Appropriations & Oversight Committee

This meeting starts at 5:44 in a recording that covers several meetings.

Attendance

Jason Chen present · At-Large; Kimberly Vandiver present · Vice Chair

Agenda

Minutes

Appropriations & Oversight Committee Monday, June 29, 2026, 7:15 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 Chair Romanul at 7:15 PM Councilor Chen was in remote attendance Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Kim Vandiver Vice Chair Present Jason Chen At-Large Present-remote attendance Cal Finocchiaro Ward 6 Present Maya Jamaleddine At-Large Present Manjula Karamcheti Ward 1 Present Elizabeth Kowal At-Large Absent 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 II. MINUTES APPROVAL 1 A. Appropriations & Oversight Committee-Budget Hearing June 8, 2026 6:00 PM Appropriations & Oversight Committee-Budget Hearing June 11, 2026 6:00 PM Motion to Approve the minutes without reading made by Vice Chair Vandiver Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None ABSENT: Elizabeth Kowal III. PUBLIC COMMENT This meeting is a HYBRID MEETING When: Jun 29, 2026 07:15 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Appropriations & Oversight Committee Meeting Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://cityofmelrose- org.zoom.us/j/93435010319?pwd=Eo7cTpbzou5P1GRT3ypOQTY7oBE4ck.1 Passcode:693773 Webinar ID: 934 3501 0319 Motion to Open public comment made by Councilor Finocchiaro at 7:16 PM 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, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams There were no comments on the floor or via Zoom Motion to Close public comment made by Vice Chair Vandiver at 7:17 PM Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti All were in favor and motion passed 2 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams IV. APPROPRIATIONS

A. (ID # 2026-1334): Appropriation from Peg Access Fund #2922 in the amount of $167,277.80 to MMTV and $55,759.27 to Melrose Public Schools (#1803). Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Jamaleddine 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, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None ABSENT: Elizabeth Kowal Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis, the Outreach Director and financial person at MMTV, thanked the council for considering the order and provided information about their services, including three stations at 360 Main Street. V. ORDERS

A. (ID # 2026-1382): Authorization to Amend Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement by and between the City of Melrose and Waste Management of Massachusetts. 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, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams NAYS: None ABSENT: Elizabeth Kowal Jim Nocella from Waste Management and Jim Troup from Melrose DPW explained that this is a critical part of the DPW's operation, as well as a critical component to the services that we provide 3 and the costs that are associated with the solid waste and recycling curbside pickup program for the City of Melrose. The proposed 20-year agreement would result in Waste Management constructing a new transfer station on the Route 99 site at no cost to the city, with estimated annual benefits of $450,000-$500,000 from host payments and reduced costs. Councilor Williams inquired about permit requirements, with the response indicating that the current facility needs relocation due to non-compliance with updated stormwater regulations, and Waste Management would handle the re- permitting process. The facility would serve Melrose and surrounding areas, with Melrose using about 20% of capacity, and would meet current environmental regulations. The agreement includes a $75,000 annual host community payment that increases by 3.3-3.5% annually, with no interruption of service during construction. Snow dumping would not materially impact the plan. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn made by Councilor Finocchiaro at 7:45 PM Seconded by Councilor Jamaleddine All were in favor and meeting was adjourned RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul, Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams 4 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: June 9, 2026 Re: Appropriation 2026-1334 The requested appropriation is requested semi-annually to distribute fees collected from Comcast and Verizon. The grant agreement executed 6/24/25 distributes 75% of the cable revenues to MMTV and 25% to Melrose Public Schools. Date Received Company Total Payment 75% MMTV 25% Melrose Public Schools 2/12/2026 Comcast 60,542.17 45,406.63 15,135.54 3/3/2026 Verizon 50,835.74 38,126.81 12,708.94 5/13/2026 Comcast 63,565.88 47,674.41 15,891.47 5/15/2026 Verizon 48,093.28 36,069.96 12,023.32 Total to be appropriated 167,277.80 55,759.27 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE FACILITY OPERATING AGREEMENT This first amendment (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of May ___, 2026 by and between the City of Melrose (the “City”) and Waste Management of Massachusetts, Inc. (“Contractor”). WHEREAS, City and Contractor have entered into an agreement titled Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement, dated September 6, 2019 (the “Agreement”); WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to modify certain terms of the Agreement through this Amendment to reflect a longer term commitment to allow for Contractor to construct and operate a new SWF at a new location on the Premises (“New SWF”); WHEREAS, Contractor intends to begin the process necessary to construct a New SWF at a new location on the Premises as contemplated in Section 3 of the Agreement, to modify the existing site plan for the New SWF to allow for a more efficient use, expansion (permitted SWF tonnage limits and hours of operation) and operation of the New SWF while maximizing the City’s use of the property surrounding the New SWF to allow for alternative uses. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 2.1. Conveyance of SWF. Section 2.1 is amended by adding new paragraph 2.1(a) as follows: 1. If Contractor completes construction of the New SWF on the Premises, Contractor shall convey title in the New SWF to the City upon Contractor’s receipt of the Authorization to Operate as issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 2. All other terms and provisions in Section 2 of the Agreement shall apply to the New SWF. 2. Section 3. Cooperation Between Contractor and City. Section 3 is amended by adding a new paragraph as follows: 1. Contractor and the City agree that Contractor shall seek required permits, licenses and necessary government approvals to advance the construction of a New SWF at a new location on the Premises for the acceptance, processing, loading and outbound transfer of solid waste in accordance with said permits and governmental approvals. In connection with the construction of the New SWF, Contractor intends to demolish and remove the former SWF and return the area of property for the City’s use. Given the uncertainties of the permitting and governmental approvals process, the Parties’ obligations under 2. The City may terminate this Agreement and Amendment for cause pursuant to the conditions and process outlined in Section 10. 5. Section 5.2. Host Fees. City and Contractor agree to continue Host Fee increases of 3.5% annually throughout the Term of the Agreement through September 5, 2049, effective July 1 of each year, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Upon receipt of the “Authorization to Operate” the New transfer station, in the event Contractor’s Additional Payments set forth in Section 5.4 exceeds $75,000 in a fiscal year, adjusted annually by 3.3%, the amount of such excess above $75,000 shall be applied as a credit against, and shall reduce dollar-for-dollar, the Host Fee payments otherwise payable by Contractor to the City during that same fiscal year. In no event shall any credit be taken against the Host Fee payments when the year-over-year increase in payments as set for in the Agreement fall below 3.3%. 6. All other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall apply to the operation of the New SWF. 7. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, and each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and all counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. 8. This Amendment constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings, whether oral or written. This Amendment may not be amended or modified except in writing signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF MELROSE WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. By: ________________________________ By: ________________________________ Name: Name: Title: Title:

