City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey folks, why don't we grab our seats here? Recording in progress. Good evening everybody. Councelor Malake, if you wouldn't mind leading us in or I'm sorry, who did I tap? Councelor Lucas, if you wouldn't mind leading us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Evening everyone. Uh this is a uh uh a regularly scheduled uh meeting of uh the city council. Uh although we have some unique aspects to our meeting this evening. Um but I'll start with the fact that we are being both audio and video recorded. Um participating remotely. We have several counselors. Frell uh right Gats charm. Am I missing anyone? That's everyone I see. Um, for those of us in the room, I got a counselor charm. Thank you. Uh, and for those of us in the room who might have their laptops on, please make sure you're uh on mute so we're not uh dealing with uh feedback and so on and so forth. Um, one quick other note. Um, some of you have probably already noticed that we attempted very briefly to uh announce that the city council photo will be September 21st. That is Yam Kapoor. So, that is not going to work either. So, Drew and I have both made the executive decision that we're going to assign the uh scheduling to someone else. We don't know who. We don't know when. Stay tuned. Sorry about that. Um, also just a quick note, uh, for anyone who is planning on, uh, submitting budget resolutions, I think I said this once or twice before, please, please, please, on behalf of everyone in this room and online, get those to us as soon as you can. that will be incredibly helpful not only for the process that we have to go through but our esteemed colleague councelor Gman has to go through as well as Mayor Laredo and his entire team. Uh getting ahead of those is very helpful

uh especially because we do have a holiday weekend this you know this u uh in the midst of our d deliberations uh in about a week. So, in a moment, I'm going to ask for a motion uh to go into committee the whole uh so that we can talk water sewer rates and both the CIP and supplemental CIP items. Uh at that point, uh or once we're done with those conversations, we will be voting out water sewer. We'll be holding the CIP items. Um Councelor Gman and I will kind of swap chairs for that part of the conversation. Um, and I think that's really everything I wanted to cover before I asked for said motion. So, can I have a motion to enter committee of the whole? I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second right here. Fantastic. All in favor of going into committee of the whole, please say I.

Anyions?

Abstensions. Fantastic. The eyes have it. Councelor Gman, are you coming up here? You want the dice? Fantastic. Thank you, Mr. President. We are now in a committee of the whole to uh take up three items. Item 157-26, the proposed water, sewer, and storm water rates. Item 1-26, the fiscal year 2027 to 2031 capital improvement plan. And item 154-26, the fiscal year 2027 to 2031 supplemental capital improvement program. So, we're going to start with 157-26, the prop the proposed water, sewer, and storm water rates. uh has honored the mayor submitting the recommended rates for implementation on July 1st, 2026. We are joined tonight by Commissioner Shauna Sullivan, uh our Commissioner of Public Works, and Tom Fitzgerald, director of utilities to give our presentation and kick us off. Welcome and thank you.

Good evening, councilors. I would request that you okay me sharing my screen for our presentation? Of course. Thank you. Everyone see that?

Can everyone see that? Yeah, we got it.

Great. Thank you. So, I'm Shauna Sullivan, Commissioner of Public Works. Joining me tonight are Tom Fitzgerald, utilities director, and Moren Lemieux, the chief financial officer. Tonight, we are presenting the proposed FY27 water, sewer, and storm water rates, along with an overview of the infrastructure investments, and operational priorities these rates support. We respectfully ask that questions be held until the conclusion of the presentation. Tonight's presentation will cover FY27 infrastructure investments for water, sewer, and storm water systems, key operational priorities and capital projects and the proposed FY27 utility rates. I will begin with an overview of the infrastructure and operational priorities and then chief financial officer Moren Moren Lemieux will review the proposed rate structure and financial details. First focus will be water. The water division continues to focus on system reliability, water quality, customer service and regulatory compliance. The key FY27 initiatives include completing the citywide water meter replacement program and expanding the automated expanding the automated metering system. Advancing water main cleaning relining and replacement programs. Implementing proactive customer notification systems for abnormal water usages. Increasing customer engagement through the Neptune My 360 customer portal. Beginning design improvements at the Wavin Hill reservoir, we now have replaced more than 28,600 water meters citywide. The remaining work primarily involves larger commercial meters and approximately 889 residential meters requiring additional

coordination or service work. In FY27, we will also continue the enhanced unidirectional hydrant flushing program, which improves water quality while verifying valve functionality throughout the system. These investments improve operational efficiency, reduce water loss, strengthen customer communication, and help modernize the city's water infrastructure. This slide outlines the FY27 water main replacement program. The city has planned approximately 14,900 ft or roughly 2.8 miles of water main replacement work across multiple locations within the city. These projects include Brookline Street, Woodcliffe Road, Felsmere and Dolphin Road, Minet Place, Champa Street, and Studio Road. These projects are critical to improving system reliability, maintaining water quality, reducing water loss, and ensuring adequate fire flow capacity throughout the city. This work also supports our long-term asset management strategy by replacing aging infrastructure. The sewer division continues implementation of its long-term sewer system rehabilitation program. The current priorities include continuing work under the city's multi-phase sewer investigation, repair, ceiling, and relining initiative. This year's focus is area 9 in Wabin, Newton, Upper Falls, and Okeel. Continuing implementation of the sewer elicit discharge detection and elimination program. We're also beginning phase two of our pump station improvements, including architectural upgrades, valve replacements, and pump replacements at several critical facilities. And we are designing phase three of these projects.

These projects are essential to improving system reliability, reducing infiltration and inflow, protecting water quality, minimizing emergency repairs, and maintaining regulatory compliance. Proactive rehabilitation remains significantly more cost-effective than emergency failure response. We're on to storm water. The storm water infrastructure remains one of the city's most significant long-term challenges, particularly as we continue to experience more frequent and intense rainfall events. The FY27 priorities include advancing the city's phosphorus reduction compliance strategy under the EPA's MS4 permit, continuing to final design and permitting for the Bullis Pond Dam rehabilitation project, updating the storm water infrastructure improvement plan, which is expected to be completed by December 2027, continuing our expanded catch basin and culvert cleaning efforts. advancing the Oakdale covered improvement project, completing a hydraologic analysis and associated flood risk evaluation of the Cheesecake Brook. We are also proposing additional operational funding to increase storm water system cleaning activities, improve preventative maintenance efforts, and support phosphorus reduction within our waterways. These projects are intended to improve system resiliency, reduce localized flooding impacts, and support long-term regulatory compliance. We will now transition to the proposed FY27 range, which Moren Moren Lemieux will present. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. If you can go to the next slide. As um you all uh may know, but especially for

the newer counselors, um in 2013 or 14, we put together the a long range water and sewer infrastructure program. We worked very hard to develop it to figure out what we thought um would be a reasonable amount to ask the rateayers to pay each year and what a reasonable amount of work was to be done. Um we you know as we have developed our paving program over the years and our water and sewer programs, we have to be mindful of how much how many um roads we have torn apart in any given construction season. And so when we put this plan together, we did so with the intent that we would have the total water, sewer, storm water rates remain within no more than a 3.9% annual increase in the total rates that people were paying. We have been able since 2013 or 14 to maintain that structure in our water, sewer, storm water fees. However, we are no longer able to do that. As Shauna mentioned, we not only have the Bulos Pond Dam, um the flood risk evaluations that we're doing at Cheesecake Brook, the expanded work that we're doing cleaning our catch basins and culverts, all normal storm water programs. But the key that we have is our phosphorus reduction program. The cost for that, it's a requirement of our MS4 permit. The cost for reducing the requ the required reduction of phosphorus from the Charles River is over $500 million and we are supposed to

be doing all of that by 2038. Now that is absolutely um not attainable for for the city. There is no way we can do $500 million worth of storm water work in that time frame. And so I think most of you know that we have um submitted an alternate plan to DP. Um we are working back and forth with them. Naturally they were not thrilled uh with our original submission but we are still in a point uh where we are negotiating back and forth with them. We certainly hope that we will not be required to bring forward a $500 million program over these next several years. whatever we do to remove phosphorus from the Charles River is going to be extremely expensive. And so we need to over these next several years um create a revenue stream for storm water that enables us to begin to do the work that we are required to do. With that in mind, we worked very hard um to look at both the water rates and the sewer rates to see if we could bring those rate increases in at less than our 3.9% that we have done over the last several years. We've been able to do that. And so on average, our overall water rate increase is 2.81% that we have in front of you. Our overall sewer rate increase that we are proposing is 2.3%. So we have worked very hard to hold the line on each of those enterprise funds. That gives us the opportunity to increase our storm water rates by much more than what would make up the 3.9%. However, even 3.9% is not enough. And so

we had a lot of conversations with the mayor trying to define what do we think um is reasonable given the the tremendous pressure that we are on with our storm water enterprise fund. Uh we are bringing forward a 4.9% overall increase. That 4.9% enables us to raise the storm water rate by uh on average 33.3%. It's a huge rate increase, but as uh you all may realize, our storm water fund is a much smaller fund than our water or sewer fund. The water fund is about a $30 million fund. The sewer fund is closer to 40 million. And the storm water fund is uh in this year was only I think it was a $5.8 million fund. So the percentage seems huge. The dollars that it will raise are in the three to4 million range. Um so that's the basis that we really wanted everyone to understand. Our water and sewer rates we have been able to hold very tightly. uh water MWR we pay out more than 50% in each fund. Um more than 50% of these rates go to the MWR. Each year MWR has passed along a higher rate increase to us than um what has been our average. We buy more water each year and MWR is doing a tremendous amount of work on the water system. the sewer rate increases from MWR each year. We have actually benefited from all of the sewer work that we have done. And so our sewer rates have historically been um in all but a few of the uh past years in more

than a decade have been less than what other communities um have realized. And so we've hold those rates as tight as we can and have put the rest of the money into increasing these storm water rates with that. Uh so the overall uh again just to make sure everyone is aware so the overall rate increase will be about 4.9% with 2.8 in water 2.3 in sewer and a 33% increase in storm water. And with that, um, Madame Chair, uh, thank you.

Thank you very much for that presentation. At this point, we're going to have questions by counselors. And I just want to remind everybody that after this round of questions, having a public hearing is part of this. So, I'm going to take everybody's questions and any comments you want to offer. And then after that, I'll ask for a motion to open a public hearing. So, I have councelor Kalis followed by councelor Albbright. Oh, I don't need to stand up. U Miss Lemieux, thank you for that presentation. So, um on the storm water, the 33%. Uh I know I mean since I've been here, it's been the entire rate has been going up I think um less than 4%. Um, was there discussion in the past administration that this has to go up or was this something that was just identified this year? I'm trying to understand uh, you know, if I kind of I think we all kind of realize this was going to happen at some point, but is it just that we're we're biting the bullet now um, versus in the past?

Thank you, councelor. That's it's a great question. Um, no, we we have very certainly known over the last uh few years, ever since we actually got the MS4 permit uh our new permit for storm water, we knew that we had these different um increases looming over us. But we were also also trying to work very hard to get the water and sewer programs um to the point that they are at at this point in time. The what has happened is it has taken longer I would say for us to be going through the process of the phosphorus control plan. Uh we don't know quite yet where we will land with D. Uh what they will require of us but we know that it will be a tremendous amount of money. And as I said, we we have Bullos Pond, which we have now um I believe finally come to a resolution on what that plan is going to be. Uh we are we are cleaning our catch basins more often. We are cleaning we are street sweeping more often. We're doing several things operationally that will hopefully help us to um help D recognize that we are doing a lot of operational things to limit the phosphorus that is going into the Charles River in addition to the infrastructure improvements that they're going to want us to make. So, the prior administration, we had many, many conversations about uh whether or not we should be holding off on making this jump to a 4.9% increase instead of a 3.9. Um, and the timing was just such that we were able to um last year only bring forward a 3.9% increase, but we are no longer at that point. One follow-up question is, do you see this as a one-time large increase or do

you think it's going to be um multi-year? Um, and you might not be able to answer that because it probably depends on what D is going to give to us and whether you're able to negotiate a longer term phosphorus plan or not, but I'd like to know your comment on that.

