community support. And we work really hard to get to that point of broad community support before we're in front of you asking for money or any other sorts of approvals. There's no benefit to us to bring forward a project that has a large amount of community opposition. There's nothing in it for us as a DPW or for Weston & Sampson as a consulting firm or any of the members of the working group. We're not here to push something forward, push forward an agenda. So, I can guarantee that the committee and our consultants will take the process very

▶ 2:11:16 seriously, and there will be a, excuse me, a robust process. Regarding the Con Com real quick, and then we can talk about Parks Commission. I don't want to speak on behalf of our conservation agent who's here in the room or the commission themselves, but the commission has been a very active participant in our working group from day one. The Conservation Commission, their decision-making is largely prescribed by the state Wetlands Protection Act and the parameters set forth in that act. And this parcel is, I believe, entirely within the floodplain. There are large portions within the buffer zone to wetlands. There are portions within a smaller no-disturb zone of wetlands. The commission can make some judgment calls but is

▶ 2:12:03 largely driven by state regulation and has to uphold that state regulation. And then beyond that, if an entity requesting a permit from the Con Com doesn't believe that they have worked within the parameters of state regulation, there is then an appeal process through Mass DEP. So, at the end of the day, you have to uphold the state regulation. So, I wouldn't say that the Con Com is coming at this from a perspective of a ton of flexibility. If the project can't show that any design, no matter what the playing surface is, if we're showing, let's say, major elevation changes in the floodplain, and we can't show that we can compensate for that added elevation somewhere else on the parcel, I don't think the Con Com's in a position where they can approve something.

▶ 2:12:52 So, I think a lot of their decision-making comes down to the letter of the law on the Wetlands Protection Act. So, as it relates to the Park Commission, I think the design study will go through its completion process, which will help to inform us about what is possible. But putting a point on it, I think while there are going to be a number of differentRelatively minor choices that, as we discussed earlier this evening, as it relates to the aspects of the design. Obviously, based on the conversation tonight, the most pointed one is going to be the choice of whether it's an artificial turf or natural grass. I would expect that that's going to be a dominant component of it. That said, that's not the only one, so we would look to outline what are the

▶ 2:13:49 different range of choices and what are the different options. From my perspective, what we would look to be doing is gather as much data and information that we can present to the public so that there's transparency of what's factored into the choices. I could see it playing out if we wind up in a situation where the natural grass would offer the same or very comparable access to turf. Frankly, I'm one vote. The choice would seem fairly clear. If we wind up in a situation where there is a-- If we wind up having to weigh other things, for example, if it's determined that a grass field would provide significantly less access and consistent access to playing surfaces, coupled with an understanding of what the needs

▶ 2:15:03 are, then I think it's a judgment call, right? In terms of, I think what we have is what's most important. We either are going to be sacrificing having-- looking to consider artificial turf, which is, I would agree, is a less preferable playing surface, with whether or not we can have everyone have access to playing. That judgment is going to be something that's going to be informed by public comment. I would imagine that we would be having conversations with you all as well, both as members of the community and in your role here. It would not be prudent, as Elena had pointed out, to bring something before this body that you all wouldn't vote for. I don't approach this with any preconceived--

▶ 2:15:55 My favorite field in Melrose is the track field at Pine Banks. It is by far the best field. It's consistent. It's wonderful. If we could do something like that, that would be great. I would want to go through and understand the data as best as we can, and then lay out what are the different pros and cons of the different options, and also weigh in what the perspective on those are of the community, and of you all- ... as well as the Parks Commission, that are going to be the various bodies to do this. That's, I think, what this process would look like. I anticipate it'll take quite a bit of time. I know that there's going to be a lot of strong opinions that'll be voiced in the way that you've described, if people should

▶ 2:16:41 come and articulate their position strongly to try to advocate for it. Committed- Thank you. Like that. So, the other question I have that I think has really come to surface is, should this pass, right? And let's say for argument's sake that we do get, in fact, grass, which is where I think most people are leaning based on the discussion and feedback we've had tonight. How the heck are we going to pay for it, right? 12.5 million. Okay. I know that we've already discussed the fact that we can't parcel out the design plan for the reasons that you've already explained. And we've touched on a little bit of this, Elena, which is we can modularize the cost of that in the different parcels. How is that process going to work?

▶ 2:17:36 Jen Grigoraitis: So who gets the say on which part comes first? So I know there's a very active contingent about the fields coming first. I know that I, for one, would also like the walking paths or the trails. Obviously cost is associated with that, but tell me, can you elaborate on the details on what we can do and the flexibility we have, and sort of the decisions around that part? So I think it's who has the decision, it's going to be all of the above. So I think, yes, it's going to be an iterative process. I think it's going to be what is it that we're designing and building? When do we have funding available? I think some of that we have some certainty and control over, things like free cash, and some of it we don't, federal funding.

▶ 2:18:20 Jen Grigoraitis: I know the EPA money that we're using, that was secured two years before we ever actually saw a dollar of it. So I think it's going to have to be somewhat of a flowing process as we manage where can we leverage funding, what are we hearing are the priorities? Again, I can't speak to, from a professional standpoint, if a certain part has to be done before another because of infrastructure needs or permitting requirements. I think all of that would have to be factored in to some sort of plan that then we can hopefully, and I know I've said it before, plan the work, work the plan, that we can hopefully follow that plan. There are absolutely going to be things that come up, both probably good and bad, that we cannot fully plan for.

▶ 2:19:05 Jen Grigoraitis: But I think that would be part of what this next phase would be thinking about. How do we actually moveFrom talking about this, to permitting it, to executing it. I think we have to have a lot of conversations around what it's going to look like to close huge sections of athletic fields. Putting aside the impact of recreational sports and youth sports, we have obligations as a high school to provide surfaces for teams to play. I think we've already thought about having some conversations with Stoneham and Wakefield, who have gone through that as they've built new high schools and have had to take facilities offline. So I think there's going to be a lot of different players bringing back information so that we can create a comprehensive

▶ 2:19:42 plan and then hopefully follow it to the best of all of our ability. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'll just leave it at, if we were not to move forward with this plan, the fields would remain untouched. They would still be swamps. The park, in large part, would be largely unusable, which is a shame because I do think it's a beautiful park, and I think the things that we're concerned about can be in fact productively managed in a way that we want through basic public discussion democracy. And I think if we don't move forward with something like this, the community of Melrose, we all lose in that sense. So, thank you. I yield my time. Great. Thank you, Councilor Park. We've been through almost the full roster of councilors the first time.

▶ 2:20:39 Kimberly Vandiver: I just want to check if Councilor Romanul remotely had anything. No? Okay. Everything's good. I'll limit myself for the first time to one question. There was one comment that the mayor made that we're spending money at the moment to keep the fields from deteriorating, I believe you said. I was wondering if there's anything that you could share right now about what it's costing us to be in the situation that we're in. So I can speak high level to it. You can talk more about it. But we have to replace the irrigation system on one of the fields, is completely non-functioning. So we are going to have to replace that system because those fields, again, so we're actively deteriorating the condition. It's been a rainy spring, so maybe that's helped.

▶ 2:21:21 Jen Grigoraitis: And then we do have a contract with a grass expert, is that like the right way to describe it, to help us continue. If you haven't been on some of these surfaces, there are significant areas where we basically can't grow grass. And it's a combination of the drainage, the fact that the fields are in use so often, that that is why there isn't really the ability for them to sort of recover, for lack of... I'm really outside of my depth here, but I'm trying. And so that's something that we've sort of maintained as a contract, that it's really beyond the skills and capability of DPW because it's really trying to basically continually resuscitate a field that then we are just repeatedly helping it

▶ 2:22:04 Jen Grigoraitis: deteriorate all season long. And I think some of, again, those folks who have had experience as parents with youth sports in Melrose, their fields are closed sometimes because of rain, but we don't care if kids get wet. It doesn't matter to us. It's about the fact that having all those feet on that wet surface is causing further deterioration and erosion of the playing surface. And at some point we can't recoup what's been lost in any sort of meaningful way. So I think that's my non-technical. How was that? That's great. Thank you. See, I do pay attention. Yeah. The only thing I have to add is you asked about the cost. So we have to replace the irrigation on both the east and west knoll. We got a bid of roughly $60,000, and we have a

▶ 2:22:46 state earmark that will pay for it. So, that was approved previously. So we are planning on moving forward with that work just because there are so many holes in the irrigation system right now. It was not installed at the proper depth however many decades ago it was put in. And so over time, all the aeration and different treatments that happen to the field, there are constant repairs being made to the irrigation system. So we're going to have them put it in deeper. At a minimum, we're definitely doing the east knoll because that one's in worse shape. That's about half the money, and then we have the money through the earmark to do the west knoll as well. So, we are most likely moving forward with that.

▶ 2:23:29 Okay. Great. And so from my understanding, redoing the irrigation compared to putting in place a drainage system, so they're two different types of item. Can you explain an example of what a drainage system looks like, and how are they different? So irrigation is literally watering the grass. Okay. That's it. The pipes are subsurface, but it's water on the surface. Whereas the drainage is an attempt to, so the groundwater at certain times of year is right below the surface or is essentially at the surface, and so it's trying to find ways to move that water off the playing surface, store it somewhere. I don't know if you can give a better explanation. Sure. Yeah. So ultimately, you want a certain amount of moisture in the soil makeup

▶ 2:24:21 at all times. Too much, you'll kill the grass. Not enough, you'll kill the grass. So we will be doing many rounds of testing, to pinpoint the right mix of soil. We'll engineer the soil. We want a certain amount of infiltration so that those fields after rain events recover as quickly as possible so that you're able to get back out without damaging the fields. Because ultimately what is happening is the soil's becoming so compact from use and then a rain event comes and the water can't infiltrate quick enough where you have to use it again. And we're also being challenged by high groundwater during season. So ultimately you have a sandwich of water at the top and bottom. The drainage system allows the water to move

▶ 2:25:10 Kimberly Vandiver: from either the top and the bottom without sitting on the surface. Thank you. That's really helpful for me. Okay, so I believe we've been through everyone who'd like to comment for the first time, and we have three people in queue for the second time. Just to observe to people that it's been about-- We started at 6:00, so it's been over two hours- ... discussion on this topic, which, a lot of money, an important topic with important implications, so that's reasonable. But if people could attempt on their second round of comment to limit to five minutes, that would be helpful. Thank you. Okay, so in queue, I believe, anyone raise your hand if I missed you. I have Councilor Williams, Councilor Finocchiaro, and Councilor Karim Cheidy.

▶ 2:25:55 Ryan Williams: Councilor Williams. Thank you. I'm listening to my colleagues. I'm hearing a lot of thoughtful conversation, and I appreciate all of it. I don't have the level of trust, and I think it might be because I know-- I think that I have a little bit of a clear understanding about the process this goes through next. I do not think the Con Com is going to vote on turf. They're going to vote on water quality. They're going to vote on impairment of waterways. They're going to vote on... I don't know if we still have NPDES permits. But they're going to vote on things that have to do with how much water is getting into the wetlands and how much it's discharging. They're not going to vote on the surface, the playing surface.

▶ 2:26:32 Ryan Williams: So that's not a check. That's not a point where we could come back and have this conversation a second time. The Parks Commission has a tremendous amount of power. They're like the City Council, the Planning Board. They're almost everything except for they can't fund their own work. We have to fund their work. And then the third agency is us, the City Council. So I want to ask a couple of questions. I have a motion that I think will get us over the hump. I think it'll work based on what I've heard from everybody, but it'll be a real sort of moment of truth. So, my first question is, you said that the-- Ms. Bregazelis, you said that somebody told you that they could design this drainage system for natural grass or artificial grass, and it would sort of do

▶ 2:27:14 Ryan Williams: the same job. So we can do that? We can do that. Can we design this system now agnostic of field surface- We've reached- ... and focus on the drainage ... a limit of our ability to do that. I don't know around what percent, but we're probably pretty close at this point where- It's ... we need to decide. Yeah, we're getting close because ultimately, we're designing the storm system- Mm-hmm ... now. Mm-hmm. We're making a lot of assumptions conservatively. Sure. But we will, in order to finish the design, have to make some decisions. Yeah, and I think the assumptions are precisely the thing that's hanging up so many people, that we have this concern that we're going to let this go. And I don't think it's a personal issue.

▶ 2:27:59 Ryan Williams: I think it's a social split of responsibility. There's a lot of people in this conversation. There's the Con Com, there's the Parks Commission, the Parks Department, DPW, Mayor's office, Weston and Sampson, the City Council. And I've watched things go sort of sideways. So I'm going to try something, and I invite my colleagues to comment on it, to think about it, to give it some thought. I would like to make a motion to amend this order, ID number 2026-1175, as follows, "Provided that no funds may be expended or used on the design of synthetic turf as part of this appropriation." And there's a motion from Councilor Williams. Do we have a second? Do you mind to repeat your motion? Yes. "Provided that no funds may be expended or used on the design of

▶ 2:28:51 Ryan Williams: synthetic turf as part of this appropriation." I feel that this creates a secondary opportunity for the city to approach us with the turf conversation separately, where we can answer all of these questions before we vote. We've heard nothing but questions. Is it really an equity issue? Do we have the data to prove it? Can we design a drainage system that works for both? And I think that if we fund the majority of this, but say, "Let's not walk down the turf path right now," we can come back. We'll have plenty of time, multiple years of design work ahead of us. We can entertain an appropriation for the additional cost of multiple field services. We can just have a public hearing about it. But that's my motion, "Provided that no funds may be expended

▶ 2:29:38 Cal Finocchiaro: or used on the design of synthetic turf as part of this appropriation." I'll second that. Okay, so we have a motion from Councilor Williams and a second from Councilor Romanul. On discussion. Next in queue, I had Councilor Finocchiaro. Would you like to comment on this, or would you like to wait until this is resolved? So I had my original comment. Can I comment on the motion? Or- I think you can still provide your comment. Okay. I'll try to be very brief. So I was listening to everybody, and my thought was this, because I came in here sort of unsure what I wanted to do with this because I wanted to move forward. But what I keep coming back to is we are the regulatory body that says "Yes" to money, "No" to money. The Con Com and the

▶ 2:30:32 Cal Finocchiaro: Parks Commission are their own bodies. I did not ask to be appointed to the Parks Commission. I asked-- Not I asked, but I asked the voters to elect me for this position, and that is what I can do. I can say "Yes" to the money or "No" to the money at this point. And so when the design is done and comes back and it has turf, I can say "No" to the money, potentially. Really, that's what we can do. So I understand what you're saying because I don't like turf and I appreciate it, and I actually want to ask a question about what's on the floor here because I'm a little confused. But what it comes down to is I don't want to limit what they're going to do with the design because ultimately, as much as I despise turf, if that is

▶ 2:31:19 Cal Finocchiaro: ultimately what's going to work best for our community, even though I personally don't like itAnd I'm not going to say that over and over again. I've gotten the point across. I just don't want to limit them because of my own personal-- I feel like the bodies that we've sort of appointed, partially elected, hired to be the bodies that make the decision on the design and know best about this, and the EPA is going to be involved. Then they can come back with their design, and we can say, "You know what? We don't like this. We're not going to fund it." Ultimately, that's how I feel like I have a say in this. But my question to you is, your-- Yes, sorry. Through the chair- ... for Councilor Williams.

▶ 2:32:04 Ryan Williams: Your amendment, does it take turf off the table completely? No. No, it does not. It takes turf out of this design appropriation, and essentially would require another appropriation, another comment, another public hearing to talk about the playing field surface, where we would hope to have some of the results, some of this information on hand so that we could feel more comfortable that part of this process has already sort of taken place and is underway. I don't personally think that if we let this go, it comes back to us with an inflection point. We were on the public safety building vote, and when it came back to us, we had 75 firefighters in the room staring us down to take the vote for the third fire station.

▶ 2:32:49 Cal Finocchiaro: So, I think now is the time for us to act on this. Okay. If I could just add to my previous comment, I also was thinking about the override. We made the decision as a council to put that on the ballot. Right? You came in front of us. Do we want to put that on ballot? We did. And then collectively, whether we all agreed with the override or not, which we did at the time, we got out there and advocated for it. So we have that ability to do that as well. So I'm struggling with this a little bit, and I'm just trying to figure this out just because it's so new. But anyways, I'm done with my commentary. Okay, thank you. And so in queue, I currently have Councilor Krmcha and Council President Freeman. Councilor Krmcha?

▶ 2:33:33 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. I'm kind of combining what I was going to say before and in response in terms of discussion for the amendment on the table. I think what I was reflecting on before, I think similar to Councilor Finocchiaro, sorry, is what is our role as city councilors, and what opportunities do we have after this vote if it goes through to continue to advocate, to question. And so again, as was already said, we have the opportunity as the city council when any other pieces come before us to say no, and say if a plan comes back with turf fields to be funded, we have the opportunity to say no. So we do have some checks and balances along the way if we say yes without completely stopping and not doing this thing

▶ 2:34:34 Manjula Karamcheti: that 90% of we all think is fantastic. And so that is resonating with me. And we also do have the opportunity to mobilize our constituents and connect them to how to have their voices heard. It's hard work. It takes a lot of time, but we have that available to us as well. And we also, as city councilors, can continue to reach out to boards and commissions, to reach out to the mayor's office to press our opinions and what we feel are our responsibilities. So I'll just say that because we are a newer body working together, so I'm kind of processing and saying that those are other ways that we have to influence without saying no. And I'm super interested in this amendment. It's also new to me too.

▶ 2:35:25 Jen Grigoraitis: I'm curious. I think what I don't understand, and this I guess is a question to all of you, how would that impact your work to get to the next phase? I just don't know. I'm not an expert. So with great respect, I'm not totally sure it's allowable. The council's purview is to approve, reduce, reject. So I think there needs to be a conversation with legal around, and maybe that already happened, but the ability to kind of put constraints on how funding is utilized beyond what's in the body of the order. I'm not actually sure that's within the purview of this body. So I just- No, no. I appreciate that ... feel like I have to say that out loud. And I know that that's our rules for the budget. Yeah.

▶ 2:36:08 Jen Grigoraitis: I didn't know if that also carried for- Yeah ... free cash. Right. So Executive proposes, the legislative disposes of the order. So I think in terms of, I'm happy to-- I don't know if it has to be formally attached to the order. I hear you, Councilor Williams, about wanting to feel like there's some commitment. So I'm happy to put it in writing after the fact. I think we can commit to coming back with an informational update at various points. I don't want to commit to an exact date, mostly because I don't really understand where we would be in the process, but I think I hear that there's a desire to have there be interim conversations along the way as we move through design. I'm very much open and committed to doing that with you all.

▶ 2:36:53 Jen Grigoraitis: Again, that would largely be informational because there would be nothing before you to take action on, which I think are typically when some of the most fruitful conversations have occurred in this room. But that would just be sort of my-- Does that answer your question? It does, and thank you for the reminder. I meant to state informational orders as another way that we can engage in this process- Yeah ... after today. So thank you for putting that one back on the table. I'm good. I think from a logistical perspective, too, just the wording of that none of the design money can be expended on design of an artificial turf field. One of the first things that we'd be doing as we go from this 25% design

▶ 2:37:29 into, say, the 50% design phase is trying to, is doing that public process to try to make this decision, and I think it's a little unclear how we would... If the wording seems very restrictive in that how do we interpret, can we still have Weston & Sampson give us an evaluation memo on the uptime of turf versus a natural playing surface in that location? Can we look at the design differences of the drainage system between one and the other? It's like if we can't technically use a penny of the money on the designing of the one, we can't do the comparisons. I think it's either too restrictive or too vague perhaps to just say we can't spend any money on turf, because what does that mean from a logistical perspective for

▶ 2:38:25 us? Thank you. And Councilor Williams, you would like to respond to that point? Just as a point of order, Rule 49 lays amending a motion as a responsibility of the city council, so it is our purview and responsibility to amend orders. We amend them all the time. Point. May I see the rules for it? Yes. A second? Through the Chair. Yeah. If it's free cash, it's not something that we can amend. If it's something other order, we are able to amend. But when it's free cash, we can either accept or reject. That's what we've been doing, and that's what's in the charter. Why don't we take a recess for five minutes to consider this question and come back to the discussion. Can I have a motion for that?