Transcript

▶ 5:29 Devin Romanul: Yes. Chair Finocchiaro? Yes. That motion passes. We are adjourned. All right. Good evening. The time is 7:15 PM on Monday, June 29th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Appropriations and Oversight Committee. My name is Devin Romano. I am the chair. Joining me this evening are Vice Chair Vandiver, Councilors Chen, Finocchiaro, Jamaldin, Karimcheddy, Abramsky, Park, Williams, and President Freeman. This serves as a notice of a quorum for the record. In accordance with the open meeting law- This meeting is being recorded and broadcast live on MMTV. And for those in the viewing audience, we have a member joining us remotely, so we will be taking all of our votes via roll call this evening. Thanks for joining, Councilor Chen.

▶ 6:14 Devin Romanul: At this time, I will entertain a motion to approve without reading the minutes from our most recent meeting. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve made by Vice Chair Vandiver, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. The motion passes. The minutes are approved. I will now entertain a motion to open public comment. Motion to open public comment. Second. Motion made by Councilor Finocchiaro, seconded by Councilor Karamcheti.

▶ 6:58 Devin Romanul: On discussion. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. All right. Public comment is now open. This is the portion of the meeting where members of the public may speak on any item on tonight's agenda. Comments expressing viewpoints on other matters are also welcome. Do we have anybody here this evening who would like to speak in public comment? Seeing none, do we have any folks online? We do not. All right. Seeing no participants for public comment, I'll now entertain a motion

▶ 7:36 Devin Romanul: to close public comment. Motion to close public comment. Second. Motion made by Vice Chair Vandiver, seconded by Councilor Karamcheti. On discussion. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. All right. Public comment is now closed. First on our agenda this evening is appropriations ID number 2026-1334, appropriation from Peg Access Fund 2922 in the amount of $167,277.80 to MMTV, and $55,759.27 to the Melrose Public Schools. Good evening.