Uh, thank you. I I would say my personal opinion and that's all it is right now is that this will probably be a few years where we need this larger increase while we're negotiating and until we get to a point um that we understand uh what the work is that we will have to do. But I would expect um that this will be a few years where we would do our very best to stay at the 4.9 or below. Get the storm water account uh to a certain level and that's what I can't define for you right now is what that level needs to be. But this will still this increase will still only generate about eight or n million in storm water revenue. I would think that we will probably need to get that account to a 15 or 20 million account. So my expectation would be that we would have perhaps three or four or five years worth of 4.9% increases and then hopefully we'll be able to um decrease that amount.

Okay. Thank you. I I just have one more if everybody will allow me. Okay. So, um I understand everything you've just um outlined. It makes sense. Uh given financial pressures and the economy and uh affordability issues, is there any way to delay this a year?

Unfortunately, I would say no. Um which is why we are bringing it here to you tonight. I mean, those are the conversations that we had a year ago as um the economy was changing even then. Of course, gasoline prices and so many other things at the grocery store have continued to rise. Um which is why our conversation was what what where should we hold that overall increase to? Um the issue is that we have so many storm water items that need to be done in addition to the phosphorus plant. So um I I would certainly say at this point that we should not be delaying this any longer. Several of the part of the issue is several of the storm water initiatives are not bondable projects and so we need to have cash. When we cleaned the um the city hall ponds a couple of years ago, that was a little over $3 million, I believe, to clean the ponds. That was not a bondable expenditure because in the end, we didn't really have anything. We hadn't constructed anything. Um all we had done was was take the um was clean ponds, get take the sediment out. And so because that's true with storm water and as I said the catch basins, cleaning the culverts, uh doing the street sweeping, all of those things are things that we really need to be doing so that we can position ourselves better when it comes to the phosphorus control program. Um those are all operational expenditures. So this this increase is a combination of needing it for infrastructure improvements but the operational increases as well. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Albbright, you're up. And President Oliver, you're next. Thank you, Madame Chair. Can I ask um Commissioner Sullivan a quick question first? The the water um you plan on renovating 2.87 87 or two I can't read my handwriting miles of water pipe. Is that about what we've been doing or is that less or more? So that is just the replacement the 2.8. We will continue the line as well and it is slightly more than what we did last year. Okay, that's good to know.

Just about 2.3. Um, so I I think um, COO Morse might want to clarify about the Bull's Pond. I don't think we have quite yet come to a conclusion unless there's something that that he knows that the rest of us don't yet know. There there's going to be a community meeting coming up at the end of the month to talk about the three options that the committee's been looking at. So, you may want to call on Commissioner Morse before I finish. I I am indeed going to uh one request. Can we just take down the shared screen for now so we can see everybody's faces. I think at a certain point it might be helpful to put the rates back up on the screen, but when that moment comes we can do so. CO Morris,

thank you very much and uh thank you councelor Albbright. Uh you queued that up perfectly. Um uh yes, just one point of clarification. We have not yet made uh a recommendation as a working group uh to the mayor with respect to the option that we'll ultimately land on with the Bulls Pond project. Um we do have a community meeting coming up soon where we'll present all the options and go through the opportunities and challenges associated with each of those. Um hear from the community, take that information back and continue our work as a working group before ultimately making a recommendation to the mayor. Um, I would expect that we'll make that recommendation in the coming months, but we're not quite there yet. But stay tuned. Miss Lemieux.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, if I may, I think it was wishful thinking on my part, so my apologies. I even as I said it, I wasn't really quite sure that it had been made. Um, but but I I think it was wishful thinking on all of our parts. So, can all set for now, councelor? I have not. Now I have my real questions. Go for it.

Um this is about let me just start with the water sewer rates. The um you know I've had many calls and I've actually spoken to Ms. Lemu Lemieux about this from people who live in multif family buildings and they pay the highest rate of water usage and water sewage usage. And the the people that call me are the they're people who've moved downsized from a big home into a an apartment in one of these buildings, these newer buildings, and now they're paying water rates that are so much higher than they used to pay because they're paying at the higher rate. And the question to us and to Miss Lemieux is is there any way possible to consider um well like what the newer buildings apparently are put are building in water meters into each unit so that they could actually pay what what they're pay for what they're actually using. And I don't the older buildings don't have that. But I think I just wanted to say that I had asked Miss Lemieux if it would be possible as a summer project. Could we take this on to study about multif family buildings? I know there's nothing we can do about it tonight because we don't have enough information. We don't know if anything's possible, but I was hoping that we could get some kind of a commitment to at least study this issue over the coming summer.

Miss Le, do you want to speak to that? Think we may want to let the commissioner speak first. I I will try this and and um I'm doing this from memory from a long time ago, but I believe do we put commissioner a um a residential factor on the large um uh apartment complex buildings? I believe we do, but you know who can answer is Tom Fitzgerald, the utilities director.

He he should have detailed information on that. Um, good evening. The rates are I don't believe there is a difference between that. There is just it's a it's a rate that goes with the meter and you pay by the tiers. Yeah, there is no difference between commercial and residential. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't think we quite got the second half of the sentence. Could you just repeat what you said, please?

I don't There isn't a difference between residential and commercial rates. one rate uh just based on the tears. They did a little um just to they did a little study at the TRIO building to say what would the difference be if you used your because they do have they do have meters in every unit at the TRIO building and what would the rate be if you paid the unit price versus the whole building price and it was sub a substantially different number. So, and and I I I understand the difficulties I'm raising, but there are a number of people who've called and and said, "Isn't there anything you can do for us?" So, I'm just putting that on the table to see if we can maybe there's a residential rate. I don't I don't know what that me really means, but if there's anything we could do to study this so that when we come to this next year, we've thought about it and and can respond. Anything further, Miss Lemieux or Commissioner Sullivan?

Uh, as Go ahead.

I can certainly jump in. Um, as Councelor Albbright said, she and I have had conversations about this. Um, we can certainly clarify, uh, first of all exactly what people who live in these larger buildings are paying um on a per what each unit is paying. um the issue of ever trying to obviously we can't uh retrofit these but we certainly can't do anything to retrofit these buildings to have meters uh in each apartment or condo or unit. Um so it would really have to be the landlords or the um the associations if it's a condo uh building. Um but we can certainly take a look and make sure that we understand what it is that people are paying and then take a look and see if there is something that we need to do. Now obviously if we do um I I I think you all realize this but I will say it because it's important. This is a zero sum game just like our budget is this is the same. We build these rates to generate a certain amount of revenue um revenue that we need to operate each of these enterprise funds. So if we do anything that changes the rates that lowers rates for one um class of of property owners or tenants or whatever people may be uh it will automatically increase rates elsewhere in the system. Um but we can certainly take a look at it and see if if if you know at least at first blush if there appears to be anything um that that we may want to do.

Thank you. That's that's I think that's as much as I could ask. Um, and the what the last thing I wanted to raise was someone brought this to my attention and I told them to call Commissioner Sullivan. It's about the the amount of phosphate that's put into the system based on the golf courses and and how they manage their golf courses. And I don't know if we've if we've thought about that and and are they are the golf courses paying their fair share to solve this phosphorus problem? Does anyone want to answer that? We would actually need to investigate that. It's a great point to raise.

I would I would hope that over the course of this coming year that you could pay some attention to that because, you know, they do get quite a break on real estate taxes and so at least they could help us with our phosphorus problem. We will investigate that. Thanks very much. President Oliver, then councelor Block. Thank you, Chair. Um I don't know if now we're getting to the point where we want to start popping those rates back up on the screen, but um before Sounds like a good time.

Yeah, because I think we might be going down that road. Um, first off, uh, Councelor Albbright, I'd be happy to work with you on figuring out how we kind of outline some of the questions that we have, uh, because I think I fielded a few similar questions and I'd really like to take some time and figure that out because I think there are a lot of different angles we should be exploring there. But thank you for bringing that up. My question uh that occurred to me when we were uh hearing uh the presentation a few minutes ago and thank you for the detail you always include here. It's incredibly helpful. I am curious to know if or or what the split might be uh between storm or storm water fees between commercial and residential just at at the top line. like are we 5050 commercial versus residential?

I I will jump in. I do not recall. I believe back when we first started um uh charging the rates the way that we do. I want to say it was probably more in the um 65 35 or something more in that range. Um with the 65 being residential, we have I want to say uh about 26,000 residential accounts and 3 or 4 thousand commercial accounts. I can tell you that the city um and Boston College are far and away uh the two largest contributors to the storm water revenue stream.

Great. Uh thank you. That was just kind of that that was my only question, but I am I think that's one of those elements that uh you might see some follow-up requests on. But thank you,

Councelor Black and Councelor Roach. Thank you, chair. I'm I'm looking at the storm water fund information in the uh the operating budget. If anybody else wants to follow along on the third tab in which the uh total is 8,39,000. There's just not a lot of detail here, a lot of information. Um this is broken down between storm water maintenance and operation, debt service, budget reserve, and retirement, including retirey health. these four lines. Oh, and then there's some transfer. Just can can um maybe the commissioner give us more of a sense of how these funds are actually spent, these contracted these city employees. Um just how does this how does this get expended? And maybe on the Miss Lemieux side, how do we get to 8 million as opposed to 7 million or 9 million that we would like in this sewer fund? Just how do we how do we get to this? Thank you.

So, if I'll I will um jump in first if that's all right, Madam Chair. Um Councelor Block, if you go to page I need to put another light on in my room. If you go to page four in the sto of the stormwater financials and for anyone else who may have either their book with them or have this up on their screen, you will see that we spend and then if you go over to page five is where the total is of this money. We spend uh $3.8 8 million in the actual operations of the storm water um enterprise fund itself. That's where you would see our employees who who do the work there. Uh we spend about a million dollars on employees. We have some large um uh operational expenditures if we if you will. So we have the nifties permit work that we do which we have a $500,000 budget for. We have the stream management account where we have $500,000 and we have cleaning of our catch basins which is $500,000. And so that page is where you see the normal detail if you would. On the prior page you can see all of the debt that we have incurred. So page two of the financials um for storm water, you can see what our bond maturities are and our interest on all of those bonds. And so each year we're paying about a little over half a million dollars in debt service payments for stu for our storm water projects that we have bonded to date. The page before that, you can see what we spend through the controllers's office and that's where we have um we take a transfer to the general fund of $900,000

which is a contribution toward um all of the work that so many of us do on storm water, but that we don't um we don't transfer bill part of everybody's time. We just take we have a a um calculation that we do and so we charge the storm water fund for all of um controller purchasing payroll um the time that we spend in the executive office. Uh it ends up to the calculation that we do. we have $900,000 that we take to the general fund as a revenue as well as as you said we have p pension contributions um in the for storm water employees. Then the other piece that is really the large piece is you will see on page one at the bottom uh we have two $2,575,000 that we intend to put into the reserve. We have about um four or five million dollars right now in our storm water reserve. We will add in next year's budget, two and a half million to that. And those funds, as I said a few minutes ago, go to things like when we um had to clean the ponds out front that were $3 million. We had to pay cash for that. So, we need to have a reserve fund uh in storm water where we can utilize that that. So, so for storm water, if you, you know, really um get into the pages, the first couple of pages um don't necessarily give you the detail, you know, that you may be looking for, but it's those those back pages starting at page one yet again, uh that really has the detail that I think you are looking for.