▶ 2:39:32 Kimberly Vandiver: A motion to recess. Second. Okay, so a motion to recess, Councilor Karamcheti. Second, Councilor Finocchiaro. Can we have a roll call, please? Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? No. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. Okay. Motion passes. So we're in recess. Okay, so we're going to come back into session again. Thank you, everyone. So offline, we consulted legal counsel, and she told us that in the case of free cash, we vote yes or no. We cannot amend. Okay. So, I believe we cannot move forward with that amendment.

▶ 2:40:39 Bradley Freeman: Okay. I withdraw it. Councilor Rasband? I will. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to make a motion to recommend. My message here is, I think everyone's right that this is just one step in the process. This will come back before us, and if it comes back with turf and folks do not want turf, you have an opportunity then to vote it down. If it comes back with grass and you want turf, you can vote that down. This is just one step in the process. So my motion is to recommend. Second. Okay, so we have a motion to recommend from President Freeman, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion, I believe-- Okay, I have no one else in queue. No one else on discussion. We ready to vote? All right. So, roll call vote, please.

▶ 2:41:22 Kimberly Vandiver: Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? No. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? No. We have two no's and, wait, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, nine yays, two no's. Motion passes. Thank you. So that will be recommended back to the full council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Brandon. Moving on to the second item on our agenda tonight. We have ID number 2026-1176, an appropriation from free cash account 01-324001 to DPW Highway Department number 422, in the amount of $400,000 for Lebanon Street TIP project design.

▶ 2:42:27 Thank you. Hold on. I just need to collect my thoughts here and pull the memo up. I didn't get to talk to her. She's right there. Sorry, I should have done this in advance. Here it is. Okay. So this request is for $400,000 to further advance the Lebanon Street TIP design. I want to call attention to the memo just to note how much that we've spent so far. We've spent $540,000, which has gotten us up through the 25% design stage and through the MassDOT 25% design comments and responses to comments. Different from the project we were just discussing, the Lebanon Street TIP project, it ultimately will be a federally funded project for the construction. The MassDOT is estimating this around $10 million of

▶ 2:43:30 funds that we're guaranteed to get, but we have to pay for the design, and then some ancillary costs during construction.The MassDOT design process is an extraordinarily detailed and lengthy process, dissimilar from anything else that we typically do in-house. And thus, each phase of design is very expensive. So we've spent 540,000. We have 200,000 left that's been allocated through our last road bond from a couple of years ago that we're still spending, and then we're asking for 400,000 more. But that won't be for the whole project, for the whole design. We will then invest more of our Chapter 90 or future road bond money to complete the design. But based on the free cash levels that were available right now, and

▶ 2:44:30 Cal Finocchiaro: discussion with the administration, we felt that 400,000 was a good ask for free cash, and then we can easily supplement to make up the rest of the design, which I'm estimating will be another three or 400,000. Over the next couple of years, we can use road bond money as we have in the past, or some piece of Chapter 90. Thank you. I have Counselor Pinocchio. Thank you. Okay, so this is the 400,000 is a necessary evil. It's a lot of money, but just to clarify, this is for a drainage on Lebanon Street, no? Sorry. Okay. I should've explained that. Okay. Yes. The TIP project is Transportation Improvement Project. It is everything that you saw done on Lebanon Street from Hospital Square up to Lynde in the

▶ 2:45:20 past. It is all that and then some, because MassDOT has now changed some of their regulations. They require either a bike lane or it's actually going to be a mostly, I believe, sidewalk level cycle track. There's going to be bicycle amenities on both sides of the street, completely separated from the street. So it will be concrete sidewalks. We have major sidewalk network gaps right now on Lebanon Street in that section. It will be concrete sidewalks, granite curbing, brand new road, completely reconstructed road. We're working on parking along the softball field, which I've told MassDOT that will make or break the project. If we don't have any parking, I don't think the project will be approvable by the community.

▶ 2:46:12 There's not a lot of space down there to park, but it's better than we don't want people parking on the sidewalk anymore. So it is a complete revamp of Lebanon Street all the way to the Malden Line from where we left off with the last project. I'm sorry. It's okay. Where exactly is this new project starting? What part? From Lynde- Yep ... on Lebanon to the Malden Line on Lebanon. Okay. And will the installation of the bike lanes reduce the size of the width of the street? So right now we have our standard for the city is 11-foot travel lanes. Mm-hmm. And so we'll be maintaining 11-foot travel lanes. I think though, on Lebanon down at that southern portion, I don't know that we have a fog line the whole way down.

▶ 2:46:56 I would have to pull it up on Street View. So we're not necessarily exactly constricted to the 11 feet right now, but we would be meeting our standard, which is also the standard for a street that a bus can go down and large vehicles. And they're painted lines or are there going to be like- Okay. The cycle track, I believe, for the majority of the corridor is sidewalk level. Okay. So it would be the driving lanes, both directions, curbing, and then up here, the bike lanes and the sidewalks. And it allows us to keep the utility poles almost entirely where they are and have a grass strip in any locations where it fits, and then trees and such. Okay. I'm all in favor of safe biking. I tend to have an issue when it restricts the size of the street that people

▶ 2:47:49 are driving on. But so it's going to be incorporated with the sidewalk? Okay. For the majority of it. Okay. There are some areas where the grade doesn't allow for it to be with the sidewalk, and I think there are a couple of areas where the grade doesn't allow for there to be a bike lane, but they're just very short stretches. Okay. I don't know all the exact locations, but I know there-- And there's one small area where a sidewalk doesn't fit almost in Malden, where basically the driveways are so shallow that if you tried to add a sidewalk, someone couldn't park even a single car in their driveway. Okay. So that little stretch will end up with no sidewalk, but across the street, there'll be a sidewalk.

▶ 2:48:26 All right. So we've already appropriated $540,000. I think we did that last year. Correct. Yeah. Some of it was through the road bond, which you did appropriate. Yep. Mm-hmm. A little bit of, I think, was Chapter 90 at one point- Mm-hmm ... which you don't have to vote on. Yep. But yes, you voted on the majority of this. Okay. Well, I'm just going to make a motion to recommend. Second. Second. Okay, we have a motion to recommend, Counselor Pinocchio. A second, Counselor Karim Cheedy. Anyone on discussion? Point of order, Counselor Romano has his hand up. Counselor Romano. Thanks so much. I'll be brief. I'll just say that I'm really excited about the project, and I'm not just saying that because it's in

▶ 2:49:02 Devin Romanul: Ward 7. Anybody who has biked, driven, walked, just living along the street knows that either speed or hazards crossing storm water is a huge issue in that corridor. Mm-hmm. So I'm really glad we're continuing this work. I'm definitely voting for it. My only question to the director is at what point do you anticipate a public engagement process for those who are living there? Because I hear that all the time about opportunities for folks to give voice to things. And I know that this is not going to be till FY29, so we've got a ways, but eager on your feedback there. We're actually planning on starting that this summer. Mm-hmm We had a meeting out there the other day with MassDOT and our consultants from Stantec, and we informed them that we do plan to have an

▶ 2:49:48 informal public meeting. They have a very prescribed public engagement process. But I would rather meet with the public, just the city and our consultants first, and gather some feedback before we enter into the formal MassDOT public engagement process. So we said we were going to aim to do something over the summer. Great. Well, let me know how I can help. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anyone else on this discussion? Let's have a roll call vote, please. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Coleman. Yes. Councilor Abrumsky. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes.

▶ 2:50:29 Kimberly Vandiver: Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor of motion passes. Thank you. That will be recommended back to the full council. The next item on our agenda is ID number 2026-1177, an appropriation from free cash account number 01324001 to DPW School Facilities Department number 402 in the amount of $20,000 to update school signage. Thank you. This one is very similar to the bike rack free cash request that we had previously, where it's not that the amount was tied to an exact number of signs or a specific project, it was that the administration wishes to move forward on some school signage improvements that we've had sort of in the works for a long time, and thought 20,000 was a good amount to spend on that topic.

▶ 2:51:16 I may have mentioned this at a prior meeting, but we had sent out a survey to all of the principals to say what signs do you need repaired or replaced. This can be anything from the big signs that are like the Roosevelt School sign that says Roosevelt School, big wood sign with, I think, granite posts, is falling apart. It could be big signs like that. It could be a handicap parking sign in a parking space outside the school, or just a no parking sign, no idling signs, any of those. It's exterior signage that we're focused on. And what had happened was, the facilities manager, Jay McNeil, and I had done this survey of the principals probably three years ago and gathered all this information, but we had no money to execute any of it

▶ 2:52:05 aside from a handful of no parking signs that we just had readily available or we could make. So we will ask the principals again to update their lists, and then we will try to spread the funding around to as many locations as we can. Thank you. Councilor Finocchiaro followed by Councilor Williams. Just want to make a motion to recommend. Second. Okay, we have a motion to recommend from Councilor Finocchiaro, second by Councilor Williams. Anyone on discussion? Okay, roll call vote, please. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Coleman. Yes. Councilor Abrumsky. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman.

▶ 2:52:43 Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. And Councilor Williams, did you want to say something? I would like to make a motion to take ID 2026-1170 out of order because we have a member of volunteer who's been sitting here waiting. 2026-1170. Well, that's the only one that I... Oh, did Lori- I just made a motion. Nobody seconded my motion. Second, I'll second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilor Williams, seconded by Councilor Karamcheti, to take ID number 2026-1170- Councilor Freeman has this. Yep, just point of clarification on this. We received guidance from legal that we cannot open the budget and then close the budget, but as long as it's only free cash requests, I think we can continue to do that and then just have Ms.

▶ 2:53:29 Brockas else finish. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. What are we missing? Is it over? I'm missing the whole second page. We have to take a roll call. We have to read the bottom of that. All right. Let's take a vote, please. Okay. Roll now. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Coleman. Yes. Councilor Abrumsky. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor. She has to get Lori Massa. She's... Okay. It's okay. Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. You're all good. Okay, so, we voted to bring ID number 2026-1170 before us, and I'll read it in while we get our-

▶ 2:54:18 Kimberly Vandiver: Yeah, I hear her coming ... speaker. I think I hear her coming. Yeah. Okay, so we're going to hear ID number 2026-1170, an appropriation from free cash account number 01-324001 in the amount of $150,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust number 8270. Thanks. Welcome. Will you introduce yourselves and... Hello, I'm Lori Massa. I'm the Director of the Office of Planning and Community Development. I'm Amy Tierney, and I am the Chair of the Affordable Housing Trust. Thank you. I know it's a very busy night, and I know we were just before you all, our board, a month ago. So I don't want to spend a lot of time, but I want to thank the mayor and Ms. Massa for making the free cash request on our behalf. And I just want to say that

▶ 2:55:15 $150 investment, it would keep the trust moving forward. We discussed when we were here before that we have a long-term plan, and we need to get more sustainable funding. But this would help us leverage outside funding from state and federal, and honor the commitment that Melrose has already made to its most cost-burdened residents. 150,000 is a small fraction of the city's free cash, um And frankly, I think it's the kind of investment that the community expects from a city that has put affordable housing in its master plan, in its housing production plans, and created a trust in the first place. And I think it's a consistency between those stated values and our budget decisions. And I think that we've shown that the trust is

▶ 2:56:08 ready to deploy the money. In our presentation, we talked about the $140,000 grant that helped the Affordable Housing Corporation leverage $900,000 acquisitions for three units. And we have guidelines and application process already in place. So I think we can't wait for a perfect solution, and we have a five-year plan that we want to get much more funding, but I feel like we need to start somewhere, and this is the city putting some money into a priority that they have consistently said is a priority for us. Yes. And just to give a little bit more information, other communities that have affordable housing trusts are often supported by municipal appropriations, whether it be CPA money or free cash. So Melrose isn't trying something new

▶ 2:57:07 here. And specifically in Revere, for the first few years that the trust was established, the city put 10% of their free cash into their trust, and this last year they had to reduce that down to 5%, but it was still $230,000. And Brookline, Medford have received free cash requests, and Chelsea is exploring this option. Also, we have to keep in mind that these funding sources through the trust are often just a way to leverage other state and federal money. And the state has housing as a priority still. In 2024, the state of Massachusetts passed the Historic Affordable Homes Act, authorizing 5.1 billion in spending over five years to support housing production and affordable housing production in particular.

▶ 2:58:09 And at the federal level, the affordable housing remains strong. I just had a meeting with our NSC consortium for home funds, and that funding is still coming in. And on June 16th, the Senate Finance Committee released its portion of the pending fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation bill that includes a permanent expansion of the low-income housing tax credit. So these other sources of funding are still kind of active and to help with bringing in affordable units to the region, and then hopefully more specifically in Melrose as we move forward with this current board. And the Affordable Housing Corporation's recent project in West Wyoming is an example that we're able to get home funds, federal funds for that project because the trust was able to give them the

▶ 2:59:02 $140,000. And then other examples of projects in the area that have used trust funds in Medford, the 703 Fellsway, the trust in Medford gave $100,000 initially, and then again, another $100,000 to move that project forward. In Arlington, there's a 43 affordable unit project that the trust invested 250,000 in pre-development, another 200,000 to close a funding gap, and the total development cost for that project was 32 million. They were able to get 24 million in state and federal subsidies. And another project in Arlington at 85/87 Grafton Street, they acquired a two-family. The trust gave 25,000 and 475,000 of ARPA money, and the total development cost there was 1.3 million. So we're not asking to do anything kind of unusual.

▶ 3:00:06 Maya Jamaleddine: This is typical practice in our neighboring communities for trusts. Thank you. So in queue I have Councilors Jamaluddin, Karamchedy, Cowell, and Williams. Councilor Jamaleddine. Thank you. I was going to just say that this is way overdue. This is part of what we committed for when we established that, and I feel that this is a very small portion to prove our commitment to supporting housing, and I would like to make motion to recommend. Second. Okay. We have a motion to recommend by Councilor Jamaleddine, second by Councilor Williams. On discussion, I have Councilor Karamcheti. Thank you so much for being here and for your leadership on the Affordable Housing Trust. I see this as such an important opportunity for us to invest

▶ 3:01:08 Manjula Karamcheti: in our housing production plan, our overall strategic plan. And for many reasons, but being the Ward 1 city councilor since I started, I think six years ago, housing is probably the thing I spend a majority of my time on. And what I believe this trust can do is help us proactively move forward on projects that help us make Melrose more affordable. And also not beingI don't know how to say this the right way, so I'm not going to say it. But it gives us the opportunity to be proactive and to be thoughtful, and design projects in a way that we feel like, like I said, make our city affordable. Which every day it seems like it's getting less and less affordable. I know that being a public educator, I wouldn't be living in this town now

▶ 3:02:15 Manjula Karamcheti: if I was trying to get in. And I think the gentleman who spoke from the housing authority emphasized that the trust is a workforce opportunity. And I think that's really important because we want the people that serve our community to be able to live in it, and I really think this trust can help make that happen long term, but we need to invest in it now. So I didn't ask you any questions, I just talked. But am I correct in saying that, I guess is my question? I hope so. Yeah, that's our intent. Okay. That's our mission. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Kamireddy. Up next I have Councilor Coleman. You mentioned something about a trust can be at certain levels before there could be other funding

▶ 3:03:00 unlocked from the trust. Does the trust have to be at a certain level of funding before other federal funding can get unlocked? Do we have to reach a certain amount in the trust? I can speak to that. Yeah. No. So it's just a matter of affordable housing projects have to cobble together different sources of funding. So, for example, the West Wyoming project that the fund has granted money to, they sought home funds, and the limit of that funding was $300,000. And so, in order to be able to afford moving forward with the purchase of this three family, they needed $140,000 and the trust had that amount of money to give. So there's no kind of magic number. It's just case by case of what they need, what's available from other funding.

▶ 3:03:58 Jason Chen: And things like pre-development are critical for some of these projects. And so it's not an exorbitant amount of money, but something to be able to move forward, and it really is like a case by case of how much each project would be requesting. Okay. So I have Councilor Williams followed by Councilor Chen. Councilor Williams. You're up. I'm good, thanks. Okay. We have Councilor Chen. We need more housing, and that's not just in Melrose. That is a Greater Boston challenge. The scale of it is, we have 2.5 million units of housing in Greater Boston, and economists and experts say we need about 250,000 more units to have supply meet demand, so we can arrest the out-of-control rise in housing prices.

▶ 3:04:51 Jason Chen: So if we were to say that's 10% increase in houses in Melrose, that would be, we've got what? About 12,000 units or 11,800 units, so we need to increase by about 1,100 units of housing. I'm just not sure that the Affordable Housing Trust is the most effective way to do this. Right? We have deeded units. We spent $140,000. We unlocked some funds, and we got three affordable units out of it. So the ways that do move the needle on just increasing housing in general, which will over time make it more affordable, I think, are accessory dwelling units or zoning and allowing a lot of these developments to happen. I know that's not always a popular position. The fund already has $513,000 in it, right?

▶ 3:05:33 Jason Chen: We've seeded it with some money in the past. It has grown over time, and it's funded partially by inclusionary zoning. And so I expect that will continue as we do more developments. So I think the fund should certainly have some money in it to be able to take advantage of these opportunities, be able to get some multiplier effect by other funds. But I don't think it moves the needle overall compared to all the other things that we could be doing. And that's not any reflection of the people that are managing the Affordable Housing Trust. I think just structurally where we are, we're not going to raise $80 million and build large public housing units. That might give us the hundreds of units.

▶ 3:06:11 Jason Chen: But to Councilor Kamireddy's point, I think Melrose is doing a lot, and we've got 15 developments going on now, eight in the Highlands alone, right? So that is the hundreds of units that is moving the needle on, and we're close to our 10% safe harbor. So I want to give you a chance to respond to that. Sure. So, a lot of these things are signals to the market. So, we talk with other trusts, we talk with developers. People are looking at what other people are doing. And so we haven't attracted a nonprofit affordable housing developer to Melrose. That would be awesome. I go to conferences and say, "How can we attract developers to Melrose?" And to do those units, those developments that have larger than the 15% inclusionary in

▶ 3:07:02 them. And it's things like that, that developers want the signal that we want housing here, we want affordable housing here. And if we don't have the trust functioning and we're not putting money into this, then we're not going to get there. So it is a small amount of money. It's a strategic way, though, because it's very expensive to build housing and to purchase housing. And so it gives us a little bit of a signal and an advantage to say, "Yes, we don't have a lot of money, but we're actively trying to increase the supply of affordable housing." This business is really tough, and it takes a lot of time and funding sources to piece these things together. So, in and of itself, yeah, it's not

▶ 3:07:56 a lot of money, but it does have implications of the development world and the planning world and the Affordable Housing Trust. Everybody's looking at what everyone's doing and we were sent things from other cities to help with this discussion and-Everyone had already researched the fact that Melrose had $75,000 from free cash in several years ago, and last year was not granted, and that's out there in the public. So, I think that it's a small step forward for this effort. And I totally agree. And I also think it's all of the above. Yeah. I don't think it's just affordable housing trust, just ADUs, just this. Housing, and we're not going to get there unless we do all of the above. That's how I feel.

