Newton City Council - May 18, 2026

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Hey folks, why don't we grab our seats here.

Recording in progress.

Good evening, everybody. Malakie, if you wouldn't mind leading us in, or I'm sorry, who did I tap? Councilor 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.

Good evening, everyone. This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. Although we have some unique aspects to our meeting this evening. But I'll start with the fact that we are being both audio and video recorded. Participating remotely, we have several counselors, Farrell, Wright, Getz, Charm. Am I missing anyone? That's everyone I see. For those of us in the room, I got Councilor Charm. Thank you. And for those of us in the room who might have their laptops on, please make sure you're on mute so we're not dealing with feedback and so on and so forth. One quick other note.

Some of you have probably already noticed that we attempted very briefly to announce that the City Council photo will be September 21st. That is Yom Kippur. 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 scheduling to someone else. We don't know who, we don't know when. Stay tuned. Sorry about that. Also, just a quick note, for anyone who is planning on 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, Councilor Grossman has to go through.

as well as Mayor Laredo and his entire team getting ahead of those is very helpful especially because we do have the holiday weekend this you know this in the midst of our deliberations in about a week. So in a moment, I'm going to ask for a motion to go into committee the whole so that we can talk water sewer rates and both the CIP and supplemental CIP items. At that point, or once we're done with those conversations, we will be voting out Water Sewer. will be holding the CIP items. Councilor Grossman and I will kind of swap chairs for that part of the conversation. 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 aye.

How many abstentions? Abstentions? Fantastic. The ayes have it. Councilor Grossman, are you coming up here? You want the dice? Fantastic.

Thank you. Great.

Thank you, Mr. President. We are now in a committee of the whole to take up three items. Item 157-26, the proposed water, sewer, and stormwater rates. Item 1-26, the Fiscal Year 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan and Item 154-26, the Fiscal Year 2027-2031 Supplemental Capital Improvement Program. So we're going to start with 157-26, the proposed water, sewer, and stormwater rates. It has honored the mayor, submitting the recommended rates for implementation on July 1, 2026. We are joined tonight by Commissioner Shawna Sullivan, 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, counselors. I would request that you okay me sharing my screen for our presentation? Of course. Thank you. Can everyone see that? Can everyone see that?

Yeah, we got it.

Great, thank you. So I'm Shawna Sullivan, Commissioner of Public Works. Joining me tonight are Tom Fitzgerald, Utilities Director, and Maureen Lemieux, the Chief Financial Officer. Tonight we are presenting the proposed FY27 water, sewer, and stormwater 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 stormwater 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 Maureen 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 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 My360 customer portal. Beginning design improvements at the Wobbin 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 hydrogen 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 feet 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 Dauphin Road, Minot 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, Sealing, and Relining Initiative. This year's focus is Area 9 in Waban, Newton, Upper Falls, and O'Kell. Continuing implementation of the Sewer Illicit 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 stormwater. The stormwater 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 Bull's Pond Dam Rehabilitation Project. Updating the Stormwater Infrastructure Improvement Plan, which is expected to be completed by December 2027.

continuing our expanded catch basin and culvert cleaning efforts, advancing the Oakdale culvert improvement project, completing a hydrologic analysis and associated flood risk evaluation of the Cheesecake Brook, We are also proposing additional operational funding to increase stormwater 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 Maureen Lemieux will present. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. If you can go to the next slide. As you all may know, but especially for the newer counselors, in 2013 or 14, We put together a long-range water and sewer infrastructure program. We worked very hard to develop it to figure out what we thought would be a reasonable amount to ask the ratepayers to pay each year and what a reasonable amount of work was to be done. As we have developed our paving program over the years and our water and sewer programs, we have to be mindful of how many 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 stormwater 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, stormwater fees. However, We are no longer able to do that. As Shauna mentioned, we not only have the Willows Pond Dam, 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 stormwater 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 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 not attainable. for the city. There is no way we can do $500 million worth of stormwater work in that timeframe. And so I think most of you know that we have submitted an alternate plan to DEP. We are working back and forth with them. Naturally, they were not thrilled We certainly hope that we will not be required to bring forward a $500 million program over these next several years.