Thank you for that clarification. I'm just curious the the um 2026 column as I understand it is the original budget. Is that correct? And do you have a projected annual spending for 2026?

Our projected annual is very close to our budget. We budget very very tightly and we monitor these line items constantly and so especially in um storm water because storm water is a feat on each account. So our revenue um is very predictable more so than it is in water and sewer. Our storm water revenue is predictable and as I said we really we manage very tightly on all of our expenditures. So, uh, if anything, um, you know, we may be off by a couple of hundred,000 at year's end, uh, but it won't be a lot.

Okay. Thank you. I have councelor Roach, then councelor Malagi.

Thank you. So, this comes up a lot. um the notion of subsidy for those things that are good and charging for things that we view as from a public policy perspective um not good or possibly destructive. So my recommendation is is that in the case of irrigation, when we first broke this out, I think it was about 20 years ago, the rate for irrigation water was less than the rate for internal water based on the fact that irrigation water didn't have to be treated. And it's good that over time um it's now more than internal use water. Um but it's not enough more. And I think that there's no reason um that residents should expect to pay a reasonable amount for um external irrigation water which is principally used for um or largely used for ornamental lawns. So, I would like to see us significantly increase the rate of um the the rate for irrigation water and and in simpler terms, right? There's an internal meter, an external meter. If you use water outside, that's the irrigation water. So, something along the lines of a 10% increase would make more sense to me. Um I'm not sure if you then spread that across as u smaller increases in the other categories or not. Um but I I would I would like to see us significantly increase the level for outside water use. Um on councelor Albbright's point about um multi-family uh housing and the fact that they are in

a higher tier. If they don't have separate meters are in a higher tier uh for each individual home based on the the overall water usage of the building. I would suggest we do something simpler like calculate the rate tier for multi-ousing, multif family housing based on the overall water usage divided by the number of occupied homes. And that seems to be very straightforward. At least we give you an average that would tell you what the rate should be. And then the the landlord could could worry about distributing that cost across um the tenants. Um, so is the just a point of clarification switching out of Bulos Pond is the no dam option one of the three options or is that the fourth option?

That is one of the options that is being studied and will be discussed at the community meeting coming up soon.

Thank you, Mr. Morris. Okay. and Commissioner Sullivan, one of the things that we talk about regularly like for the last 25 years is that the um the road reconstruction required after water main work is significant and extensive. Is this a good opportunity and and this is a loaded question because I know what the answer is. Is this a good opportunity for us to take a look at the five or six roads that are on the water main list and see what roadway redesigns? So, tightening intersections, potentially doing chicanees, etc. Um, to do, you know, looking at the roadway geometry since we'll be tearing up and rebuilding the roads generally. So, they do end up on our paving list, our CIP list. Um, Brookline Street, as you know, we just did some traffic coming on. We won't be touching that raised intersection. Um, Wood Cliff Road is scheduled for reconstruction. I believe it's two two or three years out. Felsme Road and Dolphin Road are smaller. Um, we always whenever we look at paving a roadway, we consider what we can do for traffic coming.

Okay. So, I hope that that there's a that there's a um focused effort with these to to include traffic calming as as part of the inevitable reconstruction work. When the during the course of this project, they should be pulled together into one holistic view. Um, so I want to go back to my Thank you, by the way. So I want to go back to the higher rate for irrigation. Um, I think we went by that too quickly. Any response um, Miss Lemieux on what that might what the what the possible consequence and and whether the administration could get behind a higher rate for irrigation.

So thank you counselor for that question. Um, I would say it's uh certainly a policy decision um that I would be more than happy to bring the concept back to the mayor, but um it certainly is a policy decision. Um, as much as we may or may not think that um, irrigation is good or bad, um, it it uh, many I think homeowners would be upset if they've gone out and spent anywhere between $1,000 and $2500 to have an irrigation meter installed. Um, and you know, if we more or less make it almost as expensive as if they hadn't, um, people may not be happy. But it's a policy decision. Uh but one point you did make and I will um uh reiterate it. These are three different enterprise funds. So we would have to it would be a zero sum game within the water enterprise fund itself. We would not raise either anything on the sewer side or the storm water side if we were to do something on the irrigation side. Um so so each of these funds has to stand on their own but otherwise your question your question is really a policy decision and as I said I'll be more than happy to um mention to the mayor that you asked about it.

Thank you councelor Maliki then councelor Golden. Uh thank you. Um um just to to clarify on the uh phosphorus control and the street sweeping, are we putting any expenses, whether it's buying street sweepers or the labor running them, is all of that um being attributed to storm water?

So the street sweepers are the actual purchase of the sweepers. However, at the moment, we still have the labor uh in the general fund. It's something that um I actually have spoken with Shauner about and I would envision that perhaps next year now that we're making this big jump uh not for 27 because we didn't do it. Um, but I would I would not be surprised if I were all of you that by the time the 28 budget is put together that we may be looking at putting um the labor charges for all of our sweep street sweeping personnel into the storm water, but we do currently charge all of the uh equipment purchases there at this point in time.

Okay. Thank you. And um uh to council Roach's point about the um irrigation water, do we know what uh percent of the say the res well I don't know maybe residential and commercial but uh do we know what percent of the volume of water used is falling under the irrigation category? So, I will jump in. Again, this is from memory. I haven't looked at it um in the last couple of weeks, but I think it's probably about somewhere between 10 and 10 to 15%. When we did all the calculations years ago, and we um tried to estimate how much water was really used for for outside usage, uh we thought that it was going to be a solid 20% of the water. when we analyzed how people used water and what happened to their bills during the course of the summer. Now, because people had to, as I said, spend, you know, anywhere between a thousand and perhaps $2500 to get the meter installed, depending on what um the inside of their basement looked like. Uh some people had to run, you know, uh long lines to get to where their water meter was. Um many people chose not to end up installing the irrigation. So having something in the 10 12 14% range um probably makes sense.

Okay. So if you if you increased that irrigation rate um there's not a lot of um sort of volume to impose that on that it would make a lot of savings for the non-errigation water. There'd be some

correct. I think there wouldn't be a huge savings. there would be some savings and again all of that is policy. If you know if we were looking at saying that we should be charging considerably more for irrigation we may want to look at the zero to 10 hcfs which um many people who live alone do not use more than 10 hcfs in a quarter particularly if you're someone who you know might be older um maybe there would be a decision as part of that policy that we only lower the zero to 10 hcfs. So, it's all uh I think if we were going to look at one tier, it would make sense that all of them would be up for analysis.

Okay. And um let's see. Um we learned um in the last year or so at some land use meetings that so-called pvious surfaces are not always pvious um when it comes to driveways and things. It sort of depends on how they're maintained and there's maybe degrees of pviousness. When when we say for commercial uh the rate is you know x cents per imperous square feet. Are we are we counting are are we what are we counting as imperous surface? Is it all hardscape and roofs or is it um anything that asphalt or whatever that is not claimed to be pvious? How are we measuring that?

Hardcapes. You're correct. So, if it's um roofs, okay, roofs, uh sidewalks, parking lots, parking lots, plazas, Yeah. Okay. So, basically impervious in this context means hardscape. Yes.

Okay. And um the the what you call commercial that's applying as you I think you mentioned to Boston College. Does it apply to um Newton Wely Hospital? Does it apply to apply to mun um Massachusetts and federal properties? It it it applies to any property that or any um parcel or structure that has more than four residential units in it. So, even if there were a um a six-unit um condominium uh somewhere, a standalone six-unit condominium, uh it would be part of the commercial rate.

I'm sorry, you said more than more than four units. More than four. Okay. Yeah. I was really asking about sort of institutional. Does it apply to all all institutions like the you know, federal, you got the post office, um state properties, you got Leo G. Martin um Newton Welsley Hospital is everyone uh that's an institution paying yes uh is the um

is my recol recollection and this is from before I was on the council that uh when this was set up uh Newton Cemetery was exempted uh are they still exempt and if so are they the only entity in the city that doesn't have to pay based on their impervious service. Uh I I do um you're correct, counselor, they were exempted. I assume that they still are. I don't uh recall there ever being any conversation about changing them, but nobody else, as far as you know, is exempt. Not that I know of.

Okay. And on the um the residential storm water fee, it's a it's a flat rate. you know, with with water and sewer, you have the um well, I guess sewer is derived from water, but you have the potential to conserve water usage, but there's not really anything a homeowner can do to um reduce the storm water fee, which is the same regardless of how big your property is or how much percentage it is um hardscape versus um greenscape. Is there any thought or is it considered too impractical to um make that variable based on like give give people uh a lower fee if they're they have a higher percentage of green space say

so um the res yeah the residential fee is not based at all on impervious area. It's it's the same fee for um any any homeowner. Well, right. That's that's what I'm asking about, which I think it's it's people can't do anything about it. They can't do anything to improve their property to lower the fee, whereas they can sort of conserve on water to reduce their water fee. Has any thought been given to making it variable? So, actually, if I if I may, Commissioner, do you want to take this uh first, but then I want to follow it up with

I can attempt to take it and Tom can jump in if I'm off. Um, I believe if you put in a storm water management system when you're constructing or redeveloping, you do qualify for a discount in your storm water fees.

And and if if you qualify for any of our tax deferral pro our tax deferral program, you also uh qualify for a 30% I believe it is uh reduction in your water, sewer, storm water fee. Okay, thank you. But that's that's as far as it goes. Just if you have if basically if it's a tear down and they had to put in a storm water containment system they get what is the break that they get on the rate? Oh, I think it it is determined by the system and the amount of storm water retained. Not all systems are built the same. And it also if you're putting impervious surface that changes it versus a like a basin or rain garden. Tom, am I summing that up correctly?

Yes. It's a system of size of the system and what it's capturing. I I guess at some point doesn't have to be tonight. I'd be curious to learn more about that. Thank you. Oh, and councelor, just to add, it doesn't have to be just during redevelopment. People have put them in without doing a redevelopment, even renovations. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have councelor Golden. And then I don't have any other hands, so I'd like to see uh after this um question and comments if we could have a motion to open the public hearing. Councelor Golden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to expedite this because I I I don't want to take up I know there's a lot of lot of um items to come uh throughout the evening, but uh I am interested in sort of teasing out more of the MS4, the permitting, the effect of the Commonwealth's policies on on uh the storm water numbers. Um it's a profound effect and it's coming from on high. So, I I I'd like to drill down that on that eventually uh in some detail, but I don't think um I'm going to subject everyone to that right now. But I I do just want to echo support for a couple things that have already been mentioned because I think they are important. I would like to um see an exploration of the irrigation issue that council Roach just raised. Um I am conceptually uh very supportive of the notion of shifting some of the burden from water usage inside the house which of course is for human well-being survival. Um it is an absolute human need versus uh the the choice of irrigating one's lawn externally. would like to explore uh whether or not some of that burden can be sh shifted in a meaningful sense and also would be very interested to know more about uh the golf courses effects um on uh the the total revenue generated and the the costs associated uh with them. I I can't even I'm not even entirely sure how many golf courses there are. Newton, I can think of four.