▶ 3:08:54 Ryan Williams: Thank you. Are you all set, Councilor Chen? Yes. Okay, so in queue, I have Councilor Williams, followed by Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you. I just wanted to reflect on Councilor Chen thinking through the chair. I think that the presentation that you made to us on deed restricted affordable housing hit a sweet spot for me because deed restricted affordable housing for me is like when you put your money where your mouth is, and you say, "We are actually going to do this right." I've worked in affordable housing a very long time ago in my career, and there was cases in Chicago where they would do affordable housing projects that would get bought by people with significant financial means, and then

▶ 3:09:36 Ryan Williams: those people would flip them and sell them for market rate. And it's a travesty. So when I saw that you all were doing these and you were looking to do deed restricted stuff, it gave me a lot of confidence that you're moving in the right direction today. As a person who started in Melrose in a two-family condo, about the smallest house you can get, I think that there's a lot of reasons to prioritize even individual units, smaller units for people, and preserve some of this smaller sort of startup housing stock. And as we move forward into zoning around two and three families in the city in the future, I would love to hear more about plans to incorporate some of the trust's activities into the permitting for two and

▶ 3:10:24 Cal Finocchiaro: three families and part of the affordable housing context. I'm not smart enough to know what that is. But if you have ideas, I'd love to hear them. You don't have to answer right now. It's late. All right, so next up I have Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you. Thanks for being here so late. I guess I'm struggling with this a little bit and it's probably because I don't understand the full scope. But to me, and probably to many residents that live here, I don't see Melrose as having a housing problem right now. We have, like Councilor Chen said, we have 15 buildings going up. Pretty sure the 40Bs, many of them are, and 25% of them are affordable. Is that correct? Am I speaking correctly? Yes. Okay. So, I guess,

▶ 3:11:17 Cal Finocchiaro: do we have a affordable housing crisis in Melrose? Yes. So the Affordable Housing Trust put together a presentation of- Yep ... with all the data. Mm-hmm. And so yes, we do. Okay. I guess I'm just struggling with an appropriation for $150,000, which is not a lot in the big grand scheme, but it is a lot when we're dealing with taxpayer money. And so what you're saying is we definitely have an issue with affordable housing in Melrose. Yes. Okay. Even with all the buildings going up. Yes. There's the demand for housing, as Councilor Chen was describing. Mm-hmm. We need more housing regionally, and every community feels like, "Oh, we're doing enough. We're doing our part." And it's not enough. There

▶ 3:12:20 was a recent study that MAPC did that we can provide to you with more information about kind of regionally what is happening with building units. So 15% of the units in projects with eight or more residential units need to provide... 15% of those units are affordable. But there's a greater need and the trust is somewhat limited in their funds and so, we do need developers that are going to come in that are going to use these other sources of funding, state and federal funding, to be able to bring more units to Melrose. I'm just like struggling to, where are we putting more units in Melrose? You're talking about taking a two-family over and creating housing out of a two-family or you're creating more buildings, larger buildings?

▶ 3:13:17 So- I'm just thinking about land availability as- Right ... at this point. Right. So yeah, another free cash request tonight is for updating our housing production plan. Mm-hmm. So, we've looked at the sites that are prime for redevelopment and many of those are under construction. So again, looking at updating that study to see where other parcels... There are redevelopment potentials that aren't in residential neighborhoods that are still available for additional units. Okay. Thank you. Do I have other councilors in queue? I don't believe so. Okay. So, before you go for the second time, I'll just offer two comments, questions. Just on the topic of if we have an issue with housing, I think

▶ 3:14:11 Kimberly Vandiver: part of the presentation that I found important is about the The percentage of people who are spending very large chunks of their income to manage to stay in their housing. So they're spending a third or a half of their income, like all goes to housing, right? And so then they have housing, but then they also have to take care of taxes and groceries, and there's very little wiggle room once they're spending such a large chunk. So I think that's a piece of it. And then, I believe this amount of money, to the point about it's a small amount of money, how will it move things forward? $150,000 is not going to buy you a house or build you a house. If anyone could do that, they would do that. We would all do that, build a house for $150,000.

▶ 3:14:49 Kimberly Vandiver: But I think it is about these things like being able to deed restrict units and leverage funding to get units into a place where that unit gets pulled out of the main system and is affordable for a teacher, for somebody who's not making a huge salary. So I'll limit my comments to that. But I'm supportive. So Councilor Williams for the second time. The motion to approve. Second. I believe there's a motion on the floor already. There was. I sort of did- Oh, was there? You took that way long ago. Geez, I'm sorry. It was so long ago. I apologize. Oh, we're just voting. It's okay. It's been a long night. Yeah. Is there anyone else who'd like to discuss? No. Okay, so let's do a roll call vote, please.

▶ 3:15:31 Councilor Chen. No. Councilor Finocchiaro. No. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Kowal. No. Councilor Abramsky. Yes. Councilor Park. No. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. One, two, three. Seven yeses, four nos. Okay, so that'll be reported back with a motion not recommended. No. No, to recommend. Oh. At committee it would be a- Not... Sorry? Simple majority passes in committee, and then it could- Oh ... potentially fail council. Sorry. You're correct. S- wait, what? I'm sorry, yes. This will be reported back to the full council with a positive recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So that item was out of order.

▶ 3:16:40 We are now heading back to ID number 2026-1251, an appropriation from sewer retained earnings, account 6000-319000 to sewer equipment account 604413-551002 for the down payment on a Vactor truck. Thank you. So this request is for 150,000 to be combined with 50,000 of existing capital money in the sewer fund to make a $200,000 down payment on a $610,000 Vactor truck to replace the one that we have. The lifespan on a Vactor is about 10 years. We've had the one that we have now for about 11 years. It has required costly repairs on the order of 25,000 plus for each repair in recent years. So it's reached the end of its useful life. This piece of equipment takes a beating. It is used for every time we have a sewer backup.

▶ 3:17:46 It's also used for vacuum excavation when we're excavating in an area where we're around a lot of utilities, and we have to be careful. We use it to excavate soil. We use it to dig test pits as well when needed. So it's a piece of equipment that's in near daily use in our department. And the reason why we are requesting to do this as a lease to own, this is what we did, or just with payments, this is what we did the last time we bought the Vactor. And 11 years ago when we did this, a capital line item was added into the sewer budget. Right now, that line item sits at 80,000 per year. So that paid for the Vactor over the course of five years when we bought the last one. And then that line item was maintained in our sewer budget

▶ 3:18:34 as capital, and we've used it to fund all the repairs that it's needed since then. So the nice thing is that that line item exists, where actually you'll see when we get to the sewer budget, we're proposing to up that line item to 90,000 because with the $200,000 down payment and then 90,000 a year over, I believe it must be five years, we reach the full payments to pay for the $610,000 truck, including interest. And so this is the recommendation of how to purchase this particular vehicle. Finance, oftentimes, finance department prefers to buy vehicles outright. But in this case, where it's tied to our sewer rates, by financing it over a period of years, it allows us to have a more predictable rate structure.

▶ 3:19:20 Bradley Freeman: Mm-hmm. Thank you. Any questions or comments from my colleagues? Councilor Freeman. Yeah, I just want to say I was walking my dog the other night and came across a Vactor truck in my neighborhood preventing a sewage emergency. So I can think of nothing more appropriate and important than setting money to ensure this truck is operational. With that, I'll have a motion to recommend. Second. Okay, we have a motion to recommend from President Freeman, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. And on discussion, I have Councilor Williams. Yeah. How does this interact with the clam digger thing? Like, do they work as a pair? Is it modular for the same vehicle? Are they different vehicles? So they're different vehicles.

▶ 3:19:57 Right. The clam thing is more geared toward drainage. Yeah. The clam shell is used to clean out catch basins. Right. And so that takes the material out- Mm ... and then you dump it into a dump truck. And you can do a higher volume with that.The companies that do it for us for the catch basin cleaning, they have a price for doing it with a Vactor and a price for doing it with a clamshell. It is much more expensive for them to do it with the Vactor. Mm. So presumably, it's just a slower and more extensive process to do it with the Vactor, or they would be charging us the same money. Sure. So the intention would be that the clamshell would be used for our routine catch basin cleaning. This is typically more focused on sewers, but we do use it to

▶ 3:20:41 clean drains as well. And we can clean drain lines with the Vactor, as opposed to just- Smaller diameter drain lines? Well, the clamshell can just go down into something and pull the material out, whereas the Vactor also has a hose that sprays water, and you drag the material back and then suck it up from... It's got a big sucker. Suck it up from there. Okay. Anybody else on discussion? Councilor Chen. Thanks. What makes this lease-to-own, as opposed to some of the other vehicles that we have that are somewhat specialized and also in this price range? So, it's mainly because it's supported by the sewer rates. And so if we were to have a one-time hit for a $610,000 vehicle on the sewer rates, you would

▶ 3:21:28 see a spike in the rate for that particular year. And the finance department prefers to keep the rates sustainable and predictable, is what the MWI always says. So by financing this vehicle, we can have a predictable amount each year and not have to have a rate bump one year. Also, I will correct myself. I said lease to own, but that's how we bought the last vac truck. This one, I think, is just a straight-up- Yes ... purchase and financing. I believe that it's not a lease to own. It's a purchase with financing. Okay. I can't say I'm 100% sure on that. Any other comments or questions on discussion? Okay, so we'll have a vote. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine?

▶ 3:22:17 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kohl? Yes. Councilor Abrumsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor? Great. So that'll be reported back with a positive recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anything else that anyone would like to take out of order, or shall we get into budget? Let's do it. Budget. Here we go. Okay. And okay, we'll get into budget. Sounds so exciting. I've been informed that we do need to take a break at the four-hour mark, so that MMTV can reset, because they can only capture four hours at once. So we have a little bit of time we can run still. It's like trust the machine.

▶ 3:23:04 Let's go. All right, so next up we have department budget presentations, and we will be hearing from the Department of Public Works, Director Proakis-Ellis, on her budgets. Thank you. And Deputy Director Jim Troupe couldn't be here tonight, but he was a critical part of the development of this budget, so I just want to acknowledge him. And I see his name's here in the agenda. Adrienne, if you're able to pull up the other PowerPoint. Yes. I have it here. Let me check with Patrick downstairs. Okay. Okay, there we go. So I will try to move through this as quickly as I can given the hour and also how many folks are still waiting to do their budgets. So a couple of the items in these slides, I didn't know what order we would

▶ 3:23:57 be... I put them together before the agenda was put together, so there's some items that we've already voted on that we won't even really need to talk about. So this is our mission statement. This was developed collectively by our department. "Miller Department of Public Works provides quality services to the community in the areas of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, recycling, parks, forestry, fleet, highway, cemetery facilities, engineering, and administration while promoting health, safety, sustainability, and fiscal responsibility through the teamwork and commitment of an honest and dependable workforce." So that is DPW in a nutshell. We have four main divisions: administration and finance, engineering, water sewer billing, facilities, and

▶ 3:24:41 operations. I won't run through all of these. I think you're all pretty well aware of what our various divisions do, but I'll just click through. And Adrienne, if you can just click through the slides with me. So administration and finance does all of our administrative payroll paperwork, public relations. And the next slide. Engineering is managing most of our capital projects, permits for work in the right of way and utility work, development reviews for the planning department, record plans, geographic information systems, and water and sewer billing sits within that office. Facilities, fairly straightforward. Custodial services, maintenance services in all of our city and school buildings,

▶ 3:25:26 and capital projects in those buildings. And then operations is everybody else. So about half of our workforce is in our operations divisions. Highway, parks, forestry, fleet, cemetery, sanitation, water and sewer, and then snow and ice. That's the division of our budgets, which you'll see as we get into each individual budget. And just to be clear, so I have however many it is, nine, plus the three enterprise budgets. This presentation covers all of that. I'm going to fly through this, and then assuming you'll want to take each one individually, but you will have heard from me all at once. So we have 70 full-time employees, one part-time employee who's our rental coordinator. Four positions that are partially funded by the DPW sit in our

▶ 3:26:14 budget. Pieces of their salaries, like the park superintendent, sits in our budget but isOtherwise funded out of other budgets as well. We have two night custodians who are funded out of the education stations budget in the school department's budget, which is based on money coming in that goes back out, so they are not shown in our budget document. Every position that was eliminated in fiscal '26 in order to pass the budget has been restored, and our fiscal '27 employee count exactly matches our fiscal '25 budget. And the reason I'm calling attention to that is because we did shift some people around. So if you've looked at our budgets, you'll see some of the salary line items jumping up and others going down.

▶ 3:27:05 There is a change in four different divisions, two that gain an employee and two that lose an employee, but there are actually more than that that are moved around. It's just the rest of it is behind the scenes. And the intent of all of that is to have people paid out of the divisions where they're actually working. Historically, things have changed over time, and there was always a desire to not make it look strange in the budget previously. And I think at a certain point, that becomes complicated because you have people paid out of one division who are really working in another division. For instance, an employee in parks has been in the cemetery, working in the cemetery for the entire time that I've been director.

▶ 3:27:49 And so now we have four employees shown in the cemetery because that's what they're actually doing. Mm-hmm. So this is the breakdown of where everybody is, and I just showed the pluses and the minuses. So highway goes up by one for this fiscal year, parks and forestry goes down by one, fleet goes down by one, and cemetery goes up by one. So hopefully that's a sufficient explanation for some of the pluses and minuses you see in the munis budget. Our overall organization is we have the four main divisions. We have a division manager for each of those. So Jim Trou heads up the Administration and Finance division and also serves as our assistant director. Matt Spinelli is our Operations Manager.

▶ 3:28:35 Jay Coy is acting as our city engineer right now. And I'll talk about that a little bit more in a minute. And then Scott Enos has newly been promoted to our facilities manager. Next. So I'd just like to acknowledge the new employees that we've hired, so in additional Matt Spinelli, we have Jade Butler, who's new to our Parks division, and Fagan Doyle, who's new to our Engineering division. We've had three internal promotions. We really like to promote from within when we can. I think it's great for employee retention and for morale. So we've had three promotions. And then next. We have two great employees retiring at the end of this month. So Linda, who is the face of DPW at the city yard, is retiring.

▶ 3:29:23 And Dan Gavan, who's the municipal custodian who had been in City Hall for a while, he's been at the police station at different times, he's been at Milano. And so he is a well-liked member of our team. He's also retiring. Vacancies. Actually, if you can go back for one second. We have had the city engineer posted since the override passed with no really valid candidates. I've interviewed, I think, three candidates at this point, and just nobody is applying. Our acting city engineer has said to date that he does not want the position. I've tried to strong-arm him into changing his mind. I will continue trying. But it's amazing to me that we can't fill the city engineer position. It's a good salary, and it's just hard to understand.

▶ 3:30:13 We've also had a mechanic welder position posted since the override, and we've had parks heavy equipment operator has been posted for quite some time, but we had two vacancies and we filled one of the two. So that one's a little less of an issue. But the other two have been longstanding vacancies that have proven very hard to fill. I won't go through these numbers. These are in the memo that you received for our department. I will note that the number in the memo for potholes was a typo. It's 525 potholes that we filled this fiscal year. And we are caught up on our list, so you can resume the pothole patrol. Yay. Yeah. And then this just highlights some of our other work. I do want to highlight that we have started our curbside composting preferred

▶ 3:31:01 vendor program with Garbage to Garden. We've been trying to really promote that. We got the cart grant from MassDEP, so we were able to purchase 400 carts, so the next 400 people who sign up, I think we've signed up about 25 to 50 since then. But the remainder of that 400 will get a free cart. And this turkey was walking down the street near the cart that I was taking a picture of, so. And then capital work. We've been doing so much capital work, and especially with the supplemental budget. I was going to list all the projects we have in the works that are not yet complete, and it would've taken up too much time. But we've been getting through a lot of work. The high school bathrooms work is starting in two weeks, which is really exciting.

▶ 3:31:48 The contractor is already ordering all the parts and mobilizing. So we finished the roof that had been leaking for years, the partial roof at the Franklin School, high school skylights that were falling in. The middle school and the Lincoln have their air conditioning up and running with heat pumps. We renovated the whole Franklin School all-purpose room. That's the picture down at the bottom. We've done lighting upgrades. We've almost completed all the LED lighting in the entire portfolio of city buildings, which is exciting. We've been doing a lot of ADA accessibility work with grant money. Next slideThese were our paving projects listed up here from last year. We added sidewalks on Swain's Pond Ave, which we were excited to do.

▶ 3:32:33 We replaced a bunch of water main and the L Pond drain, which we were talking about for years, underneath the new development at the old Caruso building is done. So that was with a million-dollar state grant, and so that's an exciting one to have completed. So, on to our budgets. Our DPW budget's comprised 30 million, 30.5 million of the city's total budget. So it's a significant component. 11 million of that, 11.7, is in the general fund. The water enterprise budget, I've said this in past years, but just so that everybody understands clearly, the water enterprise, sewer enterprise, and solid waste enterprise operate as three completely independent funds. The water enterprise budget is completely

▶ 3:33:23 supported by water rates and fees. The sewer budget is completely supported by sewer rates and fees, and the solid waste enterprise budget is completely supported by the trash fee. And you can't take leftover from one and spend it on the other. And we are very careful within our department to allocate as we're paying invoices and such to allocate accurately between those three funds. Next. So these are all the orders that are before you tonight that pertain to DPW. And then if you go to the next one, this is the further breakdown of each of the codes that you have to vote on between each of the different divisions of the general fund piece. So that 11 million splits out into these eight different funds.

▶ 3:34:17 Next. So just to highlight the items that were restored in the supplemental budget for fiscal '26 that were carried into the fiscal '27 budget. As I mentioned, all positions that were funded in fiscal '25 are back into our budget. Our summer health program, being open at the city yard every Saturday, overtime for flower watering for the downtown baskets, parklets, overtime to set those up and take them down. Our line painting, which we had scaled back on, is now fully funded again. Our sidewalk repairs are fully funded and then some. Seasonal Sunday municipal trash barrel pickup is back in. That starts around end of June and goes through the end of the summer. And our support for the Adopt-a-Site program is back in the

▶ 3:35:04 budget. Some highlights across all the divisions. The union salaries we're in the process of negotiating both clerical and laborers. We're at the tail end of negotiation. We have a pretty good idea of where those are going to land. But for the purpose of budgeting, we always budget without the-- If a negotiation hasn't been finalized, we don't include it in the budget. So step increases are included, but you should expect to see some supplemental money going for the COLAs for both our clerical and our laborers. For our non-union members, we included the increases that they would have. Other items that were added back in that weren't in the supplemental budget, but things we'd cut back on previously that we were able to restore to

▶ 3:35:52 pre-fiscal '26 levels, things like professional development, our clothing line item, a handful of other small supply items that we'd cut back on. All the budgets across all the divisions reflect rising energy and fuel costs. Anywhere where there are fuel line items, those costs are going up, so we've raised some of them to help reflect that. I will note that you're probably aware, but within the munis budgets, we work within what we call roll-up codes. So if there's a section like in facilities, the contractual, which includes all of the heat and electricity for our municipal buildings, the finance department wants us to end in the black for the total for that section, but we're not bound to each individual line.