▶ 8:31 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Councilor? Hello. Good evening, everyone. I'm Mary Beth Macaturg Margolis, the outreach director and financial person at MMTV. Thank you for hosting me this evening. Having been in your seats before myself, I know it's a tough time of year to keep pushing through. So I'm here to answer any of your questions, and appreciate your consideration of this order. Thank you so much. Do members of the committee have any questions? Councilor Jamaleddine? I don't have any question. I just wanted to make a motion to recommend. Second. Motion approved made by Councilor Jamaleddine, seconded by Councilor Karamcheti. On discussion. Just a thank you for everything you do to provide information, resources, and connection to the community.

▶ 9:23 Devin Romanul: You're welcome. Both entities are very enjoyable and helpful to our citizens. We actually have three stations that we run out of 360 Main Street. The government channel, of course, as you know, MMTV, which is our cable access station with productions by our members, and the high school channel as well. So we try to cover all bases. Love them all. Any other councilors on discussion? I'll just add my thanks, both for how to do this job well, providing that roadmap, but also for providing such an invaluable community service. So we're all incredibly grateful. Thank you. And for any members of the public who haven't been down there, the facilities are outstanding. So, thank you for keeping those up to date as well.

▶ 10:08 Yep. We're about to run our two weeks of summer program with the rec department starting next week. So we've got a little, well, not little, but medium-sized people coming down to begin the process, and hopefully continue along in the field. Right. Which we've had many graduates who have done so professionally. So it's a good training ground for people, anybody has anyone interested. That's great. Thanks. Well, terrific. Unless any other councilors have any comments on discussion, I believe we have a motion on the floor. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Chen? Thank you. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti?

▶ 10:49 Devin Romanul: Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. Motion passes, and will show up on our next full city council meeting. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Welcome. Any of you to come down when you have a chance. Thank you. Duly noted. All right. Up next, order number ID 2026-1382, authorization to amend solid waste facility operating agreement by and between the City of Melrose and Waste Management of Massachusetts. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you. First of all, I just would like to introduce Mr. Jim Nocella. Jim is representing Waste Management here tonight and will be able to answer some

▶ 11:38 of the technical questions you might have from his side of this operating agreement that is in front of you. First and foremost, thank you very much for this consideration. This is a critical part to the DPW's operation, as well as a critical component to the services that we provide and the costs that are associated with the solid waste and recycling curbside pickup program for the City of Melrose. A handful of years ago, Waste Management approached the city and talked about the permit For operating the transfer station was about to expire. And it also coincided with the end of a current lease that will expire in 2029 for the operation of the transfer station, which is located up on Route 99.

▶ 12:28 So a little bit more than a year ago, the city assembled a team of all the stakeholders that have a vested stake in coming up with a new agreement so that we could come and put forth in front of you what we feel is a very fair and equitable agreement. We think at this point it's more for the city of Melrose, which I'm sure Mr. Nocella does not want to hear, but I think that it's also fair for the residents. And what is in front of you is a 20-year agreement that we will enter with Waste Management. They are the preferred vendor. And in return, Waste Management will be constructing a brand-new transfer station on the Route 99 site. They've submitted some conceptual documents, some designs that we have approved and will

▶ 13:17 work through as we get into the construction phase of the project. We will still maintain ownership of this property, and those capital improvements are owned by the operator when this agreement takes place. They will also negotiate the process of re-permitting the site. Our permit as it exists right now, we understand will not pass, and Waste Management possesses the expertise to navigate through that process. They already hold the permit for the site, so it makes it a little bit easier. I'll let Mr. Nocella get into that if there's any questions. But it just makes it that much easier for us to operate, construct, and then take advantage of the new agreement, the new transfer station. What that means to the residents of Melrose

▶ 14:08 is roughly $450,000 to $500,000 a year in revenues, and that comes from the host payment to the city, property taxes that Waste Management pays to us, savings in our trash contract. We have reduced tipping fees. Those costs are negotiated into this contract, as well as labor and transportation costs that are saved in the current agreement with Casella. We are able to direct those trucks to the transfer station. No waiting. They never leave the city, thus we don't realize the costs that are associated to transport the trash, the recycling, out of the city. To me, I want to first congratulate, but more importantly, thank the city, my colleagues in the city. I think the city is very lucky to have the CFO, the

▶ 15:02 assessor, planning and development, solicitor, the mayor's administration, and anybody else that was involved in creating this agreement that's in front of you tonight for Waste Management to operate this facility, but also at zero cost to the city, construct a brand-new transfer station that will be permitted properly, and just the advancements on that site alone. So at that, I thank you very much for the consideration, and I also thank my colleagues for contributing to what we feel is a very fair agreement for the city and something that sets us up very well for the next 20 years. Councilor Williams. Thank you. I'm curious excuse me, since you brought up the permit, Mass DEP is the permitting body?