Four. Oh, the public I am thinking of the public. Thank you. I mean the they're the they're the they're the they're the they're the vast bits of acorage. So it would be interesting to understand uh the impact they're having on all of this. So um very eager to see what can come of that conversation. Thank you. Councelor Dubed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Lemieux, if you wouldn't mind letting the mayor know that I am joining councelor Roach's question, I'd appreciate that. Um, and I also, maybe this is obvious to everybody else, but I just wanted to make sure that I'm understanding it correctly. Golf courses by their nature, I'm guessing, end up paying the irrigation rate for irrigating their turf. Is that correct? Uh, do they have irrigation meters? Commissioner

a number of them are on wells are on wells. So, okay. So, they don't I would have to verify, but I think they all met B. Tom, do you know if they are all in wells? I suspect so. Most of them have wells. Some have connections, but I do not believe they get the irrigation rate. So, then what rate do they pay based on the tiers? So, they'd be most of it be in tier three.

Tier three. Okay. Thank you. And I guess I I have another question. I might have missed the answer. Um, it sound it sounded like Miss Lemieux that you were saying that part of the increase here has to do with the anticipated cost of several things but including something to do with Bolo's Pond. That's correct, right? Yes. I guess I'm struggling to understand if it if it's the case that we have not yet determined what we're doing with Bolo's Pond, how we're planning for that cost as part of this increase.

So, I I don't have I I do not have a cost yet for what Willow's Pond will be, but whatever it is, um I'm anticipating that we will be bonding it. And so we will certainly incur um I would assume debt service charges as we move forward. The the calculation though, I don't want you to think that I plugged in a number for Bull's Pond. The calculation was more uh if we were going to stay within a 4.9% increase, how much did we need to increase water? How much did we need to increase sewer? and then the balance of the increase we gave to storm water knowing that we have all these um large expenditures ahead of us. So it it was more of a a backing into um the percentage increase in storm water as opposed to building it up based on the different projects that we have.

Okay, understood. Thank you, Councelor Liry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just a comment um kind of related to what uh councelor Golden had just raised. Um you know, we have a $500 million uh expense going through 2038 uh for our phosphorus removal. And of course, I am, you know, very supportive of removing phosphorus from the Charles River. Um, however, we're held to that standard while the while the Mass Water Resource Authority um is allowing CSOS, combined sewer overflows, which is raw sewage going into the Charles River to save money. So, it's a difference between 1.3 billion versus 4.5 billion. And I just don't understand that at all. Both of them are very um detrime detrimental to the Charles. one is a real public health issue and the other one is a long-term degradation of the river. So, I just would like to raise that to the mayor as a thought because obviously I agree that state and federal dollars are needed um and are needed to cities and towns to really do the to clean keep the Charles River to improve the quality of the water. Um and putting this kind of burden on cities and towns is just completely unreasonable and unfair. Councelor Oliver, I think we're ready for a motion.

Great. Like to make a motion to open the public hearing. Councelor Oliver has moved to open the public hearing. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of opening the public hearing, please say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? I declare the public hearing open. Do we have anyone present who wishes to speak? Okay. Um, seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councelor Lucas. Move to close the public hearing.

Councelor Lucas has moved to close the public hearing. Any discussion on that before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor of closing the public hearing, please say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? I declare the public hearing closed. Uh this would be the time for any further discussion or questions or a motion on the rates. The proposed rates uh of course before us on the screen and also printed on our agenda. Councelor Liry. I'll make a motion to approve. Motion to approve by councelor Liry. Do we have any discussion on the motion? Councelor Albbright.

So, um, councelor Roach raised an item raised an issue over is it I guess the question is is it too late to to deal with the irrigation um rates and to look at it and study it a little further or do we have to pass this tonight? Uh, well, we have a hand from councelor Oliver. So, do you want to weigh in on that or Okay, why don't we let councelor Oliver weigh in on that and then it looked like Miss Lemieux might be ready to uh comment as well. Go ahead.

I I'm also uh very open to the conversations that I think a lot of people here have raised. I don't think it's quite appropriate to ask I mean we're we are basically asking to go back to the beginning erase everything rethink it and begin to address five or six different significant changes to how the city approaches water sewer rates how we create the tiers what we do with golf courses no just to be clear I was only talking about the irrigation rate

I understand that but I don't I think what I've heard from our CFO is if you start to pull one of those threads the whole thing kind of changes its shape. Now granted irrigation might be separate or sorry what I heard earlier was also sewer was separate from water separate from storm water but once you start to talk about changing the irrigation rates for split metering for example and like all it's my sense that all of these things are interconnected and I'm all for that conversation personally I don't see how we get through that thoughtfully and appropriately and with public input. it. Not that there was much tonight, but it does seem to me like we're really creating a much bigger question for ourselves than I think it's fair to address properly in the next 10 days, I think, is when we have to have a budget approved. But that's just my 10 cents. That's not meant as a stopper. It's just meant as a I don't know how we get through that in 10 days.

Miss Lemieux and Councelor Kis.

Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I would actually ask that you um pass the rates asis for this year. Um actually on my summer projects list um the mayor doesn't even know this yet but I will tell you and I didn't want to muddy the waters. Um I actually think we need to take a hard look at the storm water rates. Um and so on my summer project list, looking at the storm water rates is um a big concern of mine. When we when we moved to this imperous area model and and having residents pay the single rate, we were doing that on a $5 million fund where now if we're contemplating going up to this being a 15 or a $20 million fund. What we don't capture um is when you think about all the roadways in the city, we have 300 miles of roadway um that we that everyone uses and the only impervious area that we're capturing um are the parcels of land that we own as a city and then of course what Boston College um owns. And I think we need to take a hard look at does our model even look right? Because as we move to a much larger um revenue stream, I think it's going to become um an unbearable risk for the two largest property owners which aren't necessarily causing all of the issues and the phosphate that's phosphorus that's going into the Charles. So I think we need I think you all raised great points and there are even more to be um there's more to look at even beyond what you all mentioned. Um, so what I would like to do is take this on as a summer project by the administration and between um, you know, financial services and Josh and and DPW

and utilities and have all of us work together and try to figure out um, what the best proposal is and probably come back to you, my guess would be in the February time frame, well ahead of when we would be setting the rates for next year um, with the different strategies that we think appropriate taking into account all of um all of the different comments. So that would that would be my request. Okay, that sounds that sounds fine. Thanks very much. Councelor Kais then Roach. All I was going to say is if you want to make it more official, Council Albright, you could dock at an item. Just

Council Roach. Um, so I feel duly chasened for not having raised the irrigation rate earlier because I had thought about it, but I'm new here. Um, oh, it's meant heard it. Um, uh, I do feel like Ms. Lemieux gave us a bit of an answer there where she said that it would be possible to, um, lower the the first tier and raise the highest the irrigation tier. that doesn't s that doesn't sound terribly complicated to me and sounds like a pretty good policy response. So if if and I appreciate that there's a lot of moving pieces here, but those two pieces do seem to be relatively straightforward and possibly connected. So if that is a calculation, obviously there's a policy question that the mayor would have to address about whether raising the irrigation rates makes sense. Um but if if the offset would be lowering the lowest tier rates, that seems to be a calculation that's relatively straightforward. So question to you, Miss Lemieux. Is that in fact something that is doable and in the next 10 days?

I don't believe it is. I know it seems it seems um easy, but but every single um person who pays a storm water fee um gets that lower rate. So that that's where we have the most sales, if you will, of water is in that lowest rate. We are probably if we were to raise the and this I'm just guessing off the back of um off the top of my head. If we were to raise um the irrigation rate by another 10% say it is probably a penny or two off of the lowest tier. It's not going to be much. I don't think it's going to accomplish what you're really looking for. But I think if we address all of this and come back to you with with a a comprehensive plan for what we ought to be doing, um I I I certainly believe that would be the best way. I don't think we could within 10 days put this together.

Okay, I hear that. I just want to clarify one thing, which is my goal with raising the irrigation rate is not necessarily to lower the other rates, but to discourage water use for irrigation. So if there's even if there's a penny or no offset, um it would still have value. But I hear you and um I accept the conclusion. Council Federal,

uh thank you uh chair. Uh two points. One is that uh I am I guess I'm a little surprised that there are so few people who were here for the public hearing. I think we are going to find residents pretty uh viferous when they find that our storm water rate has gone up 34% or 32% whatever that is in that increase and uh so I'm concerned about what we did to make certain that people in the city knew that this was going to be discussed secondly and quickly when you talk about irrigation rates I would love to know how many of those people have irrigation rates are growing food in their backyards. I think uh particularly given the costs of food this day these days, I'll bet a bunch of people are using this money for uh for food gardens and so I wouldn't be quite so cavalier about raising those rates. Thank you.

We have a motion on the table from councelor Liry to approve. I don't see any further hands at this time. Do we have any further discussion before we vote? Seeing none, did you want to do this on a voice vote or I think you said roll call, Mr. Clerk? Okay, let's take a roll call, please. Albbright, hold on one sec. We had a clarification question from councelor Damabet. Is this a straw vote? No.

This is an official vote. Uh, at the conclusion of this meeting, we're going to go into the full council meeting. I am going to ask for a suspension of the rules at that point to report out at this item for which there's no written report where we will take our formal council meeting. So this is this is the end of the show with respect to water, sewer, and storm water for this fiscal year. Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk. Please proceed. Councelor Albbright. Hi. Councelor Baker. Councelor Bixby. I councelor block I councelor Charm I

councelor Damabed I councelor Frell abstain

councelor gets um I councelor Golden councelster Gordon hi councelor Greenberg I councelor Gman I councelor Irish I councelor Kalis yes councelor Kelly I councelor Kinsman councelor Liry I councelor Lucas I councelor Malake I councelor Mikley I councelor Roach I councelor Silver I

councelor Right. I President Oliver I on this vote the eyes are 21 one abstension and one two I'm forgive me two absent. Motion carries.