▶ 3:36:45 So if we go over, let's say, on school electricity, but then we end up under on municipal building electricity, then that's viable for that to balance out to no net change. So that's how we operate day to day in our budget. So if you see that some of the electricity lines, let's say, went up, but not all of them went up, we can absorb some amount of changes within those roll-up codes. So that's why you don't see every individual line bumped up for fuel and energy. And again, no net change in total positions. So we haven't created any new DPW positions in this fiscal budget. So next, facilities. The most notable items in facilities, I'm going to jump down a couple bullets, but the library electricity

▶ 3:37:38 reflects that we now have an all-electric building, so that's a huge increase. We have 500,000 in recurring capital that are in the building repairs line item. That was specified in the override as a priority. And this allows us to plan either if we have projects where we know we're going to have a city match and we need to fund $100,000 in order to leverage $200,000 of money from green communities or someone else. This gives us a little bit of money to plan for those projects and not have to come before you every time we want to do one of those smaller projects. And it also allows us to plan some of our larger capital. If we know we have a major need for, say, 250,000 to replace a piece of HVAC equipment or something, we can program that into a

▶ 3:38:25 year knowing that the intention is for this 500,000 to recurYear over year, and we hope that it doesn't get cut in the future. It also gives us a source if we planned to replace a piece of HVAC equipment a year out, and then something else fails and becomes a critical piece of equipment to replace right away. It allows us to act on that quickly and not always be looking for capital stabilization. Many communities have recurring capital in their operating budget, and this is something we've been asking for for many years in DPW, so we're thrilled to see that it's there. And then we have 100,000 for our annual asbestos removal in schools, which we end up asking for every year as free cash. But because it is a recurring capital item,

▶ 3:39:12 we've been given the guidance previously that it is more appropriate to just have it in the operating budget rather than ask for it every year. Next slide. So highway, we already talked about the change of one position. Also of note, street sweeping went way up because we opened bids. We bid our annual contracts. If we're happy with our contractors, we bid them once every three years. We renew the contract in year two and year three. This was a big year for street sweeping. We used to have street sweeping cost about 46,000. This year, the lowest bid came in at 96,000. So we reflected that. We have no choice. We have to sweep the streets. It's part of our NPDES permit for stormwater, and it's also

▶ 3:39:54 something the community really benefits from and expects us to do. Snow and ice, we've just been trying to increase it incrementally every year to get closer to the average three-year actual cost. And so each year, we look to finance to guide us on how much to increase that, and they selected 800,000 for this year's allocation. Sanitation. Most of sanitation of all the curbside program lives in the enterprise fund. This is more operations at the yard and that sort of thing. And so there's some small increases just to reflect increases of costs on our end. Parks and forestry, again, we have the moving of one employee. Last year in the supplemental budget, we had an extra 100,000 to try to get caught

▶ 3:40:38 up on our tree trims and removals. So that's been removed from our budgets. You'll see that as a negative, because that was a one-time expenditure. And we still have the 100,000 for new tree planting in our budget that we got in the supplemental budget that was carried forward. Automotive, this whole moving of positions around, we're actually moving one of the vacant mechanic position, we're moving into the water enterprise fund because our mechanics perform a lot of work on our water and sewer vehicles, and that's never been reflected in the budget. And so I thought it was appropriate out of our three mechanics to have one paid from the enterprise funds just to reflect the complement of vehicles that they have to work on.

▶ 3:41:28 And then just restoration of other items to meet our needs. And cemetery, same thing, just moving the one employee and then restoration of supplies to match needs. On the enterprise funds, the water enterprise fund, and the sewer enterprise fund, we've had annual increases in our MWRA assessments. So those are reflected in the budgets. Again, rising electrical costs for things like our pump stations. Water meters is a big additional line. So probably 12 years ago, we did a large borrowing order to replace all the water meters in the city. So we went to a different radio read technology. Now that just about everybody has that technology, we don't need to do another holistic replace everybody's meters.

▶ 3:42:21 It's better to just replace them as they fail. And so rather than someday coming in with another big capital request, we've put 25,000 in each of the water and sewer budgets to allow us to just replace the meters as they fail, and we plan to just carry that into the future. And we were able to absorb that even with no changes to the water and sewer rates. So now is a good time to do that. Some of the old capital was dropping off on the debt end, and we were able to backfill. And then we have the vector. The annual payments for the vector will be 90,000 instead of the previous 80, so we've changed that to 90. Again, solid waste and recycling enterprise fund, it just covers the curbside program.

▶ 3:43:00 So our contracts with Casella for curbside pickup and hauling, waste management for disposal, and then the carts, the loan for the carts is what is covered there. So any increases there are just to reflect increases in those contracts and loans. So as we mentioned, we have capital items this year in the operating budget. Those are the asbestos removal, the tree planting, and then in addition, and actually, I didn't list the 500,000 in facilities here. I should have. But in addition, we have in highway 1.23 million, which is broken down into 600,000 for roads, 250,000 for sidewalks, 330,000 for drainage, and 50,000 for traffic calming. A portion of that was specified in the override vote that a portion would go toward

▶ 3:43:50 additional road paving. So I would assume that will continue year over year. The other ones, we would love to have these year over year, but I guess we'll see where things fall out as other costs increase elsewhere. And just to mention, I know Carrie already presented these other items. I just didn't want them to get lost in the discussion that these are the capital outlay items that are in the capital outlay budget that you already approved when Carrie presented it. So I won't go through those again, but I didn't want to not acknowledge that those are also capital projects that DPW will be executing this fiscal year. And then water and sewer rates we already talked aboutNo changes in rates,

▶ 3:44:35 Kimberly Vandiver: no transfers to reserves. We didn't mention that earlier, but oftentimes we come with an order to transfer into reserves to meet our 10% reserve goal. We're already at 10% right now in both of the reserve funds, so we didn't have any need to transfer. And the projected rates will meet all revenue obligations that are projected for this fiscal year, for fiscal '27. So, with that ... Thank you very much for- That was a lot. Thank you ... for your presentation. I've been informed that we do not need to break. They've already swapped out the relevant card for MMTV. However, I was seeing councilors stretching. Can I get a nod if people are looking for a five-minute stretch break, or are you good to continue?

▶ 3:45:16 Kimberly Vandiver: Let's keep going. We continue? All right. Let's roll. All right. So let's begin with department number 401, the first one we have under DPW, which is Public Works Admin and Engineering. If you have specific questions about that budget, let's start there. Councilor Finocchiaro. Make a motion to move the bottom line. Second. Okay. We have a motion to move the bottom line by Councilor Finocchiaro, seconded by Councilor Jamaleddine. Anyone on discussion? Councilor Williams? Hi. Yes, thank you. So, I wanted to mention something that we brought up with the capital outlay when Carrie Ann presented it, which is that it's a little confusing to tell with the capital outlay line items, which of these are sort of

▶ 3:46:06 Ryan Williams: congruent with other projects, or whether they're different projects or whether... One just says, "Access." I assume that's ADA access. That's like a capital line for that. One says, "El Pond" for $71,000. Excuse me, for $80,000. And we just had this big discussion about the costs of El Pond. What is that? Can you go through each capital outlay item and tell us what this for? So, the capital outlay items that I had on my slide, Adrienne, I don't know if you want to put it back up. It was slide page 27. Okay. Those are the only ones that are DPW projects. Well, in the DP- So- I'm sorry. Oh, in the DPW budget? Yes. In 401, line 55, there's a capital outlay series of $556,000, and the biggest two

▶ 3:46:53 Ryan Williams: are Summer, which I assume is Summer Street, $205,000, and Lebanon and Sylvan, which is $175,000, and Munis on page 22. That's what my question is sort of getting at. We had this conversation about the capital outlay budget being sort of a mix of some things were truly recurring capital projects, some of them seemed like free cash requests that were being put into a capital budget that were one time. And some of these things, like advertising, printing, postage, no problem. But when I see a line item for $80,000 that just says, "El Pond," I don't know what that is. Are you looking at 2026 actual as opposed to 2027? Yes. I'm looking at 2026 actual. Okay. So, these are all funded at zero in 2027-

▶ 3:47:35 Okay ... because those are projects that you all voted on. Supplemental budget. Yeah. Well, supplemental budget or free cash. Mm-hmm. Okay. So, the 80,000 is actually the match component for the stormwater design for the EPA grant. Okay. Mm-hmm. So, the project that we were talking about earlier, that is the 80,000 that was for the design phases- Yeah ... for that project. The- So, the only one that continues is access. Is that ADA access? That's still- Oh, it's in projection ... zero for fiscal '27. I see. Okay. All right. So, all of those are projects that are in progress. Some of them, we've spent some of it. That access one, I think was a $75,000 free cash from maybe two years ago- Okay

▶ 3:48:15 ... that got carried because we hadn't finished spending it, and we're spending that in conjunction with the ADA grant that we have right now to do a little bit more. We did some extra door openers at some of the schools. We haven't paid for that yet, which is why it's still showing as 71,000. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Councilor Chen. Is the salaries actual below the request? Is that due to not having an engineer being paid? Oh, the actual? Yes. So, that's the engineer and the facilities manager that was vacant since last spring when... So, both our city engineer and our facilities manager are paid out of this budget. Or some out of water and sewer, but largely this budget, and with both positions vacant for the bulk of fiscal '26. Yes.

▶ 3:49:06 Kimberly Vandiver: Is anyone else looking to question, comment? I can't see Devin. Is Councilor Romanul looking okay over there? Uh... He's asleep. Getting back. Yeah. There he is. All right. Any questions, comments? All set? Okay. In that case, we have a motion on the floor. Let's have a vote. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Kowal. Yes. Councilor Abrmski. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Okay. Let's talk about Department 402, Public Works Facilities. Any questions or comments? Councilor Williams. Just that the asbestos line does recur here, so I assume that that's a capital item

▶ 3:50:01 Ryan Williams: for asbestos removal for public buildings, yeah? Yes. Which is, I think, exactly what we were talking about at the other meeting. That's what we want to see, is a departmental recurring cost that we budget for. So, it's perfect. And I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Okay. We have motion- Or a motion to move the bottom line ... to move the bottom line- On 402. Excuse me ... from Councilor Williams, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. Anyone else on discussion? Councilor Chen. Yeah, just thank you for the LED improvements and also the HVAC. Those tend to be really high payback. So, whatever. It's- You're welcome. Yeah. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine.

▶ 3:50:37 Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Kowal. Yes. Councilor Abrmski. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councillor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councillor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor. Motion passes. Okay, next up, let's talk about Department 422, Public Works Highway. Any questions? Councillor Park, and followed by Councillor Chen. Thank you. In the budget for 402, what is MS4 under- ... contractual? So MS4 is municipal... There are four S's in this acronym, and let's see if I can get it right. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. Okay. So that is a federal acronym for the federal stormwater permit that we all fall under, that every community falls under for our drainage system.

▶ 3:51:35 Christopher Park: Okay. Okay, very good. Thank you. And I assume the discrepancy in the salary from the 2026 actuals to what the mayor is requesting, or your department is requesting, is because of the transfer of- Yes ... personnel that you talked about? Yes. And yeah, and just to give you a little more detail on that. So we used to have a joint highway and sanitation foreman, and our goal is to have an individual highway foreman and sanitation foreman. And so actually, one of our employees just accepted, after I put this together, an offer for the highway division foreman role. So he will be going into that role this fiscal year. But he will start getting paid out of the new budget where it should be on- Got it

▶ 3:52:26 ... July 1st. Okay. Yeah. And finally, I noticed there was a spike in traffic calming measures. Did you talk about that and I missed it, for 2026 actual? We're at 124. In 2025 it was at 14, and your budget for 2027 is 50. So everything prior to this fiscal year, to fiscal '27, for traffic calming has been allocated either through free cash or through the supplemental budget. We've never had a recurring traffic calming line item in the budget in the past. I think this was a priority of the community and a lot of interest expressed in it, and so, the mayor put it in as a actual capital line item for this year. Whether that's going to continue into future years, I'm not sure. I guess it all depends on how healthy the rest of the budget is.

▶ 3:53:32 So this is the first time I've ever been before you discussing an operating budget line for traffic calming. So any numbers that you see before in that line were either a free cash request or a- Got it ... supplemental budget. Okay. You'll have a better idea or picture next year. What's that? You'll have a better idea next year. If it's going to recur, yes. It's going to recur. Exactly. It's going to be recurring. Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so in queue I have Councilors Chen, Kowal, and Williams. Councilor Chen. Thanks. People care about roads and sidewalks. We are far below on our actual spend. Is that because by the time it got added back in the budget, and then we had a bunch of snowstorms, so we didn't have actually time to do the work?

▶ 3:54:14 Yes, and also some work that was planned for last year didn't get done last year. We just got behind, and it was just hard to get things done, especially without a city engineer. So, we had done a calculation a number of years ago. The state asks us every few years, "How much do you think we should be spending per year to just maintain road conditions, pave everything on a 30-year cycle?" And the number I had come up with at that time was 2.65 million, and this is the first year in all the years that I've worked here where we're actually going to spend 2.65 million or more, we're going to spend more, on our paving program. So we're finally getting up to the types of funding levels that we think the city should be using year over year, and I know that

▶ 3:55:00 Elizabeth Kowal: 600,000, the plan is to keep it in the budget. And then also we do the road bonds every few years, so we would hope to continue doing that as well. Okay, so we have Councilor Kowal. So, I'm going back to traffic calming. So I love that you're getting to do all this road work, because as we know, as I think we can all attest to, that's what we hear about the most. But traffic calming has been a massive issue, and I think we all hear about it a lot. I know there's a grant out there for, for example, for Wyoming. But $50,000 actually seems low for traffic calming. So I know of two places in Ward 3 off the bat that you're talking about doing traffic. So what does $50,000 cover? So- And then how do we... I just need to understand more because that is

▶ 3:55:49 probably one of the biggest issues that we all hear about constantly. So what we normally do with the traffic calming money, there's a handful of things that we tend to spend it on. Accessible curb ramps, especially if the traffic commission approves a new crosswalk, we don't have a funding source for that. So we tend to use rideshare money, which we may or may not be getting into the future, and traffic calming money when we want to add crosswalks. We've used it for the push button flashing crosswalk signals. We've used it for the solar radar speed feedback signs that tell you how fast you're going. Mm-hmm. We've used it for some smaller intersection reconfigurations. We're using some of it on the work we're doing on Hesseltine and

▶ 3:56:33 Farwell right now to narrow that in. And then we use it for our pilot projects, and for the materials for that if we don't get those through a grant. SoMost of the time what we're trying to do is, like Ravine Road- Mm-hmm ... if we're planning on piloting some materials this year, and then that's going to be in our capital program most likely by next year, unless something goes wrong with our plan. That's supposed to be paved next year. So our hope would be that whatever we're doing, we incorporate it into the capital project at that time, so we don't need the traffic calming money- I see. Okay ... to accomplish the actual project. Sometimes that's not true, and we need to supplement a little bit with the traffic

▶ 3:57:15 calming money. But for instance, let's say on Ravine we decide to have the lanes narrow in like this and come back out to slow people down. Sometimes we're already paying our contractor if the curbing is not set properly or it's sunken down or whatever. We're paying to reset all that curbing anyway. So if we pay them to reset it like this and set it straight- Mm-hmm ... it's not necessarily a big change in the cost when we're already there doing our capital work. So that's the majority of projects where we are able to implement what I think is really good road redesign tends to be when they're already in our capital program, and then we try to do things that will help at that time. Okay. And I also saw a post on the Melrose on Facebook

▶ 3:57:58 about all the street work that you're doing. So I guess my other-- Are you comfortable with $50,000 as enough for what you have on your very extensive list for traffic calming? Yes, because- Okay ... we have so much capital money. Okay. I won't say so much. Okay. We have the right amount of capital money- Okay ... to accomplish our program right now. If we're looking at specific projects down the road, though, if on Wyoming we end up piloting something, we have potential access to grant money to pilot things, but we've been told we can't use that money to do any permanent installation. So if we put in something as a pilot that we then want to put in permanently, we would probably be looking for specific funding for that specific project,

▶ 3:58:42 Ryan Williams: like we did with the 75,000 for the intersection reconfiguration- Yep. Got it ... at Warren and Maple. We came for a specific project, but we don't have a specific project with a price tag yet to- Okay ... to come with. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Coleman. Up next we have Councilor Williams. Followed by Councilor Carm Jady. You're on deck. Thank you. The traffic calming lane item has been a huge priority of mine for a long time. I'm really excited to see it in the budget, so thank you and thanks to the mayor for making it a priority. My only piece of feedback is that I don't think that accessible landing pads for crosswalks really excuse me, really count as traffic calming. Am I-

▶ 3:59:24 Ryan Williams: It's when they're new crosswalks that the- Yeah ... so I do think that the installation, if you look on Lebanon Street, we've added two crosswalks on Franklin, two on Lebanon. They provide significant traffic calming. I think if they're bumped out, right? It gets to the question of how do you measure the goal that you're trying to reach? Are you actually calming traffic effectively? And I think that for some of these projects you really are. So I think it's fantastic. I'd love to see more money in there. Some of these things, speed feedback signs, I'm a little more iffy on, but it's a good start. So thanks, and just keep doing more. Thank you. Thank you. And up next, we have Councilor Carm Jady.

▶ 4:00:05 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you. Great to see you. Thank you for being here and for being here so late. When traffic calming comes up, I get anxious, and I get a case of the agita, I think because I've been as a city councilor for, what, six years now, and I haven't seen an impact in terms of traffic calming on Franklin Street. We continue to have accidents. We continue to get complaints about how unsafe it is to cross. I've been begging for a blinking light on Warren Street to cross Franklin for years, and it hasn't happened. So I guess my question is how do we access these resources? You're saying there's enough funding, and we're excited about it, and yet I haven't seen the impact of that. I know there are more streets than

▶ 4:01:01 Franklin. I understand that. I respect that. But I... So I don't want to rehash too much of what I had presented during that lengthy traffic meeting that we had maybe a year ago now. I'm not sure when that was. Yeah. And I haven't seen any changes since then. We have had substantial investment, I would say on the order of upwards of a million dollars on Franklin Street in the time since just before I worked here until now. So I recognize that Franklin Street is a street where people tend to speed, and it has a high traffic volume. It's a major thoroughfare. But the amount of roadway narrowing that we've done and addition of crosswalks and bump outs and all of that didn't exist 12 years ago, and I think during that presentation, I showed a

▶ 4:01:52 lot of pictures that showed it used to be just wide open, basically four lanes width, and now through the whole Highlands, everything's bumped out at the crosswalks. We've bumped out at Vinton Street. So we've done a ton of work on Franklin. I think it's a street that is prone to speed, and you're not going to be able to solve all of those problems. We will continue to work on Franklin Street to try to make more improvements. But I think we also have to have a realistic understanding of unless we put speed humps on every major road in Melrose, which I think we would also get a lot of pushback from, we're not going to significantly slow speeds in some of these neighborhoods. And we are putting speed humps on Howard, which is going to

▶ 4:02:44 Manjula Karamcheti: beWhich is going to be the first major road where we put speed humps or speed tables in Melrose, and we have support there, and then we'll see how that project goes, and maybe it will spawn future projects on other major roads. Um, and we are looking at Wyoming, but I just don't want to lose sight of how much we've done on Franklin Street. I appreciate that. I'm sure I sound difficult, but I think what we've done hasn't had a lot of impact because of the route from Stoneham into Melrose, from Melrose up to Stoneham, that it's a throughway between Stoneham and Saugus. And so, I so appreciate the investment and the work, I really do, but if there's not an impact, and a biker got hit like three

▶ 4:03:35 Manjula Karamcheti: weeks ago, it continues to be dangerous. So if something continues to be dangerous, I don't think you stop working on it. I agree. And so, it's a yes and again for me. And we have kids who are still trying to cross the street to get to the Roosevelt. We have families who are trying to get to the Warren Street Park. We're developing more housing in that area. It's getting more dense. And so, I just want to say publicly that we need to continue to be paying attention to it, and speed humps and those kinds of things, I think matter. And yeah. So anyway, I'll stop, but- I think there is going to be a raised crosswalk too from one of the developers at the Greenwood intersection. Just- Yeah ... uh, west of Greenwood

▶ 4:04:25 Kimberly Vandiver: We've definitely been pushing for developers to do stuff because- Yeah ... we're trying to access whatever opportunities we might have to put more traffic calming there, so. I don't believe I-- President Freeman. Motion to move to bottom line. Second. Okay. Motion to move to bottom line, President Freeman, seconded by Counselor Finocchiaro. Anyone else on discussion? And let's have a vote. Counselor Chen. Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro. Yes. Counselor Jamaleddin. Yes. Counselor Karemcheddy. Yes. Counselor Cole. Yes. Counselor Abramsky. Yes. Counselor Park. Yes. Counselor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Counselor Romano. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Next up, we have department 423, Public Works Snow.