▶ 15:51 Correct. What does the permit cover, and what parts of our current permit do you feel are not likely to be seen favorably? Yeah. Good question. So this facility is very old and does not meet the current standards. Now, as it's operating, you get the so-called grandfathered piece of it. But a few years ago, the stormwater regulations were readjusted, and in order for this facility to be able to meet those regulations, it needs to be relocated, or you would have to stop operations that happen up above where the city operates the compost facility. And that's not a good thing for the city. That's a vital operation. So the only way that we could see to be able to meet those new stormwater regulations was to relocate

▶ 16:58 that facility and rebuild it in an area where it will not be impacted by the stormwater issues that we have. Additionally, the state has reached out to us multiple times looking for a game plan to replace the facility just because of its age and just the way it sits. It's a pretty tight area. So we think that this plan will satisfy all those parties. And are there air permit requirements for the facility or just water? No, it's water and then the normal regulations, which would be since we're staying on the permitted footprint of the property, we would have to still meet all of those current obligations. Are you guys looking to move the new building further back into the property? Correct. So you're going to build the new one-

▶ 17:56 Concurrently with the other operation, and that way when you're ready to demolish the old one- Mm-hmm ... you don't have to interrupt your operation. There'd be no interruption of service, right. Yeah. So what do you do with the space that is currently where the old building stands when that's torn down? So what we would do with that, we'll level that and grade it, and then the city will be able to use that parcel For some of the operations that go on a little further up in the hill, which will make it easier for them to operate. I see. Will there be any increased room for snow dumping or anything of that nature at the site? That won't be materially impacted the way we're going to do it. Okay.

▶ 18:40 Yeah. All right. Appreciate that. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Councilor Williams. Any other councilors? Vice Chair Vandiver. Sorry, could you clarify your comment about the snow dumping? You said that would materially impact the plan or wouldn't? Would not be. Would not? Yeah. Okay. That's correct. Councilor Park. Thank you. Can you talk to us a little bit about how you derive the 20-year plan as opposed to something that's more conventional, like a 10 year? And also, does this new transfer station allow us to extend the services to a larger area, given the fact that it's a brand new station, and it's not servicing just Melrose? Yeah. Today, it serves outside of Melrose as well. So it does have some

▶ 19:35 regional capacity, if you will. The 20-year mark is actually more common in these types of facilities because of the investment that you have to make through the permitting and the construction in order to be able to make the financial side of it work for the city. We have multiple agreements with different transfer stations, some in which cities actually participate in the construction cost. That idea I raised was summarily- Mm-hmm ... thwarted at me quickly. So I understand that. I think the right word is declined. It was declined, yes. That's better. So the way that we looked at making it financially viable so that the city would continue to see not only the revenues they receive, but some modest increases as

▶ 20:34 well, was to use a 20-year timetable. And again, it's more common to do that in these types of facilities than, let's say, a collection contract where you might be looking at a five or a 10-year term. Well, the current agreement that we're under had up to 30 years of life on the contract itself. But the prior one was a 20-year lease as well. So it's not without precedent. And to continue with what Mr. Nocella said, that was a major consideration for us, how do we know the value of that property over the course of 20 years? It's almost impossible, right? You don't know what they're going to do in the quarry next door, where aggregate is. You don't know any other future developments. So one of the safeguards we wanted to put in is the ability to revisit it

▶ 21:31 and to possibly exit if there's some sort of a drastic change in that parcel if the city needs or wants to do anything else, whether another opportunity pops up. So that was a consideration as well. And I think a 20-year agreement is about right. It's about right, because normally we're going to enter into a 10 and have a 10-year option anyways. So let's just make it 20 right out of the bat. The city has no investment in the construction of a new facility, and then we will always be able to revisit it and then possibly exit early. There'll be language for that. So there is an exit clause? There would be. Through proper notifications and such, yes, sir. One final question. So I know that the majority of this transfer station will

▶ 22:19 be utilized by Melrose. Can you give me a rough idea in terms of percentage of what other neighboring towns and areas would use this transfer station? Yeah. Well, Melrose has actually done a phenomenal job at reducing waste through the collection program that we've put out, which is, I guess the good news. So, Melrose itself will use up about 20% of the capacity, maybe a little bit less than that, of what's currently coming through the facility. Okay. And then the majority is, there is some Melrose waste that's commercial waste that gets disposed of there, not associated with the city collection contract, and then the rest would be from regional areas around the city. Thank you. Vice Chair Vandiver.