But 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 create a revenue stream for stormwater that enables us to begin to do the work that we are required to do. With that in mind, we worked very hard 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 stormwater 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 is reasonable given the tremendous pressure that we are on with our Stormwater Enterprise Fund. We are bringing forward a 4.9% overall increase. that 4.9% enables us to raise the stormwater rate by on average 33.3%. It's a huge rate increase, but as you all may realize, Our stormwater 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 stormwater fund 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 to four million dollar range. 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. MWRA, we pay out more than 50% in each fund. More than 50% of these rates go to the MWRA. Each year MWRA has passed along a higher rate increase to us than what has been our average. We buy more water each year. and MWRA is doing a tremendous amount of work on the water system. The sewer rate increases from MWRA

each year we have actually benefited from all of the sewer work that we have done and so our sewer rates have historically been in all but a few of the past years in more than a decade have been less than what other communities have realized. And so we hold those rates as tight as we can. and have put the rest of the money into increasing these stormwater rates. With that, so the overall, 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 stormwater. And with that, Madam Chair, 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 Councilor Kalis followed by Councilor Albright.

Oh, I understand. Ms. Lemieux, thank you for that presentation. So on the stormwater, the 33%, I know I mean, since I've been here, the entire rate has been going up, I think, less than 4%. Was there a discussion in the past administration that this has to go up or was just something that was just identified this year? I'm trying to understand. I think we all kind of realized this was going to happen at some point, but is it just that we're biting the bullet now versus in the past?

Thank you, Councilor. That's a great question. No, we have very certainly known over the last few years, ever since we actually got the MS4 permit, our new permit for stormwater, we knew that we had these different increases looming over us, but we were also trying to work very hard to get the water and sewer programs 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. We don't know quite yet where we will land with DEP, what they will require of us, but we know that it will be a tremendous amount of money.

and as I said, we have Bullo's Pond, which we have now, I believe finally come to a resolution on what that plan is going to be We are cleaning our catch basins more often. We are street sweeping more often. We're doing several things operationally that will hopefully help us to... help DEP 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 whether or not we should be holding off on making this jump to a 4.9% increase instead of a 3.9%.

The timing was just such that we were able to 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 multi-year? and you might not be able to answer that because it probably depends on what DEP 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 comments on that.

Thank you. 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 that we understand what the work is that we will have to do. But I would expect that this will be a few years where Thank you for joining us. will still only generate about eight or nine million dollars in stormwater revenue. I would think that we will probably need to get that account to a 15 or 20 million dollar 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 decrease that amount.

Okay, thank you. I just have one more if everybody will allow me. Okay, so I understand everything you've just said. outlined, it makes sense. Given financial pressures and the economy and affordability issues, is there any way to delay this a year?

Unfortunately, I would say no, which is why we are bringing it here to you tonight. I mean, those are the conversations that we had a year ago as the economy was changing even then. Of course, gasoline prices and so many other things at the grocery store have continued to rise, which is why our conversation was, where should we hold that overall increase to? The issue is that we have so many stormwater items that need to be done in addition to the phosphorus plant. So I would certainly say at this point Thank you. Thank you. 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. All we had done was clean. the ponds get take the sediment out and so because that's true with stormwater and as I said the catch basins Cleaning the culverts, 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. Those are all operational expenditures. So this increase is a combination of needing it for infrastructure improvements, but the operational increases as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Albright, you're up. And President Oliver, you're next.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask Commissioner Sullivan a quick question first. The water You plan on renovating 2.87 or 2, I can't read my handwriting, miles of water pipe. Is that about what we've been doing or is that less or more?

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.

So I think COO Morse might want to clarify about the Bullos 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'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 am indeed going to. 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 C.O.O. Morse.

Thank you very much, and thank you, Councillor Albright. You cued that up perfectly. Yes, just one point of clarification. We have not yet made a recommendation as a working group to the Mayor with respect to the option that will ultimately land on with the Bullos Pond project. 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. Hear from the community, take that information back, and continue our work as a working group before ultimately making a recommendation to the mayor. I would expect that we'll make that recommendation in the coming months, but we're not quite there yet. But stay tuned.