▶ 4:05:14 Kimberly Vandiver: Any questions or comments or motions relative to public works snow? Counselor Jamaleddin. I'll make a motion to move bottom line. Second. Okay. A motion to move to bottom line, Counselor Jamaleddin, seconded by Counselor Cole. Anybody else on discussion? And let's vote on this budget. Counselor Chen. Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro. Yes. Counselor Jamaleddin. Yes. Counselor Karemcheddy. Yes. Counselor Cole. Yes. Counselor Abramsky. Yes. Counselor Park. Yes. Counselor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Counselor Romano. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. Next up, we have department 433, Public Works Sanitation. Any questions? Counselor Williams. I want a motion to move to bottom line on this.

▶ 4:06:00 Second. Okay. A motion to move to the bottom line, Counselor Williams, second Counselor Finocchiaro, and on discussion, Counselor Park. Yes. Thank you. Just really a quick point of clarification. What is a higher equipment under contractual? I wasn't clear on that. Uh, let's see. Within sanitation, that is most likely anything that we do pertaining to the city yard operations. So if we have vendors that we use to haul out any of the material that we collect there. Yeah, any hazardous waste disposal, special collection events, those sorts of things, those would be contractors. Like if Clean Harbors comes in, let's say, for our hazardous waste disposal day, they would be a contractor that we're paying

▶ 4:06:57 through the sanitation budget. Okay. So it's a combination of services and equipment, basically, for- Yeah, I would say it's mostly services, but it could be either. Yeah. That line item is not one large contract. Like with street sweeping, we're paying one contractor. This is a lot of little things that comprise our operations at the city yard. Got it. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else on discussion? So let's take a vote on that motion. Counselor Chen. Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro. Yes. Counselor Jamaleddin. Yes. Counselor Karemcheddy. Yes. Counselor Cole. Yes. Counselor Abramsky. Yes. Counselor Park. Yes. Counselor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Counselor Romano. Yes. Chair Vandiver.

▶ 4:07:45 Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. So next up, we will discuss department 475, Public Works Parks and Forest. Any counselors with questions, comments, or motions? Counselor Finocchiaro. I'd like to make a motion to move to bottom line. Mm, second. Motion to move to bottom line by Counselor Finocchiaro, seconded by Counselor Williams. Anybody on discussion? Okay, let's vote. Counselor Chen. Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro. Yes. Counselor Jamaleddin. Yes. Counselor Karemcheddy. Yes. Counselor Cole. Yes. Counselor Abramsky. Yes. Counselor Park. Yes. Counselor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Counselor Romano. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. Next up, we'll talk about department 485, Public

▶ 4:08:33 Works Automotive. Any counselors on discussion? Any counselors with motions? Counselor Cole. Motion to move to bottom line. Mm. Second. We have a motion to move to bottom line on department 485 from Counselor Cole, seconded by Counselor Finocchiaro. Anybody on discussion?Okay, let's vote. Councillor Chen. Yes. Councillor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councillor Karamcheti. Yes. Councillor Kowal. Yes. Councillor Obremski. Yes. Councillor Park. Yes. Councillor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councillor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vanderburg. Yes. All in favor? Passes. Thank you. Next up we have Department 491, Cemetery. Anybody on discussion or with motion? I'll make a motion to move to bottom line.

▶ 4:09:21 Second. Okay, we have a motion to move Department 491 to the bottom line, Councillor Jamaleddine, seconded by Councillor Finocchiaro. Anyone on discussion? Let's have a vote. Councillor Chen. Yes. Councillor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councillor Karamcheti. Yes. Councillor Kowal. Yes. Councillor Obremski. Yes. Councillor Park. Yes. Councillor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councillor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vanderburg. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. Next up, we have the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund number 6300. Anybody with any questions or commentary about the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund? Okay, and I believe the motion for the enterprise fund, this is an approve?

▶ 4:10:19 Kimberly Vandiver: Motion to recommend. This is a recommend. Okay. A motion to recommend, Councillor Finocchiaro. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, seconded by Councillor Kowal. Anybody on discussion? So, let's vote. Councillor Chen. Yes. Councillor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councillor Karamcheti. Yes. Councillor Kowal. Yes. Councillor Obremski. Yes. Councillor Park. Yes. Councillor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councillor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vanderburg. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. Next up we'll discuss 411 Sewer Enterprise Fund number 6000. Councillor Finocchiaro. Make a motion to recommend. Second. Okay, a motion to recommend by Councillor Finocchiaro, second by Councillor

▶ 4:11:07 Karemchety. Anyone on discussion? Okay, let's vote. Councillor Chen. Yes. Councillor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councillor Karamcheti. Yes. Councillor Kowal. Yes. Councillor Obremski. Yes. Councillor Park. Yes. Councillor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councillor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vanderburg. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. And now we have number 451, the Water Enterprise Fund number 6100. Anyone for the Water Enterprise Fund? Motion to move to bottom line on 451. Second. Point of order. Sorry, did you say- I'm sorry. Motion to approve 451. Okay, thank you. So we have a motion to approve by Councillor Williams, seconded by Councillor Karamcheti. Anyone on discussion?

▶ 4:11:54 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay, let's vote on Water Enterprise Fund. Councillor Chen. Yes. Councillor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councillor Karamcheti. Yes. Councillor Kowal. Yes. Councillor Obremski. Yes. Councillor Park. Yes. Councillor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councillor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vanderburg. Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Okay, so I believe that concludes our segment on public works. Yes? I believe so, yeah. Okay. Thank you for sticking with us until almost 10:30. I'm just going to request a five-minute break if people are okay taking a little stretch before we move to the next segment. Will someone motion, please? Vote? I motion for a five-minute recess. Second. All right. Motion for a five-minute recess, Councillor Karamcheti, seconded by

▶ 4:12:40 Kimberly Vandiver: Councillor Park. Can we please vote? Councillor Chen. Yes. Councillor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councillor Karamcheti. Yes. Councillor Kowal. Yes. Councillor Obremski. Yes. Councillor Park. Yes. Councillor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councillor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vanderburg. Yes. One minute. Motion passes. Five-minute recess. And so Dan- Well, like- We're supposed to follow up on that conversation. Yeah, right. It was just like- All right. We're coming back into session. It is 10:30. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks everyone for the- ... quick breaks. Helps us power through the rest of this. Okay. All right. So, at this time we will proceed with the budget hearing. We are on

▶ 4:13:33 Department 155 and 930, Information Technology. And we have with us our CIO, IT director, Mr. Smellegan. Madam Chair, councilors, thank you for keeping the party going for us all. I will try to be super brief for everyone back there and all of you, since my first meeting with some of you now. Just super quick, in the past two, three years, we've had a real priority focus on improving our security, both internally with software and externally through some new hardware improvements. We've also had a big push in, I will say, upgrading and stabilizing the entire infrastructure, so our hardware switching and wireless, our actual server infrastructure. Part of that is to keep everything fresh and working well, but

▶ 4:14:29 also to help reduce our reliance and dependence on all the reoccurring cloud fees, because they were just getting out of control. So we've brought a lot of more stuff in-house, and we have a really talented staff, so we can do a lot of other stuff where we don't need to be paying vendors and reoccurring subscriptions- ... to no endWith that, over the schools, we've done a lot with, and we're continuing to do a lot with, refreshing a lot of the equipment the elementaries use for their technology needs. High school, middle school, getting them all the Chromebooks and the stuff that they need for all their standardized testing. And from other free cash things we've done, PA improvements and that sort of just core infrastructure stuff that's been really

▶ 4:15:19 lacking for many, many years. So with that, you all have the memo and the budget, and I'm happy to take your questions. All right. Councilor Williams? I want a motion to move the bottom line on 155. Second. Okay. We have a motion to move department 155 to the bottom line by Councilor Williams, second by Councilor Pinocchiaro. Is there anyone on discussion? Councilor Park. All right. Thank you for sticking with us. So I just had a quick question about the capital outlay for 525 in 2026. Year to date, we've spent 614,000? Mm-hmm. Can you just walk me through some of those charges, along with the fact that I know that there's a capital outlay for 350, I believe it was, for school IT, for cameras and things like

▶ 4:16:15 that. How is that different from what this capital outlay is? It's really a continuation. For many years, a lot of that stuff was just, I'll say, neglected or not really moved up with the times. So you have your normal life cycles of five, seven, 10 years, depending on what the equipment is. So that was kind of, I'll say, ignored or not really stayed with. And then by the time we started fixing that stuff, the other previous equipment has now gone into that same life cycle timeline. So really, for the two or three years I've been doing this now, we've been playing catch up with a lot of that. And now with the free cash requests that we've had and some of these capitals that we got, we're able

▶ 4:17:02 to finally get to parity and start to move ahead and stabilize all that stuff. Okay. So knowing that in 2025 it was 555- Mm-hmm ... 2026, 614, and then 525 in 2027, is this a recurring capital outlay cost that you foresee moving forward in the operating budget? The 525? Yeah. So that, it'd be great if it stayed there. I don't foresee it staying there forever, so we're trying to take advantage of it and get what we can do now to move everything forward and get everything in a nice timeline for a replacement cycle instead of trying to have to do this massive bunch all at once. So we can streamline it and have a good, solid plan so that we don't need a full 525 or something to that magnitude. We can do it in smaller chunks and stay with it.

▶ 4:17:56 Ryan Williams: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Next up I have Councilor Williams. Yeah. I don't want to speak for Councilor Park, but when he brought this up, I, through the chair, thought that I don't really fully understand what goes into the school IT capital outlay in this budget versus the school IT capital outlay in the capital outlay budget. So you said there's a lot of stuff that needs to be fixed, but how do you choose which switch, which router? That's, I think, the question that I have. Sure. Yep. It's fair. So as far as the switching and routing part, that's all been upgraded across the district. That's all good. That was kind of the priority. We took care of that. So now a lot of the school stuff,

▶ 4:18:40 Ryan Williams: Chromebooks, everybody loves Chromebooks. They get used and abused, and they need to be replaced on a very short timeline. Mm. And plus, the needs and requests for them are growing more and more. Like for instance, this past year for the high school and middle school, let me see. I have those numbers there. I wish you'd have put it on. So we did, at the high school and middle school, nine carts with about 250 Chromebooks that they needed for MCAS testing, Bluebook stuff. That's 72,000, roughly. So that had to get done. The Chromebooks at Lincoln and The Horace Mann for the elementary kids, they're carts that go room to room. Those were old and were not functioning to the level that they were

▶ 4:19:31 Ryan Williams: so the class could have the plan for the class and actually execute the entire plan for the day. So we did that shift, and that was about 450 at the Lincoln and another 290 devices at The Horace Mann. About 740 devices total. So that sort of thing we're trying to plan out. Again, so we have six elementaries or so, five elementaries that we have to do that in. So why do we have a school IT line for 325,000 that's in the general fund- Mm-hmm ... in the capital outlay budget, and also a $525,000 line item in the IT department? Why not just have one $850,000 line item in IT or in capital outlay? Why not just put school IT all in one place? Sure. That would be fantastic. It makes no difference to me.

▶ 4:20:19 Okay. Sort of above your- Yeah ... just, yeah, okay. All right. Okay, thanks. Mm-hmm. Anyone else on discussion? Okay, I believe we have a motion on the floor. Let's vote. Councilor Chen? We do? Yes? Yes, we do. Okay, great. Thank you. Yes. Councilor Pinocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. Next up we have department 930. Department equipment.Any separate questions relative to that budget or motions? Councilor Chen. I asked a question about what the drain line is for $76,000,

▶ 4:21:13 and it doesn't look like an IT thing, whereas everything else here is IT and software. Does anyone know what a drain is for this budget? I said that's... Well, like I told you in- Yeah, I'm not expecting you to know. I was just- That's right. Councilor Williams? Through the chair, to be fair, it does appear as a 2026 item and doesn't reappear in 2027. So whatever it is, it went away. That's all I can give you. Must have been fixed. All right. Would anyone like to make a motion? Motion to move the bottom line. Any seconds for that motion? Second. Thank you. Motion moves to the bottom line, President Freeman. Second, Councilor Williams. On discussion, let's vote. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro?

▶ 4:22:05 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor, motion passes. All right. Thank you. That completes IT. Madam Chair? Yes. Motion to move budget item 175 to the bottom of the agenda to allow Director Chu and Talarico to come up, while Ms. Massa will need to stay for the free cash request at the end. Second that. Okay. I suppose we can have a motion to hear that one last. Okay, yeah. Usually when we motion out of order, we bring something forward, but I think we can push something back. Sure. So motioning, we have a motion, President Freeman,

▶ 4:22:51 Kimberly Vandiver: second Councilor Williams, to move department 175 to the end of our agenda. Any further discussion? All right, let's vote on that. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yep. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Okay, so next we will hear from the Health Department. We'll address department 511 and department 2659, or sorry, health revolving account 2659, and we have Director Anthony Chui. Hi. Thank you. What a night it's been. I don't know what you're paying us for. I'll try to keep this brief. Thank you to the council for sticking through this.

▶ 4:23:52 I won't rehash all of the summary that we gave, but I just want to say the Health and Human Service Department has been very successful. We've continued our regional partnership with the other two communities, Stoneham and Wakefield. We are able to share a lot of our central functions, including environmental health, housing inspections, nuisance, food safety, and we're also able to support our residents facing complex housing and social services challenges. We also are able to meet all of our minimum statutory requirements, which allows us to then tackle a lot of our other issues, including tobacco compliance and education. I want to highlight our school nurses in for everything they do for our

▶ 4:24:33 student health, our staff health, and our community. They make it possible for us to provide education and services as well. We were able to meet all of our required food inspections per the FDA risk-based standards this year, and I want to give the Board of Health recognition for their continued work as well. We were able to prohibit kratom sales this year based on a lot of research and work with our regional partners as well. That's supported by our staff. Two of the areas that we are looking to strengthen this year in our budget, we do have an increase. We're looking to strengthen our animal control. As much as I've loved serving as your animal control officer for the last few years, I am happy to pass that off to the next person.

▶ 4:25:15 And then also, we are looking to expand our ability to provide safe schools. We are looking to add a floating school nurse, a full-time position. Currently, each school has a full-time nurse. The middle and high schools each have two full-time nurses. However, when there are leaves, when there are unanticipated absences, or when there are other circumstances requiring their attention, a floating school nurse actually allows us to meet the minimum staffing ratios and able to support timely response to incidents when they happen. Happy to answer any questions, but the last thing I wanted to do was recognize our school nurse, Robin Adams, at the ECC. She started with us way before my time, in 2009.

▶ 4:26:01 It's been 17 years. She is retiring at the end of this school year, but I wanted to give her recognition for all the hard work she's done. She's been a leader in our community. Generations of students have gone through that school and have benefited from her dedication and commitment. There have been many outbreaks and other circumstances for her to work through, and all of our school nurses have, but obviously COVID, the most recent one. She was tireless. I received phone calls at 5:30 every morning on the dot from her, just making sure that all the students were safe and we were meeting all the requirements. So I want to say thank you again to Robin Adams. Thank you. On discussion, I have Councilor Jamaleddine.

▶ 4:26:42 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Hi, Anthony. Hi. Everything is amazing, and I appreciate the work that you do. I am a little bit surprised that there is no proposal for social worker or at least the minimum case manager.I've been having this conversation with the mayor, with the different departments, and everyone that trying to advocate for it, and I'm a little bit disappointed that I do not see it on the budget. Yeah. No, I'm glad you brought that up. Something that we've been trying to do better with, I think social services is an area that we can improve in. We work very closely with our part-time social services coordinator at the senior center. I will say a lot of our needs this year have been geared towards seniors, and we've

▶ 4:27:36 Maya Jamaleddine: been kind of working with Mystic Valley and trying to do that. It is not our area of expertise. Myself, our inspectors, our staff, we do our best to stay educated, but we are not social service coordinators. We're not social workers. So, I think what we're going to do is we're going to be in conversations with our police. We also have a jail diversion clinician at the police station as well. So, we're going to look at different funding models, potentially bring some version of this back to the city and report back. Thank you for bringing this up. I would actually advocate to separate it from the police department, with all due respect, just because there is a lot of layering reasons- Sure. Of course

▶ 4:28:23 Maya Jamaleddine: ... of people that need social work support and mental health. Sometimes it may add another layer if it's coming through the police department, with all due respect, and I respect and appreciate the work that they do- Sure ... and the service that they do for the community. I see the advocacy and the work that you're requesting for nurse, for all the other things, which is very important, but I still feel that a social worker or case manager are important, knowing that through the senior center, not everyone can get the service. It has to be, is it 65? I believe it's 6... Maybe it's 60 and over, I think. Or 65. Yeah, I think. Yes. I think either 63 or 65. I'm not sure. And, working with a lot of people from different population, and

▶ 4:29:29 Maya Jamaleddine: they cannot get that support and service from the social workers through the senior center. So, my recommendation, please if we can work towards including this position or this service to bring it back, I would really appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else in discussion? Councilor Coleman? Just a quick question. Is the 25,000 for the overtime, is that for the compliance? Correct, yes. Okay. Yep. Okay, what's the will of the committee? Motion to move to the bottom line. Second. Okay, we have a motion to move to the bottom line, Councilor Finocchiaro, seconded Councilor Williams. Let's have a vote. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti?

▶ 4:30:20 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. Councilor Coleman? Yes. Councilor Abramski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor? Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for staying with us so late. Get the health revolving account. Next, we have department fi- Next, we w- Oh, we're not done. We're not done. Sorry. We have the health revolving account to discuss. There is a revolving account associated with the health department. Does anyone have questions, commentary, or motions relative to the health department revolving account? I do because I can't find it in Munis. Can you just tell us what's in the account and what the amount is that's in

▶ 4:30:59 it, what it's used for, that kind of thing? I have it here. It's in a chart. It is the balance as of, actually I pulled it as of March, but it's $124,337.68. Wow. Are you sure? It says it's supposed to have a $60,000 annual cap. That's the spending cap. Oh, I see. Okay. All right. And what does it get spent on? It is primarily, actually, it's only for vaccine purchase, and we also get reimbursements from insurance that goes back into that account. Okay, got it. Thank you. Appreciate it. It says bike helmets, but that was a very old program, so we don't do that anymore. Great. Anybody else with questions or comments? In that case, what is the will of the committee? Motion to move to the bottom line, or do we approve this?

▶ 4:31:50 I think it's an approve. Motion to recommend. Motion to approve, yeah, or recommend. Okay. Motion to recommend to second. Second. Okay, motion to recommend, Councilor Williams, seconded Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion. Let's vote. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Coleman? Yes. Councilor Abramski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor? Motion passes. Okay, now you're done. Thank you. Next up, we have Department 241 and the revolving account 2658 for inspection services, headed by Director Al Talarico. Good evening. Thank you for joining us tonight.