▶ 23:15 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. A few other questions. Given that it's a 20-year contract, is there anything we can do to future-proof it, and given that this facility, we'd like it to last a while, in terms of future-proofing on future environmental regulations and safety and whatnot? Are we looking ahead towards doing the top of the line there? Yeah. So this facility obviously will be built under the newest regulations. So there will be no further grandfathering of how the facility is built. We'll have to meet all today's standards. There are things that we're looking at in the future, and some of that might be loading into containers versus trucks, and containers that could actually go on the rail system as opposed to being trucked.

▶ 24:07 And that's a real environmental plus in terms of waste gas emissions. So we'll be looking at that. But as part of the agreement, we'll be obligated to maintain the facility and keep it up to standard, meet all the regulations. So as things age in the facility, we'll be maintaining that and repairing that. And again, that would be at no cost to the city. Great. And following up on the other counselor's question, I saw in section four, I see a note about termination for cause. Is that what you were referring to? For cause, to me, implies that something went wrong. Is that the- Right. There's termination for cause, and then there's a provision in there for a land taking if the city were to have to

▶ 25:01 take the property back. Okay, great. And then I saw in there, there's a 3.5% annual increase, but then there's also a 3.3%. When does the 3.3% come into play? So, this was one of the provisions that the financial team for the city wanted to spell out clearly that in no case would the total revenue increase, which is a combination of property taxes and host community fees, fall below a 3.3% threshold level. And so we put that in there for clarification purposes. The host fee itself, which we pay on every ton that comes through the facility, will go up by 3.5%, and then the other components of the revenues would make up the rest, and the city wanted to make sure that didn't fall below the 3.3% threshold.

▶ 26:02 Ryan Williams: Great. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Yeah. Next, I have Counselor Williams. Yeah. Vice Chair Vandiver asked the question that I was going to ask, but I wanted to just clarify that what this means is that the city always receives $75,000 a year, and then it grows at least 3.3%, but not more than 3.5% each year. Correct. So this year it's 75%. I'm sorry, $75,000. Next year it's $80,000. The year after that it's, whatever, $87,000. Mm-hmm. And then the additional fees-- And I will say that it would be nice to have the whole contract here. We have the amendments that are being made, but we have lots of references to sections that we can't review or don't know what they say. The additional payments, which you described as--

▶ 26:55 What did you describe them as? Well, in the agreement, the additional payments are targeted to be the property taxes. Yes. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Those payments can reduce a portion of the fee, but there's a floor- Correct ... that they can never go lower than. Yeah. And that floor is the $75,000 plus 3.5% annually. Yeah. That was one of the reasons why we likely weren't before you eight months ago, is negotiating through that. Our concern, obviously, is we're going to build a facility, and we have no idea what the assessed value would be. And so we spent a lot of time going back and forth to talk through that, and that's where we arrived at that threshold of 3.3%. Okay. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you.

▶ 27:43 Jason Chen: Yep. Other counselors? Counselor Shen. Yep. Thank you. And thank you to Mr. True for walking a few counselors and I through this a few weeks ago. And thanks to Mr. Nocella for being what sounds like a really good partner with the city for a long time. About the value of the host payment, that $75,000, did we have a discussion about the overall profit that Waste Management makes by operating the site long term? I want to know that that $75,000 going up at 3.3% is on the right order of magnitude given how much it allows you to be more profitable overall. Any comments on if we've had open book conversations about your overall business? And I understand the risk that you're taking, and you need to be compensated for

▶ 28:43 Jason Chen: that as well. And I know that the 20-year term does also help you pay back your capital, but I haven't seen that overall open book to make sure that the city is getting the most in terms of host payments and of compensation as part of this operating lease. And I fully understand that it's a partnership on both sides with risks. Yeah, it is. And as far as open book profit and loss, typically as a private enterprise because of our competition, things that we just cannot open and share. But what you can do is evaluate either some of our other operations to see what level of host payments are made, as well as others. And I guess one example I would tell you is, first of all, I'm not sure about where the $75,000 is coming from.

▶ 29:41 So the annual host community payment is $215,000. And when you look at that, it's comprised of a payment per ton for the material that comes through the facility. And so our host payment is $1.62 a ton. However, because we offer a minimum monthly payment, really what the city experiences is more something on the order of $3.75 when you look at how much material comes through and what we pay on that host benefit. The newest facility, not one of ours, that has been developed in the state is out in Leominster, and that host community agreement, it's public record, is paying $0.70 a ton with no minimum. So when you try to evaluate is the city getting a good deal, I think those are some of the comparisons you can make.