Thank you Mr. Clerk. We are now going to go on to our initial review of the CIP and the supplemental CIP. Those are items 1-26 and 154-26. The capital improvement plan and the supplemental capital improvement plan. Uh let's see. The city's presentation is going to be made by Josh Morris, our chief operating officer. We're going to hear an initial presentation by COO Morse. We will have a round of counselor questions and comments. There is also a public hearing noticed and required on these items. So after our first round of questions, we'll uh ask for a motion to open up the public hearing. At the close of that, if there's any further discussion, you'll have another opportunity and then um we aren't going to take any votes on the CIP or the supplemental CIP tonight. This is our sort of primary opportunity to all review it together. Uh but if anyone has resolutions or further discussion on the CIP or the supplemental CIP, those will be in order throughout the process and we'll take a formal vote as we get into the committee of the whole uh which begins this Thursday night. So CO Morris, please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Uh counselor. So um this evening I'm going to go through a a relatively brief presentation. Um, I believe almost all of you, if not all of you, got a good um a good update on our capital projects throughout the individual budget presentations in committee. Um, so I apologize if this is at all redundant, but at the same time, I know not every counselor serves on every committee, so there's there could be some materials that you didn't have the opportunity to see. Um, I also recognize that we have um some newer counselors in the audience. So, I'm going to briefly cover some basics as well. But I will just say uh upfront um for any of the new counselors and of course this uh this offer stands for any of our existing as well. But um I'd be happy to meet with any of you one- on-one uh to go through the CIP and the CIP process I think more importantly um at your leisure. So that is a standing offer anytime. and I'd be happy to do that. So, um without further ado, we'll get right into this. So, uh this uh the supplemental CIP, so the the CIP is presented two times a year. Once in the fall, which is our full CIP after, uh a significant amount of work that occurs over the summer, and then we do a supplemental CIP that is uh submitted in the spring along with the budget. Uh typically, and this is true here as well, the supplemental CIP is pretty s uh pretty straightforward. We don't make a lot of changes in the supplemental. Um we update anything that is that is changed. If a project is completed, it comes off. Um if there are any critical projects that um that we need to adjust priorities on, we will do that. Um if we're anticipating moving on those projects between the supplemental CIP and the full CIP in the fall. Uh in the case of this uh supplemental CIP, there were uh very few changes as outlined in the cover letter. Um for the no new projects added uh a few projects

slightly changed in priority and a few completed projects taken off the list, but otherwise um as is typical, the supplemental CIP this this spring is relatively unchanged from last fall. Uh in total, there's 602 projects with a total value of 1.42 42 billion with about $596 million funded now or within the next five years from a variety of different funding sources. Um I just want to recap this is this came up in committee a little bit for folks that um that don't know the Newton Capital Improvement Plan history. Uh back in 2011 uh under Mayor Warren, the team worked with SEA KL SEA Kleinfelder um associates who did our building assessment. Uh the buildings are only one portion of the overall CIP, but it's a large portion. Um so they did a complete building assessment of all of our buildings. This was coupled with recent building assessments done by HMFH architects for Newton public schools. Um and those that has also been updated with information provided by the Massachusetts School Building Authority and a few uh subsequent updates uh that were done through Newton public schools as well. But from a high level standpoint uh the CIP is based on a risk of failure and impact of failure methodology. If you look in the supplemental CIP towards the very back of the book, uh almost the last few pages, you will see uh a process that's laid out for how we evaluate each and every project in the CIP. Um there are risk of failure, impact of failure, and then criteria that all have waitings. Um and this is ultimately how each project is evaluated. Uh we do this through multiple different criteria um as we move through the CIP. And again, I won't get into too much detail here, but this would be a good one for uh any of you if you'd like to. Again, I'd be happy to go through kind of the process that we go through for each and every one of these.

Um just from a high level, I just want to point out we had a few projects complete and wrap up over this past year. The Lincoln Elliott Elementary School project is is all done. Project came in uh on time and on budget. Um, I should say on budget based on what was approved by the city council. That was one of those projects that uh that we did in the middle of the the pandemic. So, escalation did increase the project's um budget as it moved through early design, but once the budget was approved, we came in under that. Uh, the Cooper Center for Active Living project. Uh, this project wrapped up as well. I'm sure anybody in Newton is well aware of this one. Uh, this was at the parade just yesterday. Um, so that was uh it was quite the scene to see everybody up there on the balcony up on the deck. Um, now we've got some projects that are underway. Uh, countryside school project. This one will be wrapping up this uh this winter. We'll be moving kids in over the holiday break. Things are looking great over there. Just as a reminder, once we move kids in, uh, we will, uh, abate and then demolish the existing countryside school, which will then get converted into, uh, our fields and and open space. the Horus man school project. Uh this one is well underway and slated to be completed later this summer. Uh so that we can move staff and students back from 191 Pearl Street, the former Lincoln Elliot School, um back into their uh renovated and added to building at 225 Nevada Street. Franklin School project. Uh this one is also moving right along. It's it's a bit of a competition between Franklin and Countryside to see who can get uh finished first. Um but uh we're on track with this to wrap up uh probably February vacation. Um but certainly this winter. Um and this will be this is something we're already working with Newton public schools on. Similar to Countryside, what will happen is students will staff and students will

move over from the existing school, which is just to the right of this picture, uh into their new building. And then we will abate and demolish the old building and complete our fields projects and the playground installation. Uh, I should mention that all three of those projects are on time and on budget. Um, we've got some new stuff coming down the line and this has been something that we've started to talk about and it's reflected in a lot of our materials. Um, the Ward Elementary School Police Headquarters and Newton South High School projects we are we just went through public facilities and finance committees uh seeking feasibility funding uh to begin those projects. The feasibility design phase. There were a couple questions here that I thought would be helpful for the the entire group. Feasibility uh design phase is where we get answers to all the questions that are burning in our heads right now. Um so it's always interesting. People ask a lot of questions rightfully so and the answer for most of them is that's that's what we find out in feasibility. Um there there was a question that came in as to whether why all of our feasibility uh requests are identical in total cost even though the projects uh are each different. We actually model pretty much everything we do off of the Massachusetts School Building Authority um processes at the the state level. And as part of that we our feasibility design fee uh when we advertise it is set at $1.25 million. Um this is often times and this is a max um this is oftentimes a lead loss for the design and owners project manager teams that come in to work with us with the understanding that um they have a good shot at landing the much larger project. So um it kind of is it's an industry standard at least in the Massachusetts area and we stick with that as with all of our projects. We have it does increase slightly over time. When we

started with Angel, I believe we were at about 750,000. It went up to a million as we move forward and now we're at about 1.25 million. But we do tend to to keep those things static. If we don't utilize all of those design funds, they just roll over into the next phase and they reduce the uh the next ask, if you will, for the total project. Um, as I mentioned here too, uh, Underwood and Brown Underwood Elementary and Brown Middle School. So, for everybody's information, if you uh if you didn't see it in committee, um I will be presenting to the Ward and Underwood school communities on May 26th, Tuesday, uh at 6:00 p.m. Um ultimately to make uh to explain my my the recommendation that I will be making to the school committee on June 1st with respect to uh the question of whether or not we should consolidate the Warden Underwood elementary schools. Um, as I put out in that invitation to the Warden Underwood communities and shared with the city council, uh, my recommendation is going to be to not consolidate the two elementary schools. Um, there's a lot to to go through. I won't do that this evening. Um, it's it's a pretty lengthy analysis that I did over the last four months. Um, but I think it will be pretty explanatory once I lay that all out for everyone. Um, I also recognized that with that recommendation and understanding that the school committee uh had ultimately in their order of priority with respect to Warden and Underwood, Ward was supposed and is going first. The question that will ultimately be asked and I'm prepared to discuss um both there and then have a discussion with the school committee is um what what is the schedule for the Underwood Elementary School and um somewhat tied to to all of this is what is our plan for Brown Middle School which is something we started to talk about um in committee at both public facilities and finance. What I will say

is the administration and Mayor Larredo, we are committed to moving forward with Ward South Police Headquarters, Underwood and Brown middle schools. The question remains the speed at which we um tackle both Underwood and Brown. The the working theory right now is that the Brown Middle School would be a good project to uh submit a statement of interest on uh and seek MSBA or Massachusetts School Building Authority funding. Um, as folks who've been around the block a bit know, uh, it oftentimes takes several attempts with the state to secure that MSBA funding. Furthermore, we're still in the midst of the countryside school project, which is, uh, funded by MSBA. So, they MSBA historically uh, and quite consistently will not invite districts in if they're in the midst of a project that was that is already funded by their program. So, we need really need to wrap up countryside before we have a good shot of getting in. Um, but it is going to be my recommendation that we start submitting uh statement of interest for the Brown Middle School um starting next winter, understanding that it could take a few attempts before we get invited in. The question remains um you know, at what point do we move forward with the Underwood Elementary School? I will make it very clear to the council tonight and I'm going to make it very clear to the Underwood and Ward communities in a few weeks. Again, we are committed to moving forward. Um, we are still working on the overall plan with respect to how quickly that happens. Um, I will be as as strong in my statements as I can be. Um, but there's a lot of moving pieces here. This is this this is a lot of work. Um, and I think the other thing that is important to point out is that we only have one one elementary swing school. Um, and that is something certainly we need to consider um when we're thinking about the Ward and Underwood elementary

school projects. Um the Ward school project, just to remind everybody, unlike Countryside and Franklin where the fields adjacent to those schools are school properties, the property adjacent to the Ward School is parks and wreck land. So, um that is something that we would have to consider if we were ever to to look at um building on site and keeping the ward school occupied. So, lots of moving pieces there. Um there's going to be a lot more discussion coming, but I just wanted to put that out there. I'll also point out that um our administration has continued the commitment uh to moving forward with various projects such as our fire apparatus replacement plan. Um engine 7 has been received. Ladder 3 is about a year out and engine 4 will be uh is slated to be ordered this July, of course, pending city council approval. Um what we're seeing is that the lead time on the apparatus has become longer and longer. Uh right now the national lead time on these is about 3 years. So what that means is um we have to get into into the queue much sooner. Um and that's part of the reason why we're going to be working with you on engine 4 here. I'll also just take this uh chance to just point out that while I'm focused on a lot of larger projects, there's a lot of smaller ones that are moving through as well. As the committee saw, we're moving through moving forward with um the SCBA harness replacements. um you know the Jaws of Life replacements, those are smaller projects. Some of them true capital, others uh not as much, but all of those projects are are quite important, not just the big ones. Um paving. So I just want to point out if anybody didn't catch it in the uh the CIP, uh included in the supplemental CIP, I believe for the first time, we are we have published our five-year paving plan. Uh this is available on the city's website as well. Uh, so this

covers uh FY27 through FY31. I didn't list I didn't uh grab all the screenshots for uh tonight, but I did just want to point out our FY27 paving plan. This is all based on our PCI um and also factoring in other work that's happening in the neighborhood. So you've got uh the previous slide was FY27, a little bit of FY27 here, and then it rolls into FY28 and right on down the line. Um, I think this is important. Uh, you'll see at the bottom we say this report is intended for general planning andformational purposes only. Basically, what we're saying is it's subject to change, especially the further out in the plan you get. Um, there's a lot of moving pieces and we are uh constantly updating the plan based on the condition index that's out there. Um, a little bit of this is a little repetitive for those who went through the uh the committee meetings. Um, so DPW has been uh working through our paving plan, the $9.5 million a year. Um, and they are continuing to go strong on uh improving our overall PCI, which is up, I think, more than 10 points since the program started across the city. Um, so that is uh they're they're doing an excellent job out there. Um, we do have some work we're going to be doing with them with respect to how we're coordinating a lot of the different work here. Um, you know, paving is important, but also keeping a a close eye on when, you know, when and to what extent complete streets plays a role in this. Um, making sure we're tying in, not physically tying in, but uh, looping in uh, our utilities division with respect to storm water. U, making sure that we're well thought out with respect to our intersections and our curb cuts. U, there's a lot of moving pieces there, our street trees, our curbing. Um so there there's going to be a lot of work that we're doing. We've recently reinstituted uh the infrastructure cluster which is an

internal group that brings all those stakeholders to the table so that we're all talking um and making sure that we're coordinating our work. Um I think that that's going to be I know that's going to be imperative as we move forward. Um there so our transportation network improvement uh program funding as I mentioned $9.5 million but what a lot of people may not realize is that this includes our traffic calming and intersection um improvements and our pavement work uh markings as well. So a lot of the attention rightfully so is focused on streets and sidewalks but there are some other elements that are included in this in this program. Um, so from a transportation uh and and trafficcoming standpoint outside of just paving, uh, we have a handful of projects that uh that we're currently working on. I won't read through all of these, but um, I'm going to skip through water, sewer, storm water fairly quickly because we just talked about all these, but I'm happy to go back to any of these slides. Um, I will just hit on storm water. One thing that I think is that that was mentioned that I really want to point out that I think I'm really excited about um and here and I'll explain why I think you should be too is uh that we're working on the city's storm water um capital plan and our maintenance plan. Um, this is as we start thinking about climate change and the more frequent uh 100red-year storms and the more frequent um surge storms where we're getting several inches in a very short period of time. Um, we need to be more resilient as a community uh to help minimize the effects of clim of of those rain events stemming from climate change. So, what does that really mean? It means that we need to do a better job at investing in our storm water systems. um both from a capital and a maintenance standpoint so that we are being more resilient so that we are uh helping to uh minimize the likelihood of flooding in our