▶ 4:32:51 I would like to provide a brief overview of the Inspectional Services Department, the work that we do on behalf of Melrose residents, businesses, and property ownersThe building department consists of me as building commissioner and director inspectional services, one full-time senior office administrator, one part-time administrative assistant, and three part-time inspectors. Building inspector, an electrical inspector, a plumbing and gas inspector. Despite our small staff, we are responsible for administering and enforcing Massachusetts State building code, related regulations that safeguard our community. Every permit reviewed, every inspection performed helps protect residents, support local businesses, preserve

▶ 4:33:44 property, and facilitate in the safe growth and development that keeps Melrose a desirable place to live, work, and invest. Our department reviews applications, issues building, electrical, plumbing, gas, mechanical, fire alarm, and related permits conducting. We also conduct inspections and work closely with homeowners, contractors, developers, businesses to ensure projects are completed safely and in compliance with state and local requirements. Over the past year, our office has issued more than 2,500 permits, conducted hundreds of inspections throughout the city, and collected more than $1.4 million in permits and inspection fees. These numbers reflect a significant level of construction activity, renovations, investment taking

▶ 4:34:39 place across Melrose, as well as the important role our department plays in ensuring that the projects are completed safely and in compliance with state and local regulations. For FY FY27, I'm requesting several modest adjustments to our operating budget. These are not new expenditures or expanded programs, but rather the restoration of line items that were reduced during prior budget cycles due to fiscal constraints. Mm-hmm. Specifically, we're requesting restorations of the following accounts to their previous funding levels. Printing services, restored funding from 325 to 400. Books and subscriptions, restored funding from 750 to 1,000. This account supports access to code books, regulatory

▶ 4:35:32 updates, and technical resources necessary to perform our duties and remain current with changing requirements. Weights and measures supplies, restoring from 1,000 to 1,500. These funds support equipment and supplies necessary for inspections and testing. Education and seminars, restoring funding from 1,300 to 2,600. This is the most critical of the request restorations. Our inspectors are required to complete continuing education and maintain professional certifications to perform their duties. While the reduction of this funding level was manageable for one year, it's not sustainable for long term. The total amount of the request for restoration is 2,125. These funds will help ensure that the department remains properly equipped, maintains

▶ 4:36:31 required certification and training, and continues to provide efficient customer service, timely inspections, and high level of public safety oversight expected by Melrose residents and businesses. I am proud of what this small team accomplishes every year. Through our work, we maintain the safety, quality, and vitality of our neighborhoods while supporting and continuing to grow the success of the city of Melrose. With that, I can take any questions you guys- Cool ... any questions you may have. First, I have Councilor Pinocchio, followed by Councilor Williams. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you for your memo. I liked all the little reductions in line items that you noted. And the inspections office does a great job.

▶ 4:37:18 Ryan Williams: I know other people have questions, but I was just going to say, I make a motion to move the bottom line. Second. A motion to move the bottom line, Councilor Pinocchio, seconded by Councilor Carm Chetty. On discussion, I have Councilor Williams. Thank you. We heard from the mayor that she wanted code enforcement to be sort of a priority, but it wasn't clear to me what kind of code enforcement she was talking about. Is this in your office that you're going to see some increased capacity around enforcement, or are we thinking more about health department codes, like noise- So- ... ordinances, things like this? Health department and building department kind of cross paths all the time. Sure. But there's more teeth to their legislation than there

▶ 4:37:55 is in mine. Mm. They have a lot more enforcement powers under their purview than I do. So when we did have discussions on who would kind of take that role, most of the enforcement side of it would fall more on them than it would on me. We did talk about maybe sharing a person at the time. But I think they're better suited for that than my role. Not to say that they don't have a lot on their plates, but so do I, and staffing level wise, I think that they would be able to fit that than I would. Do you feel good about your capacity with regard to what you get coming in, complaints, and have rapid response? We do have a lot of complaints that don't fall under there. Fences- Sure ... one of them being, or driveways, or there's some

▶ 4:38:53 noise complaints that fall under our purview because of the construction going on. So we do have a lot of complaints that we have to follow up. So when I speak about code enforcement, it's more zoning issues than it is anything else. Okay, thank you. Okay. I don't see anyone else looking to speak. Oh, Councilor Jamaleddine? I'll make a motion. Oh, I think we had one. We had one. We have one. I'm sorry. Yep. So let's vote on that motion. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver?

▶ 4:39:42 Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Thank you. And next we have the Inspectional Services revolving account, number 2658. Does anyone have any questions or comments about that one? Motion to approve revolving account 2658, which is for inspection of multifamily homes, $15,000 expense cap. Second. Okay, so we have a motion to approve by Councilor Williams, second by Councilor Finocchiaro. Anyone on discussion? Okay, let's vote about that. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver?

▶ 4:40:30 Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Thank you. All right. Thanks, you guys. Thank you. Inspectional Services. So now we would like to come back to Department 175. I believe we moved it to the bottom of this section, not the bottom of the full... All right. So next we have Department 175, Planning and Community Development, presented by Planning Director Lori Massa. Thank you. So I will just give a brief overview. I'm not going to go into detail, as you have our memo. Submission of the Office of Planning and Community Development to protect and enhance the quality of life in Melrose. To accomplish this mission, OPCD provides long-range planning, manages select capital improvement projects, recommends and implements zoning

▶ 4:41:24 amendments, creates GIS maps and spatial analysis, applies for and administers grants in community development programs, and implements special projects. I am the director, and I've been in this role since October of 2024. I want to acknowledge the hardworking staff in my office. Jane Pitts, the accounts manager and GIS analyst. Maya Novitsky is the senior planner. Adam Forester is the assistant planner. Ingrid Winkler is the part-time conservation agent. James Horn is our energy advocate, which is a part-time grant-funded position. And Denise Gaffe sits in the planning office as well. Our staff are on a lot of local committees and other regional committees that connect us with the surrounding region, and we share a lot of information

▶ 4:42:17 through those boards and commissions. We also handle the administrative and technical work for many volunteer boards and commissions with the city, so the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Conservation Commission, the Affordable Housing Trust, the Historic District Commission, newly the Historical Commission for the Demolition Review Ordinance implementation and cases. And then we just officially dissolved the Redevelopment Authority. So, I'm not going to go into detail on the specific projects and tasks in the office. So just skipping to the budget, we have an increase in 2.9% for step increases and COLA adjustments for salaries. We had an energy line item that we moved to professional services to

▶ 4:43:14 better reflect the use of this money now that we have the grant-funded energy advocate and related outreach through that program. The advertising, printing, maintenance cost for construction land and ponds, dues, membership, educational seminars haven't changed from the last fiscal year. And the capital outlay items are for the study of the police and Ripley Station, the study of the police station and the Ripley School properties, and the school facilities master plan, which are two of our long-range plans that are currently underway. Thank you. Happy to answer questions. Questions from my colleagues? Councilor Finocchiaro, followed by Councilor Williams. Thank you. Thank you for making that brief. We've heard...

▶ 4:44:07 Ryan Williams: I just wanted to make a motion to move the bottom line. Second. Okay, motion to move the bottom line, Councilor Finocchiaro. Second, Councilor Kowal. And on discussion, I have Councilor Williams. Yeah, I wanted to ask how much of the workload do you feel of the planners on the team is taken up by permitting, mostly for buildings, for ZBA requests, things like that? Because I know in years past, it's sort of been the lion's share. The majority of work has been related to this. Is it still that way? Is it changing at all? We did have less zoning board cases because of the zoning recodification work that we did. So that helped to reduce that workload a bit. It does seem to be increasing at the moment with just

▶ 4:44:57 Ryan Williams: more additions and things like that that we've seen come through. There's been an adjustment in the planning department with Denise moving to the public safety building project, and so the otherWork related to capital projects kind of comes and goes. But we have been trying to be more focused on the long-range planning. Yeah, I think that's great. I noticed down the list we have a number of studies here, and I just have to wonder if an additional planner could offset some of these study costs. A general purpose planner who had a little bit of experience in transportation or housing that could do some of the public engagement, the fact-finding, where we could reduce some of these one-off consultant costs

▶ 4:45:46 Ryan Williams: and have a lesser amount dedicated to a junior planner that could engage in more of that work. I've always said that I think that your office should be more involved in public works projects, in the design and planning of street projects, and I still feel that that's the case. I think that you guys are an undervalued resource and that you should be involved in more things. I agree. I think it would be great to have another planner. We are, at this point, not, as you've seen, increasing staff, and so that comes with other costs related to benefits. So we have been, as much as we can, seeking grants for long-range plannings to be able to outsource some of this, because we can't, with our regulatory work, with cases that we receive and the timelines that we have

▶ 4:46:38 to process applications, we can't always designate a certain amount of time to be working on long-range plans. So, that hasn't been the case that we're looking to increase staff at this time. But, I think it makes a lot of sense. We do work really closely with inspectional services on permits of all kinds and engineering as well. But we can't be involved as much as would be ideal for transportation projects in particular, or even some of the parks and open space projects. It would be great to have, yeah, more capacity to have more collaboration for those kinds of projects. Up next, I have Counselor Park. Thank you. This is a recurring theme here, but could you describe to me what the 160,000

▶ 4:47:42 line item is for capital outlay for 2026? So, those are the two I mentioned. So, the current plan that we're wrapping up for the police station site and the Ripley School site to figure out what we would like to use those properties for, is the 60,000 that was given in free cash in order to hire. We are working with Mass Development, who then sub-consulted with Studio Luz and RKG Associates to take that project on. So, we'll be coming to you in July with the results of that study. Very good. And the 100,000 is the remaining of the school facilities master plan, which we're still in the works with. Great. Thank you. And one other question. So you and I have had some discussion about the role you have in terms of

▶ 4:48:41 Christopher Park: applying and running for grants. I know that consumes a lot of your time. Or at least that's what I got the impression of. So, do you feel we are adequate in terms of resources for applying the grants that you would like to have? Do you think, and this is sort of related to Counselor Williams' question about do you have the staff that you would like in an ideal world to cover that particular component of your job? Because it's so critical for us to receive funds from state and federal sources. Yeah, I think it would be great to have an additional staff person. With that capacity we're then able to do more work. But, at this point, being cautious to not, with the override having passed and kind of stabilizing at this point,

▶ 4:49:33 we didn't propose an increase in staff, but it would be helpful. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Okay. I don't have anyone else in queue. We do have a motion on the floor. Let's vote. Counselor Chen? Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro? Yes. Counselor Jamaledine? Yes. Counselor Karamchetty? Yes. Counselor Cole? Yes. Counselor Abramsky? Yes. Counselor Park? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Counselor Romano? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor of motion passes. Would like to make a motion to move ID 2026-1202 to the top of the list. Before us, yeah. Second. Okay. Great. So anyone on discussion relative to that movement? Okay, let's vote on that. Counselor Chen? Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro?

▶ 4:50:31 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. Counselor Jamaledine? Yes. Counselor Karamchetty? Yes. Counselor Cole? Yes. Counselor Abramsky? Yes. Counselor Park? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Counselor Romano? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor of motion passes. Okay, so we will now discuss ID number 2026-1202, an appropriation from free cash account 01-324001 in the amount of $37,000 to the planning department, number 175, for treating the towners, swings, and L ponds. Thank you. So, I'm Lori Massa, again, the Director of Planning, and I'm going to hand it over to Ingrid Winkler, who is our very competent conservation agent, to explain this request. Thank you Hi. Thank you so much, and thank you for bringing me up.

▶ 4:51:28 The Office of Planning and Community Development and the Conservation Commission are requesting the free cash appropriation of 37,000 for continued pond management and restoration efforts at the three ponds, which are managed by the Conservation Commission. Those are L Pond, Swain's Pond, and Towner's Pond. Historically, the city has undertaken more intensive pond management activities than in recent years, including repeated Sonar or Fluridone treatments at both Swain's and Towner's Ponds, as well as hydro-raking work at Towner's Pond in 1998 and again in 2009 and 2010. Sonar is an herbicide. It's a slow-acting, systemic herbicide that targets vegetation as it emerges from the sediment, as opposed to follicular

▶ 4:52:19 herbicide, which is sprayed on top. It's effective, but it's very expensive. Much more expensive than traditional herbicides that are used. Hydro-raking work that I mentioned, that was done in 1997 and again in the 2009, 2010 period, was quoted at 22,000 for each of those incidents. So the city had spent significant amounts of money for treatment in the past. But since 2015, maintenance of Swain's and Towner's ponds has primarily consisted of herbicide treatments for nuisance level growth of various pond weed species and water lilies using more traditional herbicides, diquat in the case of pond weed, and glyphosate in the case of water lilies. Those treatments were done as needed, using the operating budget for pond

▶ 4:53:14 maintenance. Towner's Pond's shallow depth makes it especially vulnerable to excessive vegetation growth and organic buildup. In 2025, Towner's Pond was treated with diquat to control nuisance pond weeds. While that was effective at reducing the vegetation, the treatment also resulted in a significant die-off, adding to the muck accumulation at the bottom and the surface of the pond. There was a planned glyphosate treatment for the dense water lilies later in the season, but that would have added even more biomass to the muck accumulating within the pond. The residents that were here earlier and spoke could have borne witness to how absolutely horrible it was last year. So at that point, the commission evaluated the use of Sonar

▶ 4:54:04 again to target nuisance vegetation earlier in the growth cycle, which would help reduce the overall biomass before the growth becomes established. Sonar treatment costs significantly more than the traditional glyphosate treatment. It costs about $10,000 to treat Towner's Pond with Sonar, as opposed to $1,800 for glyphosate treatment. But it is a more proactive and potentially longer-lasting treatment. The commission decided to defer water lily treatment last year in 2025 and carry forward the remaining funds towards Sonar treatment for this year. The Sonar treatment has begun at Towner's Pond. It started in early May, and there was a follow-up treatment just this week. As part of a broader effort to restore healthier

▶ 4:55:01 ecological balance to the pond, the Conservation Commission is also considering hydro-raking to reduce organic buildup and reduce the root mass in the sediment. So hydro-raking, however, is very expensive, both operationally and permitting-wise. Current contractor estimates are approximately $2,700 per day for the hydro-raking services alone, and then DPW would have to assist with removal and disposal of the vegetative matter removed from the pond. The commission expects that it will take about five to 10 days over two to three years, so five to 10 days total over two to three years, depending on how much material is removed in order to complete the work. And in addition to that, the expected cost for required environmental permitting was quoted at

▶ 4:55:53 $10,000. That's how we came up with the requested $37,000 allocation, which would provide necessary funding to advance permitting treatment and restoration efforts and hopefully avoid more significant ecological and financial impacts in the future. Thank you. That's it. And I have in queue Councilors Finocchiaro and Cole. We'll start with Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you for the explanation. So I always say glyphosate, but you're saying glyphosate. I'm obviously pronouncing it wrong. Yeah. Is that Roundup? Yes. Okay. So I'm- Roundup ... shocked that we're using that in water, but then- It's one of the approved herbicides. Okay. EPA and DEP, they have a list of herbicides. It's very commonly used, and it's in very low concentrations.

▶ 4:56:47 Okay. But it's not ideal. I mean, the Sonar sounds better to me. The Sonar, and they haven't used it in a very long period of time, I think because of the cost of it. Yeah. But it does make a lot of sense. And there is another option instead of glyphosate. There's also Imazamox, which is another herbicide that some communities prefer. That's an additional $550 per treatment. So the $37,000 would be for the glyphosate treatment, or- No ... for the Sonar? It would be for the hydro-raking. Hydro-raking. Yes. Okay. I like that. I don't know. It just... But anyway, okay, I'm not going to get into it, but thank you. Okay. Next I have Councilor Coleman, followed by Councilor Chen. Does the fountain in L Pond also help keep down the vegetation, or is that

▶ 4:57:43 serving just sort of water flow issues? It aerates the pond- Okay ... so that can help with water quality, but- But not necessarily with the vegetation that you're discussing? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Councilor Chen. It sounds like we do a lot of different things over the years, and then when we don't do them for a while, then we have to pay extra, right? Is there an optimum level that we pay a little bit and just keep it under control, and then the overall cost of doing it just stays the lowest? I'm not sure, because- It's a combination ... there's a lot of influence from First Pond. First Pond at Mount Hood is hydraulically connected to Towner's Pond. Like, whatever they treat, pesticides, everything can flow underground and can

▶ 4:58:41 affect Towner's Pond. That's one of the suspicions that we have. One of the... And then also, Towner's Pond is extremely shallow, so anything that dies off in there, anything that falls in there, also decomposes and adds to the muck. And then there's droughts, which also affect the water quality because... The sonar treatment, though, is supposed to be longer lasting. It treats the vegetation early on in the growth cycle. It reduces the amount of biomass that is produced. And it's also longer lasting. It's supposed to keep it at bay, the vegetation and the overgrowth at bay, for a number of years. So, investing in that seems like a really good idea. Mm-hmm. Having the budget in order to be able to do that kind of treatment.

▶ 4:59:39 Jason Chen: I guess where I'm going is, it seems like 37,000 is more than usual- Yes ... and we're cleaning it up, and I'm wondering, what do we have to do to take care of this so we don't have to spend 37,000 again and again? And maybe this is one of those capital outlay recurring items that we can be more efficient with. So, don't have to answer now, but something for the long term. I could just add that, so with, L Pond is a good example of, it wasn't technically hydro-raking, as Ingrid- No ... has explained, but similar. And L Pond from three years ago to what you see today is a very different story. And so, Ingrid and the Conservation Commission have installed new kinds of filters for L Pond to have a

▶ 5:00:27 more effective way of catching the inflow into the pond. And so they're trying to figure out a different way, a better solution. But it is kind of historically the city has spent larger amounts at certain periods to do more intense treatments, and then the kind of annual maintenance is what it is, and they can use that more effectively when they have these larger projects come up to then maintain what's there. But you have, yeah, a lot of effort and into figuring out this issue, so... So I have Councilor Williams followed by Councilor Finocchiaro for the second time. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve. You said we're not doing glyphosate, right? We're doing sonar? Right, hydro-raking.

▶ 5:01:25 Hydro-raking. Well, we are doing sonar right now. Yeah. We saved up last year. We didn't do the glyphosate last year- Right ... and we're doing sonar this year, which is- I think sonar is better. I'm sorry? I think sonar is better. I think it's preferable. Yes. Yeah. It's more purpose-built for it. It seems. But then also, I think the commission was talking about not using glyphosate in the future and using the imazamox- Yeah ... if necessary, but hopefully it won't be- Mm-hmm ... if we can do the sonar treatment- Mm-hmm ... every so often. So you still- So second. I was just going to make a motion. Okay. So, motion to recommend, Councilor Williams, second Councilor Finocchiaro. Anyone on discussion? Let's vote on that.

▶ 5:02:13 Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Coleman. Yes. Councilor Abremski. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Thank you. That will be recommended back to full council. Councilor Williams. I'd like to make a motion to conjoin ID 20-26-1205, ID 20-26-1206, and ID 20-26-1207. These are the three water and sewer enterprise fund budgets that we- Second ... already talked about, and it will technically save us one round of voting. Motion to conjoin those items, the several enterprise funds. Anyone on discussion? A vote about that.

▶ 5:02:57 Kimberly Vandiver: Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Coleman. Yes. Councilor Abremski. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. Motion passed. And now I'd like to motion to approve those orders as conjoined. Second. Motion to approve those orders as conjoined by Councilor Williams, second by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion. Please call the roll. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Coleman. Yes. Councilor Abremski. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman.