▶ 30:54 In our business model, a transfer station is really not a very profitable venture. It's kind of a means to an end. So it's a way to get material from point A to point B. And they typically do not generate a lot of profit. And that's part and parcel why the negotiations took a long time, is the city was trying to get their best deal, and I've got to also protect the interest of the company. And so I think Mr. Troupe probably said it well, that we kind of maybe didn't get what we wanted, and the city got more of what they wanted on this deal. But it still makes sense, I think, to be done. Yeah. And the 75,000, just for clarification, is based on property taxes and additional payments that are made by

▶ 31:49 Jason Chen: Waste Management to the city through the course of the agreement. Right. If there's, in the future, let's say five years from now, Waste Management wanted to change your operations to run a lot more solid waste through there, and it made that site more profitable, is there a way for us to revisit the host payments? Yeah, because we would have to seek the city's approval to modify the permit. So, the permit is the permit, right? It's 600 tons a day maximum. And so in order to be able to run more volume, which potentially could make it more viable, more profitable, we would have to come back to the city. And at that point in time, we'd have to negotiate whatever the benefits needed to be at that point.

▶ 32:47 Jason Chen: Great question. Thanks. And do you see any risk to doing the capital improvements? I think it was about $3 million when Mr. Troupe and I last talked, and it'll take about three years. But are there risks to you to getting that permit, or do you feel like you've done this many times, and it's just a matter of doing the work and doing the paperwork with the state? Yeah. The investment they were expecting is actually $5 million to be able to go through permitting, through construction. There are risks. There are always risks, but as we look at this facility, we've operated it for a long time, we know the property. We don't see a hurdle that we feel like we're not going to be able to meet. Early on, though, we will

▶ 33:43 Bradley Freeman: have a meeting with the DEP to go over the preliminary plan, and at that point, we'll get feedback from the state on what our plan is for the reconstruction. And we'll know if there are things that we just can't do. But I don't foresee that. Okay. Thank you to you both. Yeah. You're welcome. Thank you so much. Up next, I have President Freeman. Thank you very much. I think with these negotiations, I think as you said, there's always a give and take with these. And everything I've heard is Waste Management's been a wonderful partner to the city, and I personally think we're fortunate to have the transfer station here because, as Mr. Troupe said, the sheer amount of volume that Casella does on a daily

▶ 34:26 Kimberly Vandiver: basis, not having to go up to their station and being able to remain in Melrose, I think is a huge win. So when you factor that in with the host payments and the fact that Waste Management's been a good neighbor, I'm really comfortable with this. And with that, I will make a motion to recommend. Second. Motion to recommend made by President Freeman, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion, up first I have Vice Chair Vanderberg. Thank you. I'll be quick. And I'm also supportive of this in general. But since the 600 tons a day permit amount was mentioned, I'm curious what the current tonnage through the site is at right now. It runs about 300 tons a day. Okay. Yeah. And will the new facility provide more capacity beyond what's there

▶ 35:13 now? Is it hitting capacity limits and the new one will give more capacity? Hopefully it'll be more efficient because we'll have a better runway to get up into the facility, and we'll construct the facility a little bit larger. Again, we're constrained by the site assigned area that we could build in, but we expect to be able to build a facility a little bit larger. So that would allow us to get trucks in and out faster without having delays. Okay, great. Thank you. You're welcome. Terrific. Any other councilors on discussion? With the motion on the floor and duly seconded, no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Yes. Councilor Vanderberg? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro?

▶ 35:58 Devin Romanul: Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. Motion passes and will come before us in our next full council meeting. Gentlemen, thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good evening. Appreciate it. That being our last item on our agenda, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Motion made by Councilor Finocchiaro. Second. Seconded by Councilor Jamaleddine. On discussion. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Yes. Councilor Vanderberg? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti?

▶ 36:36 Bradley Freeman: Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. Motion passes. We are now adjourned. She's like, "We'll just do it in July 20th." Okay. Yeah. She's on vacation. Coming down Coming down. Yeah. It's drama. Yeah. I know. Good evening. The time is 7:48 PM- Recording in progress ... on Monday, June 29th, 2026. I am Council President Freeman. This meeting of the Melrose City Council is called to order. In accordance with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, this meeting is being broadcast and recorded by Melrose Cable Access TV, and will be available for viewing in its entirety on MMTV and through the city website.

Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2026-06-29

Attendance

Agenda

Minutes

Transcript

Original documents