residential and commercial properties um and of course the damages that come with that. So we've got a a robust plan an awesome team working together to make that happen. It's a herculean task um and this is going to be something that we really are going to be pushing hard on over the next year. Same thing uh as I as we talked about earlier. These are just a lot of our FY27 priorities. Going to go through some of our fields projects. Uh this is the athletic field improvements over at Albamar. Um if folks haven't been by very recently, about half of the large soil p piles are uh on their way out. Um and we have a plan to remove the rest here in short order. Uh we will be ready for the Fourth of July celebrations. We're excited about that and the project will be um substantially complete by the end of September. September 30th to be exact. Um so we are on track over there. This is a project that uh I am uh keeping on top of with our team at parks and wreck. um because this is a a high use field and we're excited to turn this one back over to the community and uh also to the FAD school. Uh Burough School Fields project. Uh folks probably saw uh the mayor's announcement the other day. Um we are going to be removing the fence and opening the field up for uh kind of passive recreation use. We're going to hold off a little bit longer on the organized league play. Um, right now we're looking at July, uh, probably mid to late July to remove the fence. We've got to get an application of, uh, weed control down first. And, uh, there'll be more details on that coming, but again, uh, looking to remove that fence this summer so that we can get that field back open for the neighborhood, um, and

certainly for the schools in the fall. the uh if folks haven't been by, the walking track is already up. Um it looks great over there. So looking forward to seeing that fence come down. Uh Mc McGrathfield project. So uh this one I checked with our parks and recck team. They're looking at uh bidding this out this fall um with the bulk of the work starting uh next spring. So uh this one is a coming soon uh project. Um, speaking of coming soon, I just wanted to to plant the seed on a few of these. Um, we the so the mayor has uh has said he said it many times as a counselor, maybe even as far back as an alderman. Um, and it certainly is committed to it as a mayor. Uh, we are going to be looking in short order to begin the process of a comprehensive plan for Crystal Lake. Um, this is not just the bath house. This is the the park, the beach, the bath house, um, and the lake itself. So, it's going to be uh a holistic look at all of it uh to ensure that we're striking the right balance, working with the community and the various stakeholders um and delivering something that we can all be excited and proud of. Uh also coming soon is the uh we're going to be looking to to tackle the Bobby Braceland uh project. So, good size playground and fields over there. This would be one that we are likely going to submit a pre-proposal with uh the CPC for CPA funds. Um I would I would think that this is probably a good summer project for us. So it this one will be will be getting going pretty soon. And then also we're going to start looking at Peligrini Park. Um the as folks may may know the field lights over there um are in tough shape. they need to be replaced and um the fields in the the park could certainly be improved. At the same time, I want to be very clear here. Um we need to work with the community to to fully understand what

this project looks like. And maybe most importantly, we need to figure out how we um do whatever this project is while not interfering with all the incredible events um that occur on that field. Um and it's also a field who has some very close direct utters. So, we're going to have to work with our neighbors as well as we start to think about um what this project looks like. But, I just wanted to mention that that that's something that we're talking about soon, too. That's big picture. Um I'm happy to answer any and all questions. Uh I will close where I began. The capital planning process is something that is robust. There's a lot of work that happens behind the scenes. Um it's not behind the scenes because we don't want it to be public. It's just a massive amount of work. So, uh again, I will extend that that um opportunity to any of our city councilors and any of our residents who are listening today. If anybody would like to get a better sense as to how we do our capital planning and how all of these things come to be, um you are more than welcome to reach out to me anytime. My cell phone number is 617-5942564. So, Newton residents, city councilors, call, text anytime. We'd be happy to walk you through anytime you'd like. With that, I'll open it up to questions.

Bold move, COO Morris. I like it. Uh, okay. Hold on. Let me just uh jot down a couple hands here. Uh, we have counselor Damubed, then Lucas, Gordon, and Kelly, then Bixby and Roach. And uh, keep your hands up if you want to get my attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, CO Morris, for your presentation. I very much appreciate uh the meticulous mathematical scientific nature of the CIP and how projects are prioritized and determined. Based on that, I had a couple of questions um based and based on the cover letter that you submitted. Uh when I asked in committee um in the public facilities committee if any other projects had moved around that we should be aware of, you said, "Nope, just the ones in the cover letter," which is great. makes it very easy to review. But I guess I'm I'm just kind of wondering if you could perhaps walk us through the math of the two projects that have changed significantly. Um my understanding is that the ward and Underwood and this is I don't want this to be interpreted as me saying that this should not happen. I'm just trying to understand how it happens uh and how the math works which factors change. So, the Warden and Underwood schools from the last CIP or two went from previously being priority number 32 or 35 to number 16. And the new police headquarters in the 2025, I believe CIP was number 116 and then I couldn't find it in the 2026 CIP. Um I saw sort of split up projects having to do with the police headquarters. Can you just And their priority numbers or their priority factor for the Warden Underwood schools was 43.7 now it's 56.7 and for police station was previously 21.4 and is now 56.9. Can you just walk me through the math a little?

I know we have program in the schools so maybe that's the new math.

Um so sure thing. No, those are very fair questions. So, what I would say is I'll take uh police first. I was just pulling up the CIP, but so I could get you the exact number in the FY 27 CIP. Um, essentially, if you look at last year's CIP, what you will see is there were a whole bunch of projects at police headquarters that were broken out into small chunks. It could be HVAC or masonry, plumbing, restrooms, um scattered throughout the CIP. Um the the train of thought under the previous administration was that we would tackle those smaller projects uh as needed over time before uh the larger police facility project happened. um with the new administration um looking at the approach it was determined that it made more sense to do the larger police project and I don't want to say that it it was a complete surprise either because for many counselors who joined us on the tour I think last year um and then again this year uh last year we started talking about the larger project and using ARPA funds we began the design uh for the larger project. Although at that point we had not yet determined or defined what that larger project would be because we hadn't really defined it. Um we didn't make any major changes to the capital improvement plan. As that moved forward and as we did our tours of the city council and then with the new administration, we took uh we started to better define what it was we were looking to do with the police facility project. Um as such what we what you will see in the the supplemental CIP is that the uh larger project was moved up um and then what would ultimately happen over this fall

is all those smaller projects in police headquarters um would likely come off the list in favor of the larger project that would uh replace all of those. So, um, that's a long way of saying that police headquarters moved up because we were no longer focusing on kind of a a longer term phased approach towards upgrades at police headquarters. Um, so it's a bit a bit of a balancing of the scales. Um, on the school projects, uh, with respect to Ward and Underwood, um, Councelor Gman will appreciate this. I've worked for the city for 18 years and Ward was next on the list for many of those 18 years. Um it kept getting moved down because of a lot of reasons. Um but not because the condition of the building was getting better um or even staying the same. Uh it it was especially as of late it was I what I would call artificially suppressed in priority ranking because we were as a community and specifically the school committee as a body were grappling with this question of enrollment consolidation and and what the plan should be to address those two schools. Um again I want to say with one of them already reach having uh reached its centennial and the other very close there is absolutely no question of need here um more just a question of getting answers to those very lofty high um policy questions that would then in turn uh adjust the ranking. So, that's a long way of saying that we had uh we adjusted the ranking with the understanding that um that I would be making this recommendation to the school committee and that with the timing of the supplemental CIP and understand that we want to get started on the design this summer, uh we wanted the supplemental

CIP to reflect uh the speed at which we would be moving forward on those projects. Okay. Thank you. That that helps. And I have I have two one clarification maybe and then a a statement I guess. So for the police headquarters I understand the you know sort of many small projects became one project it found its place back. Is the priority factor therefore an aggregation of all of the small projects or was it sort of um reassessed given deteriorations and anticipated remaining life of the building and that kind of thing?

I wouldn't no it's it's a a fair question. I wouldn't say it was necessary reassessed. Um we reassess our our projects all the time. Um I think that where you often times find uh changes in the priority ranking um the condition can change ever so slightly but in a building of that age it doesn't change rapidly. Um I think where you see more movement is meeting the department mission. Um and you know with respect to that when you have a new chief coming in and a new mayor coming in evaluating the department mission and how high that criteria is ranked for example and there are a few others where where this would be true too. um that does become slightly subjective based on the leadership that is in place, especially when you're looking at comparing a kind of a phase renovation as was the plan in the past to a a a new or major renovation um and addition project.

Understood. Thank you. Yeah, I guess based on that and something else that you said, I guess I'm just slightly I I I have developed a lot of faith and admiration for our CIP as a um kind of scientific document and the words artificial suppression um make me a little anxious because it means that artificial elevation is theoretically also possible and I don't I I think that this should be a an unbiased mathematical document that helps us determine um how we go about things. So, it's helpful for me to understand a little bit more about how we've gotten to where we've gotten to, which personally I think are, you know, reasonable and good things. I'm just trying it's just good to understand. So, thank you, Mr. Morris.

Thank you. I would just add one thing on that. Um and and I I do certainly hear you with respect to the potential for artificial elevation, but what I would say is for example this um the the Warden Underwood projects with the department just sticking with the department mission for example um I can absolutely see um the concern there. But what I would say is when the school committee for example is uh grappling with what should be the next school several years back. Should it be Lincoln Elliott? Should it be Ward? Should it be Underwood? And with the understanding at that time that Ward and Underwood enrollment was uh were um you know low and at the time declining the it's not a question of artificially suppressing or or reducing the um risk of failure or the impact of failure as much as it is for example that department mission. um that is a criteria that helps capture um kind of policy level decisions that are made by the body that is responsible for that particular item. So in the case of Warden and Underwood for example, you you we are trying to reflect that the condition of the asset and the impact of failure of the of the asset u are not changed. But for some of those criteria um they might be slightly different. If for example a school committee is waiting to make a decision on the overall capital plan pending the outcome of an analysis of consolidation for example.

Thank you for clarifying Miss Lemieux. I see you have your hand up so why don't you go ahead and then we have councelor Lucas followed by councelor Kelly.

Thank you madam chair. I will make a very brief comment. Um what I what I would say based on this conversation is there's probably a better chance of a project getting suppressed because our needs are so great and as we move forward with any of these projects if we real if we um realize that we have barriers to um completion of projects they in a sense get suppressed. So the police headquarters for instance um earlier in the prior administr administration we spent a lot of time looking to see if there was somewhere else in the city where we could site the police department. So it has been a very high priority of the city uh for quite some time. the condition and and the facility itself has been a high priority, but we've um taken a few different paths to get where we are right now with that project. And so I think as Josh was saying, so not only when the school department is grappling with enrollment issues and and trying to figure out what they need to be doing um for the best next step for the district, we have the same um fluctuations, if you will, on the municipal side as well. So it's not that the police department, the headquarters was was less important along the way. we were researching different um alternatives uh and you know things play out when we research things and so I would say that the suppression almost happens because we get far enough in an investigation and decide that we can't maybe perhaps uh make a move that we want to and in the meantime something else is bubbling up that we have a clear pathway forward for.