▶ 5:03:36 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Thank you Ah, next we have ID number 2026-1208, an appropriation in the amount of $126,652,797 to fund the fiscal year 2027 general fund operating budget. Motion to hold in committee. Second. Motion to hold in committee by President Freeman, seconded by Councilor Williams. On discussion, please call the roll. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Kohl. Yes. Councilor Abramsky. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Thank you. And next we have ID number 2026-1212,

▶ 5:04:31 Kimberly Vandiver: reauthorization of the revolving fund table for fiscal year 2027. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to hold in- Hold. Motion to hold ... committee. Motion to hold. Motion to hold, Councilor Williams, seconded Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion, please call the roll. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Kohl. Yes. Councilor Abramsky. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Thank you. We are now onto a few more appropriations for fiscal year '26. Why not? We have two free cash orders here. We have ID number 2026-1164, an appropriation from free

▶ 5:05:24 cash account 01-324001 to the planning department, number 175, in the amount of $75,000 to hire a consultant for technical assistance to update the city's housing production plan, HPP. Thank you. So we have a housing production plan that we've used to help shape where development happens in the city. It's also a plan that we're able to use to apply for temporary safe harbor when we have a 40B comprehensive permit project that's coming, and the zoning board has issued a certain number of units within a year. We use that plan to give to the state for certification to have safe harbor, which we're currently in until September. So the plan has housing needs and demand assessment goals for the next five

▶ 5:06:29 years, an analysis of factors affecting development, a development framework, an identification of opportunity sites, numeric production targets, and recommendations for the city to achieve our housing goals, and actionable implementation plan. The current plan expires on April 2027, and so we're looking to hire a consultant to help us update this plan so that it can continue to be current in five-year increments. Thank you. Questions and discussion, Councilor Finocchiaro? Yeah. Just going to make a motion to recommend. Second. We have a motion to recommend, Councilor Finocchiaro, seconded by Councilor Romanul. Anyone on discussion? Councilor Chen. Ms. Massa and I have had numerous discussions on, is there a way that we can

▶ 5:07:21 Jason Chen: do this a little bit cheaper, even with less consultant fees, but more volunteers who are expert in the community on this issue and passionate about housing. And when I read the housing production plan, yes, I know we need it, and we need to be able to defend or have safe harbor, but it seems like the parts that need to be updated and really thought through are a fraction of this large plan, and a lot of it just seems like routine updates that generally smart people can do. So, I know that we're short on staff and that you'd prefer to have your staff working on other things, but any way... I feel like this is one where we might actually have a chance to save some money and do some of it ourselves if we come up with a creative way.

▶ 5:08:05 So, I'm wondering, any thoughts on this? Yeah. As I mentioned, you can pull out public engagement. I think that is a critical piece of this plan. I think education is something that is really important and hard to do when you're doing all your other tasks every day to be able to prioritize that. And, so I think it's an important piece of this plan. And this is actually on the lower end of what communities are paying for these plans. So, I would request that we have a consultant that can put in the time to actually engage with us and get a meaningful plan out of this. So that's why we're continuing to request the 75. I have a lot of free cash requests, so yeah, remembering the amount for this exact one. Thank you.

▶ 5:09:17 Okay, and next I have Councilor Park, followed by Councilor Karamcheti. So I struggle with this particular study or plan because I understand that we need to continue to have safe harbor status or temporary safe harbor status, but I struggle with the practical value of the plan itself. It makes recommendations, butDevelopers can still go before the zoning board of appeals and often get what they want regardless. I cross-referenced the housing plan that we have with the current developments that we have in Melrose, and there are five specifically in the plan that had made recommendations for a certain number of units that would be compliant with Chapter 40B housing. And of those five that are currently listed that we currently

▶ 5:10:16 have developments going on, it came out to 128 units within that housing plan. Do you know how many that are actually going up now? There are 206. Okay? That's 80 units more than what the housing production plan has actually recommended or suggested. And this, again, I stress to you, is the very fact that it's supposed to be in compliant with Chapter 40B. So if the HPP can effectively be set aside whenever it is inconvenient for the developers, then it starts to feel more like a formality than a meaningful planning tool. Mm-hmm. And that's the part I feel where this is not necessarily the best way we should allocate funds. I've recognized the fact that we need this to play the game, to continue to

▶ 5:11:12 achieve our safe harbor status. But I just don't like the fact that this is just merely... And I've heard this before from the planning board and the zoning board, that this plan is merely a guideline, not necessarily a blueprint. And that's just an open way of saying, "Okay, we just checked off the box that we did a housing production plan," but it doesn't really have any teeth or weight. Sorry, that wasn't really a question. Well, if I could respond, I'm not sure the number that you're referencing exactly with the number of units. We have zoning, so that sets the rules of what you can build where. And this housing production plan has pointed people in the direction of, these are the sites

▶ 5:12:00 that we would prefer to be developed first. So I know developers look to that to give themselves guidance. They want to pick the sites that, obviously, they have to be for sale or develop themselves. But, it's easier to find a site that the community wants to have redeveloped as opposed to trying to pick another site that would cause a lot of issues. So with the housing production plan, the other aspects of the goals and the actions in that, we have a grant for $100,250. And we're hiring a consultant to implement a lot of the other recommendations in the plan for our neighborhood districts and our business district, the BD. So we're actively working on that. So it's not just about development sites and

▶ 5:13:01 Manjula Karamcheti: about the number of affordable units. It also has a whole host of other actions that we're currently implementing from our existing housing production plan. Thank you. Next, I have Councilor Carm Cheidy. So I have a question about the intersection between the housing production plan and what is in the housing production plan, and the decisions that are made at the planning board and the zoning board level. Because I've been to a lot of those meetings in the past five years, and what is in the housing production plan isn't... And maybe similar to your point, Councilor Chen. Oh, sorry. Oh. Councilor Park. I'm tired. And my Tylenol is kicking in perhaps. That they sometimes just seem in conflict with each

▶ 5:14:09 Manjula Karamcheti: other and, or I don't always understand the decisions that are being made. I think sort of the most recent one for me is Summit Avenue. It was approved with conditions, and it's further out from the zoning for being on the MBTA station. And so I support the housing production plan. I think it is an important tool in our toolbox. I think the Affordable Housing Trust is another important measure in our toolbox in terms of proactive development. But I continue to feel, and I will say feel, not fact. I continue to feel that we continue to be at the mercy of unfriendly development. And so I think I'm just trying to understand the intersection of how it all plays out. I absolutely want to support the housing production plan and

▶ 5:15:12 improving it, but I don't always find that it helps on the ground. Right. So, the Summit Ave project is a 40B comprehensive permit project. Yes. So, our response to MassHousing for that project was, we have a housing production plan. We are building housing. We're doing a bit of our part to create housing. And that was a consideration in their response with the whole list of things that the developer needed to really dig into with the zoning board of appeals. So that's-Not something that is going to be... Because we had the housing production plan, we're showing we're doing the work to build housing where we want it. But it's not going to stop a 40B project from being proposed on Summit Ave. And

▶ 5:16:05 so we can talk more about the conditions of approval for that project, which they'd have to redesign the site plan and that project in order to build it with those conditions. So, the zoning sets the regulations for what can be built where, and then our current plan is recommending conditions that we're working on to then amend the zoning to comply with the plan. So that's how those pieces work. But it's not that every project that the planning board or the zoning board sees is going to be one that's identified in the housing production plan. Okay. Thank you. Next, I have Counselor Williams. Thank you. I was just on the EOHLC, which is the Mass Gov group that- Office of- ... Office of- Yeah, Housing and Livable Communities.

▶ 5:17:05 Ryan Williams: Yes. That does the housing production plans. I was looking at communities with approved housing production plans, of which there are 113, so about a third of Massachusetts communities. Two-thirds have no approved or certified HPP. And how many communities have certified HPPs? 11. We're one of them. And there's some interesting bedfellows here. Stoneham actually is expired, but they were certified back when. Medford is certified. That's about it. And I want to recognize that the HPP by itself is a tool, and I want to give you a chance to talk about the specific way that it interacts with 40B developments, specifically because we have a certified HPP, and give an example of a 40B developer comes in and says they want to do something.

▶ 5:18:01 What is the benefit that the HPP gives us? We say something to them because we have a certified HPP. You can't do this. You can do this. We're going to negotiate. You can't appeal. What's the functional interaction? So we've used our current housing production plan twice to get temporary safe harbor. So if the zoning board approves 63 units within a calendar year and you have a approved housing production plan when it's voted on, and then it's certified because you have permitted that number of units- Mm ... then you have a year from safe harbor, meaning the Zoning Board of Appeals doesn't have to grant approval for a 40B project. So right now, if somebody came in and proposed another 40B, the zoning board has more power to deny that

▶ 5:18:57 application. Yeah. In practice, have we denied any 40B applications since we've had the HPP approved and certified? So the Summit Ave project, they filed it the day after our certification ended, and then with very little information because they weren't sure if EOHLC would certify our plan. Mm. And they didn't end up including the units on Summit Greenwood because it was first approved in 2023, and then they appealed it. And so if the zoning board sorry again to- It's okay ... use the weird term but- It's okay. This is why I asked the question ... very technical, yes, reason they didn't accept those units, and so therefore, we only had 50 units permitted as opposed to 63. Yeah. And so Summit Ave was able to continue on with their application.

▶ 5:19:57 Ryan Williams: Yeah. So that's a case where the HPP sort of directly allows us to have more control over housing production- Yes ... in the city. Yes. Right. And I do agree that it's sort of a cottage industry, right? There's a few things in Massachusetts, especially around housing. The HPP was sort of created in 2008. Since then we've had the MBTA Communities Act and all these other zoning reforms. And so I think it's a question for the state to figure out sort of like, is it meeting its goals, and is it working for the state? More people have the CPA than have an HPP. But I trust you, and I trust that it has a role in the community. But the conversation around the horseshoe has definitely got me thinking about whether it's a

▶ 5:20:49 Bradley Freeman: priority. But I think for now, I'd like to see it move forward because I'd like us to be able to control the conversation to the degree that we can. I have President Freeman next. Just a quick question. If this doesn't go through and when our temporary safe harbor status expires in September, I believe is- Mm ... if we don't have a certified plan, we cannot apply for safe harbor status? Correct. Okay. Thank you. So the current plan expires in April of 2027. Okay. So yes. But when that expires- The temporary safe harbor ends in September. Okay. And then you have to actually permit the number of units, though, the 63- Yes ... or 100. But next time we go to apply for safe harbor status, if we don't have the HPP

▶ 5:21:37 Kimberly Vandiver: certified- Right ... we won't be able to apply. Exactly. Thank you. Okay. I don't believe I have anyone in queue. I'd like to comment as well. Some of, I guess, this discussion tonight is a little bit confusing and concerning to me. The goal of this plan is not only to prevent 40B projects. This goal of this plan isto recognize the fact that we do have a very serious housing crisis, and we need to think constructively about where we would like housing to go. The goal is not to build only as many houses are defined in the plan. It's not a housing prevention plan. It's a housing production plan. So I find this discussion really concerning, especially in light of the fact that we just, earlier tonight, voted against

▶ 5:22:21 funding the Affordable Housing Trust. So, more of a comment than a question. As always. I believe we do not yet have a motion on the floor. Can I ask one last- We do. Yes. Go ahead. I just have one more question. In terms of certifying the plan in April, could we certify the plan we have? I'm not saying we should, just to understand what is required versus the want to, need to. I'm just curious. So there's two parts to it. Yeah. There's the approval of the plan when you create it. And so we do that once we have the plan and bring it to the planning board and your council. And then there's the certification, which is a second step, and you only do that if you have a 40B project that you're expecting

▶ 5:23:21 that is an unwanted development, and the zoning board has had to permit. It's to try to prevent one community from having too many projects all at the same time. It's in order to space them out if it's too much. Oftentimes, 40B projects are hundreds of units, not these kind of smaller projects that we have in Melrose. So, it's for that, kind of a little bit of time relief for communities that have these larger 40B projects and they need more time. So it's not just having the plan, it's also having the zoning board permit for us at 63 units in a calendar year, and having the housing production plan that allows us to have that temporary safe harbor. So it's not just about having the plan. The

▶ 5:24:22 Manjula Karamcheti: zoning board has to actually be allowing for a project to happen and then giving the community some time. Yeah, I think I'm just trying to understand the depth of work in terms of updating the plan to be certified. I think I just don't understand what it requires in terms of every-- I heard that there's community engagement is an important part. So, I get that part. But what else does the process require? Yeah. It's not just resubmitting the plan that we have. Right. So it's like- Updated. What does updating mean? Updating all of the data that goes into the plan and having the community discussions and looking at, we're working on a lot of the recommendations now, so what else can we do to help to address housing of all different types, not just kind of

▶ 5:25:20 the multifamily projects that you typically think of when you're increasing housing, but some of the smaller infill projects as well. I don't want to just kind of put something together to- No, I totally get it ... put together if we have to do it. I think I just like, can you just give an example of something that's not in there that we would hope would be added? I'm just trying to get concrete a little bit. Yeah. Something easy to think about is the development sites. So, a lot of those have been permitted or are under construction. So where else would we ideally like to see housing developed in Melrose? So, that's an easy one. But I can't think of another example of-- Because we have been doing a lot to

▶ 5:26:24 implement the existing plan, so I'm not sure what's going to come through this process yet to have as a new recommendation in the- Yeah ... in the plan. I'm just really trying to understand what the $75,000 is for, in terms of updating the plan and certifying it. Yeah. We want to be using good data, and that takes time and somebody working through the different sources of data to make it specific for Melrose and to have a plan that we can implement to actually increase housing options and... So it's housing and affordable housing, it's not a super straightforward thing. It's very specific for your market. And so it's not something we want to be copying and pasting. No, I get that. But what happens?

▶ 5:27:38 Who does what? Yeah. The last one we hired MAPC, the regional planning agency, to do the data and the analysis of our regulations and looking at market conditions to come up with the current plan that we have.So we would be hiring a consultant again. Things change. We have a lot of different housing prices, and so using census data, but then there's a lot of other sources of data and rental data and for sale that they have access to and we don't as staff. This is an important issue, and I think that we also want to make sure that we are communicating the benefits of housing and to those that might not realize all of the benefits of it too. So it's an important part of the plan. It still just feels very big picture to me. I'm like...

▶ 5:29:16 Kimberly Vandiver: But I'm done. Okay. If I can, maybe point of clarification. I've read the previous plan, and my understanding from having read it is that part of this data is not just data you can look up online, but it's hosting info sessions with residents and asking them questions about things like, "What do you feel about what types of housing we have enough of or not enough of? Do we have enough two-family housing? Do we have enough single-family housing? Are there certain locations or certain demographics that people feel are over or underrepresented?" Is that accurate? Yes. Yeah. So- Yeah. The community engagement piece is important. Yeah. I think that's an aspect of data collection as well as well as bringing the community into the decision-making process to some extent.

▶ 5:30:03 Jason Chen: Councilor Chen? I think where I'm at with this is I think we have a lot of the expertise to do it ourselves and be able to pay a consultant less. However, it doesn't seem like we can do it in the timeframe that we need given the resources and the other things that we have to do. I agree, it is a total cottage industry, and MAPC is raking in money. When I read the plan, there's a lot of front matter that does not seem to change between town to town, and we're getting demographic data that's probably very similar for communities like us in our income bracket and north of Boston. So that's, I feel like we're updating about 15, 20 pages of this. And I agree that we need to have this community conversation about housing,

▶ 5:30:46 but I'm not sure we need to pay someone to do that. That said, necessary evil, so I recommend we approve this. Was there a motion? There was a motion on the floor already. Oh, I need a motion on the floor. Ah. It's okay. All right. Let's vote. Okay. Six. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Kowal. Yes. Councilor Abramski. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Chair- Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor of motion passes. Good work. Thank you. That will be recommended back to the full council. Next up, we have ID number 2026-1165, an appropriation from free cash account 01-324001

▶ 5:31:44 to the planning department, number 175, in the amount of $70,000 to hire a consultant for technical assistance to update the downtown parking study. Okay. Thank you. So we are trying to do more proactive planning, as you can see. So this study that we're hoping to do is a downtown parking study. The city conducted a study in 2012, and with the changes that have happened in the city with development and with changes in the physical parking lots, we think it's a good time to do a new study. There's also the police station site that we are figuring out what the future of that will be, and also the reconfiguration of the city hall parking lot. So, those are two other projects that are happening downtown.

▶ 5:32:52 And so we are hoping to have this study to look at the inventory, the utilization at different points, to understand if there is a problem or not, and how best to manage parking. It's an important issue for I think a lot of residents and then also our businesses in town. So we received a letter of support from Stephanie Nelson from the Chamber of Commerce. I guess I'll just leave it there and take any questions. Thank you. Thank you. In the queue, I have Councilor Williams followed by President Freeman. Thanks. So I don't think I can support an effort to try and pack more parking into downtown. The way that you've sort of described it, packaging all these different things, is slightly different. However, I feel like we've appropriated lots of money for the

▶ 5:33:57 Ryan Williams: city hall parking lot, and I can't actually remember, at this point I can't remember my own name, but I can't remember what... I just feel like we've put money into this-And that we were just sort of waiting on a big grant to finish it up. I don't know. But the downtown parking study in 2012, I've read it many times. It basically just sort of said when everybody wants to go downtown, it's busy. When people don't want to be downtown, it's not busy. I drive around. I mean, that's what it said, right? I don't know how much money it costs, but that's what it said. It said when a lot of people want to drive downtown, it's busy. And I go downtown sometimes in my car, and I drive around in circles for 20

▶ 5:34:40 Ryan Williams: minutes looking for a place to park. It's life in the city. I go a little further out and a little further out until I find a nice place I can land, and then I walk over. So, I don't know. I worry. Let me ask you a question. Has anybody said to you the words parking garage in the context of this conversation that you've had with people? Whether it's the mayor's office, Stephanie, anybody. Has anybody said to you, "Maybe parking garage?" Oh, no. I mean, we did hear parking garage for the police station site as a- Yeah ... as a request there. I didn't mean to imply that this money was going towards the city hall parking lot. We have money set aside- Yeah. That's what I thought ... for that project. I'm just saying that there's moving pieces of

▶ 5:35:25 Ryan Williams: the parking picture. It's more about making sure that we are managing the parking, and I would be surprised if the studies show that we are over capacity. But we do want to know, we do want to have that data. There is a perception that there isn't enough parking downtown. Sure. So we need the data to show if that's true or not, and then how best to manage parking. So, one of the results of the last one was to change the merchant parking program, and- Mm-hmm ... I think that was a big success. Yeah, I struggle a bit with the wording in the order to balance the supply and availability of parking spaces. The consultant will provide recommendations for improving the parking supply and availability. All of this says to me more parking downtown, and I

▶ 5:36:23 Ryan Williams: just can't. Yeah, sorry. The intention was not for increasing the supply. It's better managing the supply that we have so that there is available parking. I appreciate that. I don't want to belabor my point because I did certainly well enough on the turf field that it's what it says in the order. I'm going off what it says in the order. The consultant will provide recommendations for improving the parking supply, and I can't vote to fund a study that's sole purpose is to add more cars to downtown because I feel like we're already choked as it is at peak hours. That's where we are. Okay. Thank you. I have several councilors. I have President Freeman, Councilor Coleman, Finocchiaro, and Karim Shady.

▶ 5:37:07 Bradley Freeman: Thank you very much. And I do want to note, I think Steph Nelson's letter today was very helpful, as was the reference to what came out of the 2012 study with the merchant parking. I think one big thing that's changed since then, which is why I'm supportive of this, is I think the proliferation of DoorDash, Uber, all that has changed parking situations downtown. You see a number of people now double parking because they're dashing in and out, and I would like this study to talk about 15-minute parking for a couple spots or various other options for looking at the Main Street corridor to how best to manage that parking situation in light of the economy that we have now with gig workers and all of that.

▶ 5:37:47 Elizabeth Kowal: So I do think that it's time for a refresh, just in light of how much the world has changed in these 14 years and everyone working from home, or a lot of people work from home now. I just think a lot has changed, and it's time to update that. So I'm supportive of this. Thank you. Next, we have Councilor Coleman. So I think this is a very premature ask for a lot of the things that you actually just talked about. We haven't decided what's going to happen with the police station building. That could become parking. Nevertheless, if the police are going to move out, they take up a fair amount of spaces in that back parking lot. So that's going to free up more parking. So I think among other things, I think this request is actually quite premature

▶ 5:38:30 Elizabeth Kowal: because I think there are things that are going to happen in the next year or so that is going to free up more parking naturally downtown because of, again, whatever gets decided at the police station and the police actually moving out of there, and not taking up some of those spaces. So I've got an issue with that. I also, and I may be jumping into your comment- Go for it ... but I think part of the problem that we're hearing from merchants is that it's not so much a parking issue, it's an enforcement issue. So we have people who have these permits to park overnight, and they're supposed to be out by 8:00, and they're not out by 8:00, but they're not being ticketed either. So again, I think that's not a you issue, and I'm fully aware of that.

▶ 5:39:11 Elizabeth Kowal: But I think it's not necessarily that there's not an... I think again, there's a combination of issues here that could be addressed, that could alleviate some of what you're talking about or naturally will alleviate some of what you're talking about. So I think, and I've got other comments and I will keep, but I think it's a premature ask. We don't have enough data to support this. Next, I have Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you. Yep. I'm going to echo what Councilor Coleman said. The downtown area is my ward. I hear from merchants all the time, small businesses. They show up to work and the parking lots are full from the minute they get there in the morning, and they remain full, and there's no parking for people to go.

▶ 5:40:01 Cal Finocchiaro: And customers complain to them. So I think it is an enforcement. I think a lot of the people that are parking in these parking spaces are living in apartments and condos around that have permits, and they're supposed to leave at 8:00 a.m., and they're not. Because I highly doubt that downtown Melrose is that packed at 11:00 a.m. You know what I mean? Most people are working. It's these people that are sitting there, staying and parked. The other thing is, we are approving a lot of housing here that doesn't have ample parking. So people are parking, and they do have permits. Some people don't have permits, and I know we do ticket some people, but again, I think it's like we could solve the parking issue by actually

▶ 5:40:43 Cal Finocchiaro: enforcing the people that are abusing their overnight parking permits. And I see it. I'm downtown a lot, and it's like there's no way that all of these people behind Santa Fe that have been there since 8:00 a.m. are still shopping at 11:00. So, I find it hard to go along with this appropriation. So anyways, that's all I have to say. Yeah. If I could just respond to that. We are so fortunate to have the downtown that we have. We just had Studio Luce here for the police station and the Ripley School site, and they were just amazed at the form of our downtown, where we have the good width street and the shops that line that, and then the parking behind. But with that, you don't have those massive parking lots in the front of stores where you're always going to

▶ 5:41:49 find a space right in front of where you want to go. And so you're always going to have that- Mm-hmm ... complaints about, "I can't find a space right where I want to park." The problem comes in where anecdotally you say, "Oh, that lot is full in the morning." But until you actually study that, you don't really understand what is going on. And so that's the point of this study is to understand, when you're hearing those complaints, what is the problem is if you're checking the license plates for those morning hours, and you have an understanding of, okay, yes, those are people that are living nearby that are parking there, and they're not moving their car until noon or whatever. So, that's exactly the point is to

▶ 5:42:42 Cal Finocchiaro: understand what's happening in the lots and to and then adjust the regulations around that. So I think that it's, like I said, and coming back to this, it's an enforcement situation. So I don't think we need to spend $30,000 on a parking study to tell the people that need to enforce it to enforce it, because I've made several phone calls, and I'm not calling anybody out, and they do a good job, but it's something that has to happen every day because then it's just repeat offenders. So I guess I'm saying it's like I don't even know how to solve it because what do you do once the parking study's done? You pass that paper over to whom and say, "Enforce it now"? It's kind of like I don't know how it's solved, but I don't

▶ 5:43:26 Manjula Karamcheti: know if a parking study is it. Yeah. Next, I have Councilor Kamchaidee. Oh my gosh, my brain. It's okay. I think I'm unaware that there's a significant parking issue in downtown Melrose. So I think I'm having a hard time making a connection between a significant problem that we've had, only because I've never had a constituent talk to me about the difficulty of parking in downtown Melrose. Granted, I am downtown, generally speaking, at 6:00 a.m., and I never have a problem, or on Saturdays at 8:00 a.m., and never have a problem. My son and my husband go to work out at the Y at noon. They've never had a problem. I've never had a constituent talk to me about problems parking in that area. And so I think the comment of

▶ 5:44:24 Manjula Karamcheti: most of the time when you go to park, it's not a problem, but when a lot of people are going to a big event in downtown, yes, it's very crowded. So I've heard more about complaints about parking in other places, like our smaller shopping areas, than in downtown. So I guess I just am struggling with making the connection of spending that amount of money to a problem nobody has discussed with me. That's all. Thank you. Before we go to Councilor Williams for the second time, I just wanted to ask what initiated this request. Was it something that merchants were asking for? Was there a specific trigger for why now to do the update? Just comments that we get from in the planning office, in the mayor's office.

▶ 5:45:21 Ryan Williams: Comments about lack of parking or comments about- Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Councilor Williams for the second time. Thanks. I wanted to lift up President Freeman point about Uber. We actually have a woman on the traffic commission who talks about this quite a bit. Her name's Kara Oberg, and she has pleaded with the city in her role as a traffic commissioner to create a curb management strategy. And she has often said to me all it would take is one vote of the traffic commission to designate a spot, temporary parking for delivery drop-off, enforce it, and you could do it for free in 15 minutes, or whatever it takes to get through a traffic commission meeting. I know I've done parking observations myself for the city in support of

▶ 5:46:03 Ryan Williams: projects where I go down, and I just sit and watch people park and count- Mm-hmm ... there's 15 cars here, and then I come back an hour later, and now there's 10 cars here, and I write it down and do the math. So I think this is one of those cases that I was talking about earlier where I really feel like we have some capacity to answer some of these questions ourselves, and I worry thatthis is sort of like a thing to say to people who complain about parking that we're going to take some action on it. But I fear that that action sort of takes us down a road that we don't want to go down, which is to massively overbuild the parking supply downtown, which leads to more cars downtown. You can't increase parking supply in the city without also bringing more cars

▶ 5:46:48 Ryan Williams: into the city. So more traffic, more congestion at intersections. Anybody who's tried to drive down Foster behind Shaw's knows that you could be sitting there all day- Mm-hmm ... waiting for that. So I think that we need to do a little more thinking about how to position this and maybe try to cut the cost down. Okay. Anybody else who'd like to comment? I don't believe we have a motion on the floor yet. I'm going to make a motion to reject. Second. Okay. We have a motion to reject, Councilor Williams, and seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. Anyone on discussion? Let's vote. So this is a point of order because we don't do this a lot. Sorry. I believe actually it's to send back with a recommendation to reject is what we're doing if we vote yes on

▶ 5:47:39 this. Motion to not recommend or something. Yeah. We're sending back a recommendation to deny the- So if you vote yes on a recommendation to deny, you are denying the appropriation. If you vote no on a recommendation to deny, you are saying yes. Right. Regardless of how this comes out, when it goes to full council, we will vote again. Yeah. It'll come up with one recommendation or another. So the vote is to deny. Voting yes is in favor of denying this request. Okay, let's vote. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abremski? No. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? No.

▶ 5:48:41 Kimberly Vandiver: Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vanderberg? No. Two, four, six, eight yays, three nos. Okay. So that will go back to the full council with a recommendation to deny this request for free cash. That concludes- No? ... this section of the agenda- Okay ... appropriations. We have one more topic, however. We move on to orders. We're on ID number 2026-1291, vote to establish the Benjamin Lynde House Local Historic District. Okay. Here we go. Thank you. So the 244 Main Street has the Benjamin Lynde House on it. It was put on the market for sale, and this caused the community and the Historic District Commission to try to take action to save the house on this lot. So, the historical significance of the house, it's one of only

▶ 5:49:55 the remaining few homesteads of the Lynde family, who were the first settlers of Melrose. It was built originally in 1693, and it burned... I'm sorry. So it was built in 1693. Benjamin Lynde, who lived there, left that house to go fight in the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775. The house burned in 1819, and it was rebuilt in the Federal style house, which exhibits many of the hallmarks of that style, which continue to be present today. The Historic District Commission studied the site and wrote a preliminary study report, in order to pursue designating this property as a single building local historic district. Right now, we have the downtown local historic district, and this would be

▶ 5:50:55 our second district. It's not that unusual to have single building districts in municipalities. And then went through all of the steps involved to designating this site. The local historic district is a really strong way of protecting a property in its current state. Part of that process is sending the preliminary study report to the Mass Historical Commission and to the planning board, which they did, and received favorable recommendations for moving forward with this process from those two entities. The commission held a public hearing, and we received a handful of comments in favor of designating this property as a local historic district. There was also a comment about acknowledging that the Lynde

▶ 5:51:50 family held slaves, and recognizing the role of enslaved people in the historical context of the setting, which the commission updated the report to include. There was no record of slaves being owned by Benjamin Lynde or in constructing of the house, but an acknowledgment of the family connection with slaves. And, so this final step is for bringing this to the council, who has the authority to vote to des-... designate this property as a local historic district, and then if approved, we would go through the recording of the district. Okay. Thank you. I have Councilors Williams, Obremski, and Finocchiaro, starting with Councilor Williams. Thank you. This has been an interesting case that we went through with the last council, and I

▶ 5:52:50 Ryan Williams: wanted to lift up Councilor Finocchiaro role in leading this effort. You mentioned the historic commission and the community really rose up, but it was the council that actually put together the first demo delay ordinance that sort of led to the conversation around the potential for what else could happen, and I think that sort of lit a fire under people. I'm a supporter of housing, and so I want to make sure that we're balancing these things carefully. I think in this case, this is an okay approach for us to take. I wouldn't recommend having them pop up all over the city, which I think some people would be in favor of. But I think certainly this is a house that always catches my eye whenever I go by

▶ 5:53:35 there, so it's good to see it being preserved. Okay, next I have Councilor Obremski. I just wanted to thank you for noting the section about slavery, because I did get an email from a constituent asking me to raise this publicly while we deliberate this issue. I'm happy that the Historic District Commission did in fact put it in their final report. And along with this, the constituent asks that we advocate for signage regarding the Lynde's family history to slavery. That's pretty much it. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you. It's actually through the chair I want to make a comment on that. So did you say that they did, or I thought it was found that they did not have?

▶ 5:54:32 Cal Finocchiaro: The family owned slaves. Okay. The family had several properties in Melrose- Mm-hmm ... so the District Commission didn't find a connection with this particular property- Okay ... and slaves, but acknowledged that the family did own slaves. Okay, because I know the Lynde family was a large family in Melrose, and they lived at several properties. I just want to make sure. And then my question to you is, I am in favor of this, but I know I feel like you're knowledgeable in this, and I just wanted to see what the planning department and you personally think about something like this. Yeah. So the Demolition Review Ordinance, which the council passed, is a mechanism to-- Typically, what results of that is either it gives time to go

▶ 5:55:26 Cal Finocchiaro: through this process to designate the property as a local historic district, or documentation, or trying to work through if the building can be saved or purchased by somebody else. But it doesn't result in saving a structure necessarily. So, this is the way you do that. Mm-hmm. So it is the right tool for this property. Okay, and I agree. I don't know if it was you that said it, but we're not looking to designate every older home historical district. Right? We're going to save this for homes like this. But I appreciate your feedback. With that, I'd make a motion to recommend. Second. Second. Okay, I see I have a motion to recommend from Councilor Finocchiaro, second Councilor Jamaleddine. Next in queue, I have Councilor Kowal.

▶ 5:56:29 Elizabeth Kowal: So I want to thank you for bringing this forward also. I think a lot of us have been either directly or tangentially involved with sort of some of the heartache that's gone around this house- ... and there's been a lot of passion around this, and I'm glad that it's sort of forced this issue to sort of come forward. I think it's important, particularly in a historical town like Melrose. And I think my only question is sort of, I think we should get ahead of some of this stuff instead of-- and again, this one, the timing of it was. So sort of is there a plan? And maybe it's not you, this may be more geared towards the Historical Commission, and I appreciate that. But is there a plan to sort of, again, there's a handful of houses who sort of

▶ 5:57:07 fall into what we're talking about. Is there a plan to sort of get ahead of it so we don't end up in the situation where there's a lot of hurt feelings- Yeah ... about this? So oftentimes, getting the energy to designate a property comes with this exact process. That a property is put up for sale and- Fair enough. Okay ... so I didn't know the history of this site, and when the realtor came into my office a long time ago, while he was there, I looked up the property, and I knew it was a special building. I didn't know all the history of it, and said, "This is going to be a difficult-" You know. Yeah. So, we know of those buildings. I think a lot of people just going around the city notice these kind of special buildings.

▶ 5:58:05 And so, I think it would be a good thing to explore. We do have the Demolition Review Ordinance right now, so that is a tool. It is something that really helps to preserve the special properties, and I think it's the combination of the Historic District Commission and the Historical Commission to do that. But it is a difficultIf the property owner isn't willing to have the property designated, it can be a challenging thing. And so it often is the sale or something like that that triggers it. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Councilor Carmody. Thank you. I'm in support of the historic designation. I really appreciate it. I also very much appreciate the recognition of the true history of

▶ 5:59:11 Manjula Karamcheti: the family and the connection to the house. I think in Massachusetts, we forget we also had slaves, and it wasn't just in the South. So I think it's important to us to have reminders of our real history and our true history. The question that I have is, does this designation impact the family that was trying to sell the house in any way, and how? Yeah. Because I think that matters, too. Right. If whoever is going to buy this property would have this designation, so they wouldn't be able to make any exterior changes without getting the approval, a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic District Commission. Okay. Thank you. It's just important to note that as well, like- Yeah ... a family who lives in a house is also impacted.

▶ 6:00:04 Kimberly Vandiver: If I can, I'd also comment. I think one concern I have about this is that my understanding is that this designation would not prevent a 40B project if we didn't have Safe Harbor. Is that correct? Right. So, yeah, an example is across the street, 12 to 16 Essex Street is in the local historic district, and the demolition was denied by the Historic District Commission, and then it came back as a 40B project. So, my concern about this is this kind of makes this property an all or nothing, right? It means that we cannot have any normal development there. We can only have 40Bs, right? We either keep it as is or 40B, but there's no in between if we go forward with this. So, the designation doesn't mean that nothing can happen.

▶ 6:00:46 Okay. We get applications all the time for downtown. We had the Caffe Nero building built in the local historic district. So it's not a prohibition on change. It's just a review of what additions can happen, and it's a review of should they look similar to the existing structure? Should they look very modern so you know what's historic and what's not. It's a discussion about what's proposed, not restricting anything from happening on the property. Okay, interesting. Thank you. Any other councilors? Councilor Park. Right. I'm torn on this one. And I think you touched on just now, you and Chair Vandiver touched on what I think pivotal for my decision on this. So number one, let's call a spade a spade.

▶ 6:01:50 It's not a house that was built in 16 whatever. It's a house that was rebuilt in 1919, which loses a little bit of its luster for me because my house was built in 1890. 1890. So, it loses that ability to say this house is the oldest house in Melrose. Second of all, it's come to our attention that this family owned slaves, and that also makes you wonder whether we should be celebrating someone who owned slaves to some degree, much like the South has statues of Confederate generals. The third point, I think, is that my question to you is, in this sort of single-family housing zoning, are we preventing housing that can actually be useful for lower income or people who are looking for affordable housing?

▶ 6:02:48 Because I'm concerned that in the same breath that we want to have affordable housing in Melrose and Massachusetts, we are holding up that very process by celebrating somebody who may or may not have been questionable character. So I wonder, what exactly can they build on this property to allow for other people to take advantage of housing that they could not otherwise afford? So the building was rebuilt in 1819. Oh, was it 1819? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I heard 1919. I'm sorry. I probably am mumbling my words a little bit at this point. But, so this is a residential zoning district. And so, I don't remember the zoning analysis off the top of my head. There's also the properties next door. So we've kind of looked at this in different ways.

▶ 6:03:52 If these two properties were purchased together, then there's potentially more development capacity even within the residential zoning district. But single families are allowed in that district. It's not a multifamily zoning district. If it came in as a 40B project, they don't have to follow the local regulations, and so, therefore, they could build more units on the site. But even with a 40B project, we have a handful, and most of them, we've worked with the developers. And so for this potential purchase of a developer that's worked locally, developers are willing to work with staff, and so if-... and the boards. And so, it's not an all or nothing. It can be using the existing building, moving it on the

▶ 6:04:59 lot, which is a typical outcome of historic preservation to make room for building something new on the lot as well. But this isn't a zoning district that we allow for multi-family housing and we want housing, but we want it in the areas where it makes most sense. This is along Main Street. I think it has a lot of benefits if it did have more housing there. But there's just different priorities for different sites, and this one has a historically significant building, and so we are moving forward with the designation. So, I just want to be clear. Is this preventing potentially affordable housing, a larger complex or structure with more units to be built on that property? As a 4 project? Yeah, a portion of a 4 project, yeah.

▶ 6:06:09 So, the Historic District Commission, if it's not a 4 project, then they would be looking at the proposal for whatever it may be. If it's this one lot, or if it's this lot and the next lot. We don't have any application before us, so it's hard to lay out all the scenarios. But local historic districts aren't preventing any exterior changes. It's just a review of what is proposed on that site. Okay. But they can't tear down the house, essentially, which is smack on the property, which would limit developers to build around that house, correct? Right. They could allow demolition. I don't think that they would for this property, but they could allow for demolition of the structure. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 6:07:11 Next, I have Councilor Abramski. Yeah, I just want to clarify something that a yes vote on this, we're not necessarily celebrating the family or slavery in any way. We're acknowledging that the Historical District Commission has done their due diligence in researching this specific property, and that we acknowledge the fact that the family did in fact hold slaves, and I think that's one of the most important components of the report, that they're pointing that out. So, I just want to clarify that it's not a celebration of the family or of slavery in any way. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else on discussion? Okay, I believe we do not have a motion on the floor yet. We do. We do? Okay. Yes. We do. All right, in that case, let's-

▶ 6:08:18 Kimberly Vandiver: Do we have a second? Who seconded it? I did. Yeah, it was- I did ... Councilor Jamaleddine. Okay, so let's vote on this motion. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kohl? Yes. Councilor Abramski? Yes. Councilor Park? No. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All right. Motion passes. All right. That will go back to the full council with a recommendation for approval. Thank you. We have completed our- Mayor Pro-Tem ... significant agenda. Thank you. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Williams, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro.

▶ 6:09:19 Roll call. Last roll call of the night. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kohl? Yes. Councilor Abramski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? President Freeman? Yes. He didn't even let me get to it. Come on. All right. She just went right past me. Yes. She was like, "All right, we're adjourned." All right, we're adjourned. Councilman Freeman, no explanation? Councilor Romanul, Chair Vandiver? Yes. Oh, that's right, I wanted to give a long update on my community meetings. 12:20

Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2026-06-04

Attendance

Agenda

Minutes

Transcript

Original documents