Thank you Mr. Lemu. think the additional transparency and clarifications are really helpful. Thank you. We have councelor Lucas then Kelly. Thank you. I'll be as brief as possible. Um I have a question on the uh police station. Um some of my questions have already been asked and answered, but one of them was the funding source for the new police station. It says bonding. Um I was always under the impression that we needed a debt exclusion override. I just want to verify if that's still the case.

Councelor Lucas, that is definitely still the case. Um, in this case, both can be true. Um, we will need to bond to that project. Uh, and yes, it would require a debt exclusion override.

Okay. Thanks. The other thing was on one of your slides, it just didn't make any sense to me. You were going over street paving and you had Low A on there from Comm to Austin Street. Now, I take low lab every time I um come to city hall and I drove on it this evening. The road seems fine to me. Maybe it's me, but um what was the um PCI rating? I think it's PCI. Uh what was the rating for that um part of uh low?

So, the overall stretch of that uh section was had a PCI of 74.5. So the overall is quite high. Um but this is an ultra thin um bonded wearing course. So what I'm going to sus what I'm going to guess and I will confirm and get back to you on is that it's a relatively small area within that small stretch. Um but I will double check and I'll get you that answer. Commissioner Sullivan has um popped on here and would like to add something. Go ahead, Commissioner. This is actually a preservation treatment to ensure that the road stays good through many years to come.

Okay. All right. Thanks. It just seemed all right. I think I got it now. All set. Share. Thank you. We have Councelor Kelly and Councelor Bixby. Thank you. I'll be even briefer. My question was asked and answered, so I'll pass for now. Thank you. Councelor Bixby then councelor Roach.

Thank you. Um and co Morris I guess building off of the conversation we had and I think it was finance uh about the precache for the feasibility studies and your answers to councelor Diamond bed just now. What are the plans to align RCIP with the school committee or NPS's goals on the school building projects and these different things? You know, we've talked a lot about just the school community's expectations, families expectations for what what might be happening in the future. Um, can you share a little bit about your thinking uh how we how we make sure that that communication can happen? And I know you've started it just now with the Ward Underwood. Um, but how do we expand that beyond just the projects that are immediately in front of us?

Yeah. No, it's a it's a good question. I think and I I I I will preface this by saying I'm going to speak out of turn a bit here because this is a lot of this is the school committee. Um, but I I will I will do my best. Um, I think that there are a few things at play here. uh with respect to the the items that we're talking about right now, this will be part of the discussion that we have with the school committee on June 1st and uh the subsequent vote should they be ready on June 15th. Um but for the broader question that you're asking about with respect to overall capital planning, um I would say many years ago the process was a little different. um there was more involvement with our school committee in um the CIP process that plays out over the summer months. Um and that is something we're going to be getting back to. uh I'm uh have been working with uh the chair and vice chair of the school committee along with the administration uh and school department leadership and they are going to be having a much more active role with us on planning uh for the CIP from uh large projects right down to very small ones um because sometimes smaller dollar value projects can be very very important and impactful um so it doesn't that I don't want to I want to be clear that doesn't mean necessarily that our process is going to change because it won't um or our analysis tool and how we approach the CIP but I do believe that through the involvement or further involvement of the school committee um in that process I think is going to pay dividends. Um and I also just want to be clear the school department has been involved quite a bit uh every summer as we develop the CIP and into the fall. School committee votes on the CIP every fall. um but certainly they uh can and will be taking a more active role in working with us in advance of those um

presentations and votes. So I think that's one. I think the other thing that um I think will be important with respect to Newton public schools and kind of the the communication and setting expectations is the school's long range facility plan which was updated this past fall and then prior to that had not been updated in many years. I think is something that certainly my recommendation and I and I believe the school committee leadership and the school department are on board of this as well is that that plan be updated annually um and communicated out so that people so that parents really do understand um where their school stands with the large with respect to larger projects on a year-to-year basis. Um so I hope that's helpful.

Thanks. That sounds like a great start and I think I've made it quite clear, but I think it's just crucially important that we have greater clarity and understanding among the community on those. So, thanks for the work you're doing on that. Uh, just briefly, you dangled a bunch of very interesting projects out there in uh your presentation. How are you thinking about funding sources for some of those and Crystal Lake McGrath, some of those don't have um funding sources listed on here? if those are things that the community is starting to talk about, the question always is where does the money come from? So, are there initial thoughts on on funding sources for any of those that could be quite substantive?

Yeah, so um it's a great question. I would say uh the ones that I'm comfortable saying that I have a solid idea as to where we would seek funding for would be I I think McGrath actually is already funded. I think it was funded as part of a uh CPA authorization a while back and we're just working our way through. I think it was approved along with the Burfields and Alamarl. Um and then with respect to Braceland and Pellegrini, I think those would be um projects that we would seek a partnership with CPA uh the CPC for CPA funds on. And then Crystal Lake is a little further out um and understanding where I think step one would be securing the feasibility funds to to start that comprehensive plan. Um I would say at this stage we don't have the funding source nailed down for that. Um and then subsequently the larger project without we we genuinely do not know the scope of work. So I I we don't have a good idea as to what that will cost. So until we have a better sense as to the scope and then the cost, I wouldn't want to um opine on on the funding source this early.

Fair enough. Thank you. And thank you. Yes, I do see that. Um I guess our last request would be slightly larger font for next year. I think we're all struggling with a very small print, but thank you. Um that's helpful and thanks for all the work you've done on this. Pleasure. Councelor Roach and Kis. Thank you. I have a quick question which is with regard to the police headquarters. Is another location off the table as an assumption going into the design process or is that still an open issue? Open question.

Great question. And I will respond initially by saying process is paramount. And anybody who's worked with me on working groups and building committees over the years has heard me say that before. um we make no assumptions before we've completed our feasibility uh work there. As much as as long as I've done this, as much as I think I've got it all figured out, I don't. Um and none of us do. So, it's important to go through the process, evaluate all the sites, um see what options there are, um and and work through the system. Showing how everything is made and how we get to the conclusion is oftentimes more important than the than the conclusion itself. So perfect. Thank you,

Councelor Kis.

Thank you. Um, so dating back to uh I think Bob Rooney, I had been asking about the light at Newton Center at Center Street and Walnut. Um, and it was always, well, we have Nem Street that's being done. We'll we'll coordinate it. It'll be smart once we have Nem Street done. I know Route 9 was just done by the state, but what's the status? Is that I looked at number 27 on your list and I see Newton Highlands in general. I'm just wondering about that light though. Um, and how to make sure it's coordinated with all the other lights that we have and separating it from the Newton Highlands project which is now in phases and completely different. So, to be honest on that one, counselor, I'm going to have to look into that and uh get you a sense as to when we would tackle it. Um, but I can certainly get you that information very quickly.

Okay. I appreciate it. And just know that I'm I'm channeling Councelor Bixby and Roach and Gordon as well. They're all very interested in this. I will be sure to copy them on the response as well. You can channel me, too. I'm also interested in it. I get stuck at that light a lot. Yeah. Uh, councelor Albbright.

So, this is sort of a forward-looking question, but with um, you know, free cash has been something that we funded projects with. As you know, as the new year closes, we fund a lot of projects with free cash. We have in the past. with free cash being limited in next year's budget, have you got a plan for how we'll substitute for free cash?

Um, so certainly, uh, would be interested in hearing our our CFO's response on that as well. But I what I would say is for folks who've been around the block a while, you can remember times when we certainly did not have free cash at the levels that we have had as of late. Um, and what was more common back then was we would bond those smaller projects for shorter bond terms. Um, and I would imagine that that would be something that you see happen more frequently as we move forward. But also just being clear, um, as we make uh, as we tighten up our budget and generate less free cash, there is less free cash to spend on those projects. And by tightening up our budget, um it certainly does present some challenges with with respect to our um not our bond capacity, but our capacity to pay the bonds. Um so those will be things that we wrestle with in the years ahead. But you are very correct in pointing out that um we will uh have less free cash and therefore have less opportunities uh to utilize free cash. Um Moren,

uh if I may actually I think um our COO did a very good job of explaining it. Uh we we do not expect to have uh it will our free cash will be less that will be declared this coming September. Um not as low as it will be in the following September. It's going to be the free cash that we have to use in 28 that will be based on what we have done with this budget. So, we have another year um of of a little bit more free cash than we will probably have in the following year.

So, as as we move into the future, I look forward to having this conversation with you to say, you know, are have we made the right decisions? Um, can we still do all the things that we would like to do that we've been using free cash for that we will no longer be able to because we, you know, if we bond things that you have to pay more money to, uh, you know, to pay the bonds. So, this will be a conversation I think to pay attention to as we move forward. Thank you, Councelor Dabed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To I've been sitting here thinking about this prioritization list. And it seems to me that Ward, it says here, number 16, Ward/ Underwood Schools renovation/replacement. And it seems to me that if the scenario that you've described, Mr. remorse where you're going to recommend the consolidation is not the best pathway forward and that therefore the feasibility study that we've just approved will be used as a ward school feasibility study. It seems to me that Underwood based on this should be the next line on here number 17. and and and I don't know how to reconcile that with the math because I understand that this CIP and previous CIPs have kind of assumed this joint assessment process feasibility, you know, everything that these kind of two are moving forward together. But now what I'm hearing is they're likely not moving forward together. And so I think it is deserving of the Underwood Underwood School is deserving of finding its own specifically identified place on this list if it's going to be taken out from you know what's currently number 16. Don't really know that that's a question, but if you have a response, I'd appreciate one. And if not, I guess it's just a statement that I'd like for everyone to consider that it needs to find its place on the list.

No, that is a a a great point. and I would love to respond to that. So, I think one of the challenges that we always have when we're doing um presenting any document such as a CIP is that is it a snapshot in time um and that when this supplemental CIP was submitted and even tonight, the school committee has not I've not made my recommendation, the school committee ultimately needs to take a vote. Um, as it stands right now, as of this minute, um, it's that project that is listed there still holds true. Um, in a few weeks, should the school committee vote to recommend uh not consolidating and splitting those two projects into two independent projects, then what you will see in the fall CIP is you will see Underwood have its own place in the CIP.

Great. Thank you. Happy to hear it. Um I have two very quick questions of my own and then I would love a motion to open the public hearing. Councelor Term, you have a question as well. Okay, I'll come to one sec. Let me just um uh finish my thoughts. So the first uh COO Morse, you put the paving plan for the next five years up there. uh in the last couple weeks of public facilities, my recollection from our uh transportation network improvement plan uh update is that we're getting a new PCI um index analysis for all of our roads this summer and I am wondering how fluid that list is depending on the outcome of that process.

So great question. you are correct. Uh we are doing a an updated pavement condition index um survey of our streets. Uh it will certainly update the the plan. Um I don't envision that it's going to impact our our FY27 plan. Uh but it certainly could impact the outy years. I also don't envision it having wild swings in the outy years. Um, but you could you could conceivably see an FY28 go to 29 or a 29 go to 28. Um, so it is fluid and that's why we have that uh that kind of caveat at the bottom of of each of those slides in that five-year plan.

Okay. Thank you. And the other one is um a very specific question which if you were Commissioner Sullivan wants to get back to me another time is totally fine. You very quickly went through a slide on the water replacement uh projects and one of them that flashed up there was Ward Street between Waverly and Center, which I've seen that work going on over the last few weeks. Uh and I was actually a little confused by it because that portion of road was relatively recently very nicely paved and now a good portion of that road is no longer very nicely paved. So, I'm a little bit confused about what occurred there and what the plan is for that stretch of road. No problem if you don't have the answer to that off the top of your head at this moment.

I do not have the answer to that one on off the top of my head, but I'd be happy to uh work with Commissioner Sullivan and get you that answer right away. Thank you. Uh, Councelor Charm.

Yes, thank you. Um my question refers to item number one on the list um which is the transportation network improvement program. There's descriptions in the um in the CIP about how we prioritize open streets using the very scientific PCI score. Um there is less um uh there's less description of how we prioritize various sidewalk improvements. And I have recently been hearing from residents who have been saying that they have been requesting sidewalks in the same place over and over again for 20 years and it's they've always been told that it's not a priority in the CIP. Um so I'm hoping that the commissioner or others can elaborate on like how do we choose? Um and particularly, you know, if these are sidewalks that are near elementary schools, it feels like something may be off with our calculus. Um so I would I would love to understand a little bit more about that.

So I I'll give you a I I will give you my take on this. Um but I recognize that I'd like to bring in the voices of DPW on that as well. Um so I can get you a little more information from them. But, uh, this is something that the mayor and I have talked about quite a bit along with the rest of our team. Um, I think we've done as a city a very good job at tackling tackling our streets. Our PCI is up quite a bit. We have a lot more work to do. I mean, I want to be very clear about that. Um, there are still a lot of streets that need love. Um, but I think one area where we can and should do better are our sidewalks. Um and that is something that we have already begun work on this end um to better understand uh how we prioritize those sidewalks. Um I will say from a high level standpoint a lot of it does take into consideration factors that you mentioned for example proximity to schools. Is it a school route? Um you know uh also looking at um the we did an overall analysis of all of our sidewalks. That inventory was done I believe two years ago nowish. Um so that is something that we we factor in based on on those field reports. Um we also look at uh walking data. Um you know there's some good data that comes from safe routes to schools for example. Um we also have our village centers. So there's a lot of things that we look at with respect to that. Um but I do think that sidewalks is certainly an opportunity for us. Um and this kind of gets into complete streets as well. Um there's a cost that comes with that but at the same time those sidewalks are very important. Thank you. Um I look forward to having conversations with the commissioner and others on the DPW team to understand this better as well. I think that that's um definitely an area where at least having more transparency um would be

appreciated by the community, particularly if there has been a um an ongoing cadence of requests to understand why something never moves up. Thank you. Okay, I don't see any other hands for questions right now. Is there a motion to open the public hearing? Motion by President Oliver to open the public hearing. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? I declare the public hearing open. Do we have anyone present who wishes to speak? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Uh motion by council Roach to close the public hearing. Any discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. Do we have any further comments or questions on the CIP? Otherwise, I'm going to ask for a motion to hold these two items. Councelor Kelly. Thank you. So we have a motion to hold both the CIP and the supplemental CIP. Any discussion on the motion to hold? Seeing none, all those in favor of hold, please say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstension? Those are held. Can I have a motion to adjourn this committee the whole meeting? Motion by councelor Kalis. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Uh the committee the whole is now concluded. Thank you, President Oliver. All right. How we doing out there? Do we

need a minute? I mean, not that we have much further to go, but why don't we just take like a quick twominut bio break, right? So, we'll we'll just come back in two minutes. Thank you.

Hey, hey,

Come on. We are All right, folks. Why don't we try and grab our seats again here? See if we can't push through this. Counselors. No, really. All right. Are we uh we should probably turn the recording back on. Are we recording, sir? Are we recording? Fantastic. All right, folks. Then let's uh let's proceed with uh first call items. Uh we're going to jump right in with uh land use. Councelor Kelly. Thank you, Mr. President. The uh land use committee met on May 12th. We had a very very busy agenda, but for our

purposes tonight, most of those items were held. However, we did approve item number 164-24, which was a request to allow a combination of retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height and to amend special permit number 211-21 at 43 Kenwood A. Oh, this is all on page 91, sorry, of your uh reports docket. Uh that was approved 8 nothing. Next item we approved was number 165-26, a request to further extend non-conforming F at 104 Eldridge Street. That was also approved 8 to nothing. Um and the final one that we approved was 166-26 uh request to exceed FIR and facade ratio at 19 Saxon Road. also approved unanimously eight to nothing. Everything else was held and I would love to um announce some some to schedule some public hearings.

Please proceed. Thank you. These are all on page 103 of your docket. Um, I'd like to uh assign hearings for May 19th for items 173-26, 174-26, 175-26, 176-26, and surprisingly 177-26. Again, all for May 19th. Um, on page 103. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. uh for zoning and planning. Councelor Albbright.

Thank you, Mr. President. and I'm happy to fill in the um only item that was the was approved by the committee at our meeting on May 11th is on page 93 and it was 129-26 for honor his honor the mayor reappointing Marcelo Marino 66 Cloverdale Road Newton as a member of the economic development commission and that was approved 7 to zero and that's I move the report. Great. Thank you. Programs and services is uh this evening. We're going to have councelor Maliki.

Uh yes. Uh so the um report is on page 93. Uh committee met on uh May 6th. Uh we approved uh item 150-26 appropriation of $325,000 from uh June 30th, 2025 certified pre-cash for um NPS science curriculum that was approved. zero. And item 153-26, appropriation of $500,000 from certified uh pre-cash for full day kindergarten aids. And that's to cover the uh period of uh FY26. Um that was approved six to zero.

All said, thank you

for PSNT. Councelor Lucas. Thank you, President Oliver. Uh the report begins on page 94. The public safety and trans and transportation committee met on May 7th. Uh we had two items. First one is 148-26. his honor. The mayor uh requesting authorization to appropriate and expend $75,000 from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for the purchase of one new set of battery operated um hydraulic rescue tools, also known as the Jaws of Life. Uh that was approved um 6. And then the other item is 149-26 is honor the mayor uh requesting authorization to spend $1 million from June June 30th 2025 certified free cash for an SCBA harness and that was approved 6 and that concludes the report.

Thank you sir for public facilities councelor or vice president Kis.

Thank you Mr. President. The public facilities committee met on five on May 6th 26. Um we had many items. Uh item 123-26 request for relocation of drainage Mitten Rose Street was held. Number 13 item 136-26 authorization to appropriate and expend 1,250,000 from June 3rd 30th 2025 certified free cash for Newton South High School feasibility design phase. That was approved as amended. Uh 137-26 authorization to appropriate and expend 1,200 250,000 from June 30th 2025 certified free cash for police facility feasibility design phase that was approved 800 138-26 authorization to appropriate and expend 1,250,000 from June 30th 2025 certified free cash for elementary school feasibility design phase was approved 80 140-26 authorized edition to accept a grant of 52,000 from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Sustainability Materials Recovery Program was approved. 800 item 141-26, authorization to appropriate and expend $63,573 to42 from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for Underwood security cameras. That was approved. 800 145-26 Appointment of Emily Printer to the design review committee was approved. 80 147-26 appropriation of 3,200,000 for snow and ice expenditures uh was approved as amended. 158-26 appropriation of 345,69755 from June 30th 2025 certified free cash for North and Craft Street was approved 80 and 159-26 repurposing of 833,9485 cents for Burough school roof was approved as amended

160-26 repurpose of 500,000 for multiple small projects at NPS was approved 800 161-26 appropriation of $142,370 from energy stabilization fund for LED projects at day middle school was approved 80 and that concludes the report. Thank you sir. You guys been busy for finance councelor Gman.

Thank you Mr. President. The report begins on page 97 and the committee met on May 11th. The first item 136-26, authorization to appropriate and expend 1,250,000 from free cash for the Newton South High School feasibility design phase was approved as amended 7 to 0 137-26. Authorization to appropriate and expend $1,250,000 from free cash for the police facility feasibility design phase was approved 7 to Z. 138-26 authorization to appropriate and expend 1,250,000 from free cash for elementary schools feasibility design phase was approved 7 to zero. Item 140-26 authorization to accept a grant of $52,000 from the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection Sustainable Materials Recovery Program was approved 6 to 0. Item 141-26, authorization to appropriate and expend 63,57342 cents from free cash for Underwood security cameras was approved 7 to0. Item 147-26, appropriation of $3.2 million for snow and ice expenditures was approved as amended 6 to 0. Item 148-26, appropriation of $75,000 from free cash for Jaws of Life was approved 6 to Z. Item 149-26, the appropriation of a million dollars from free cash for SCBA harnesses was approved 6 to Z. Item 150-26, the appropriation of $325,000 from free cash for the NPS science curriculum was approved 6 to Z. Item 151-26 requesting an ordinance amendment to chapter 2 administration and this was with respect to reorganizing the purchasing department under the

financial services department was approved 7 to zero. Item 153-26 the appropriation of $500,000 from free cash for full day kindergarten aids was approved 6 to 0. Item 158-26, the appropriation of $345,697555 from free cash for North and Craft Streets was approved 6 to Z. Item 159-26, the repurposing of $833,948.85 for the Bur school roof was approved as amended 7 to zero. Item 160-26, repurposing $500,000 for multiple small projects at MPS was approved 7 to zero. And item 161-26, the appropriation of 142,370 from the energy stabilization fund for an LED project at Day Middle School is approved six to zero. Uh in addition, Mr. President, I would like to request a suspension of the rules to report on an item uh in the committee of the whole held earlier this evening for which there is no written report where the water, sewer, and storm water rates were discussed.

We have a request for suspension of the rules. May I have a motion to suspend the rules? So moved. All those in favor, please say I. I. Objections or or abstensions? Great. Please proceed. Thank you. This is item 157-26, which is the proposed water, sewer, and storm water rates for fiscal year 27. The rates as set out on our agenda of this evening, Monday, May 18th. The vote was 21 in favor, one abstension, and two absent. With that, I move the report.

Thank you very much for real property reuse. Councelor Maliki. There is no report. Love it when a plan comes together. Love to have a motion to adjourn. Oh, I'm sorry. Hey, I got an idea. See, I caught myself just after you caught me. Could we go through the roll call vote, please? You want to know what's even worse? Excuse me, Mr. Clerk.

Right. The clerk has given me notes and the note that I haven't crossed off yet says take a roll call vote. So let's do that please. Councelor Albbright I. Councelor Baker. Councelor Bixby I. Councelor Block I. Councelor Charm I. Councelor Damabed. I except for number 15726 on which I vote no. Could you repeat that number, please? Number 157-26. Thank you. Answer Frell. Hi. Answer Gats.

Hi. Answer Golden. Answer Gordon. I. Answer Greenberg. I. Answer Gman. Hi. Answerish. I. Answer Kalis. Hi, Councelor Kelly. Hi, Councelor Kinsman. Councelor Liry. I councelor Lucas. I councelor Malaki. I councelor Mikley. I sir Roach. Okay.

Clarification. Are we doing 167 to 26 on second call or did we do did we read that as part of the first call? Sorry that uh good question. That item was not reported out as as it has not been approved through the finance committee to this point. So it was not read into the record. Um I save 15726.

Repeat that. I except for 15726. I'm sorry. Councelor Sober, could you repeat your vote? I have not voted yet, but I vote I. Thank you. Councelor Wright.

President Oliver I. On this motion, the eyes are 21. There are three members absent. There are two exceptions on item 157-26, which makes the final vote on that. 19 eyes, two nays, reabsent. Motion carries. Thank you, sir. I have a motion to adjurnn. So moved. We are adjourned, folks. Everyone have a lovely evening. Thank you, Councelor Gman. Heat. Heat.