Ms. Lemieux.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, I think it was wishful thinking on my part. So my apologies. Even as I said it, I wasn't really quite sure that it had been made, but I think it was wishful thinking.

On all of our parts. All set for now, Councilor Albright? No, I have not. Now I have my real questions. Go for it. Let me just start with the water sewer rates. I've had many calls, and I've actually spoken to Ms. Lemieux about this, from people who live in multifamily buildings. and they pay the highest rate of water usage and water sewage usage and the people that call me are the people who've moved downsized from a big home into a An apartment in one of 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 Ms. Lemieux is, is there any way possible to consider

Well, like what the newer buildings apparently are building in water meters into each unit. so that they could actually pay for what they're actually using. And the older buildings don't have that. But I think I just wanted to say that I had asked Ms. Lemieux if it would be possible as a summer project could we take this on to study about multifamily 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.

Ms. Lemieux, do you want to speak to that?

I think we may want to let the Commissioner speak first. I will try this and I'm doing this from memory from a long time ago, but I believe, do we put, Commissioner, a residential factor on the large apartment complex buildings.

I believe we do, but you know who can answer is Tom Fitzgerald, the utilities director. He should have detailed information on that.

Good evening. The rates are, I don't believe there is a difference between that. There is just, it's a rate that goes through the meter and you pay by the tiers.

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?

There isn't a difference between residential and commercial rates. It's one rate just based on the tiers.

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 a substantially different number So, and I understand the difficulties I'm raising, but there are a number of people who've called 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 know what that 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 can respond.

Anything further, Ms. Lemieux or Commissioner Sullivan?

I can certainly jump in. As Councillor Albright said, she and I have had conversations about this. We can certainly clarify, first of all, exactly what people who live in these larger buildings are paying, what each unit is paying. The issue of ever trying to obviously we can't retrofit these but we certainly can't do anything to retrofit these buildings to have meters in each apartment or condo or unit So it would really have to be the landlords or the associations if it's a condo building. 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, 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 that we need to operate each of these enterprise funds. So if we do anything that changes the rates, that lowers rates for one Class of property owners or tenants or whatever people may be, it will automatically increase rates elsewhere in the system. But we can certainly take a look at it and see if, you know, at least at first blush, if there appears to be anything that we may want to do.

Thank you. I think that's as much as I could ask. And the last thing I wanted to raise was someone brought this to my attention and I told them to call Commissioner Sullivan. The amount of phosphate that's put into the system based on the golf courses and how they manage their golf courses and I don't know if we've thought about that and 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 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 Councilor Block.

Thank you, Chair. 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 it sounds like a good time. Yeah. because I think we might be going down that road. First off, Councilor Albright, I'd be happy to work with you on figuring out how we kind of outline some of the questions that we have. 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 that occurred to me when we were hearing 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 what the split might be between storm or storm water fees between commercial and residential just at the top line Like are we 50-50 commercial versus residential?

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

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

Councilor Block and Councilor Roach.

Thank you, Chair. I'm looking at the stormwater fund information in the The operating budget, if anybody else wants to follow along on the third tab, in which the total is $8,039,000. There's just not a lot of detail here, a lot of information. This is broken down between stormwater maintenance and operation, debt service, budget reserve, and retirement, including retiree health. These four lines. Oh, and then there's some transfer. Just can maybe the commissioner give us more of a sense

of how these funds are actually spent. These contracted, these city employees, just how does this get expended? And maybe on the Ms. 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 get to this? Thank you.

So I will jump in first, if that's all right, Madam Chair. Councilor Block, if you go to page... I think I need to put another light on in my room. If you go to page four... 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 $3.8 million and the actual operations of the Stormwater Enterprise Fund itself. That's where you would see our employees who do the work there. We spend about a million dollars on employees. We have some large operational expenditures, if you will.

So we have the NPDES 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 for stormwater, 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 our stormwater projects that we have bonded to date.

the page before that you can see what we spend through the comptroller's office and that's where we have we take a transfer to the general fund of $900,000 which is a contribution toward all of the work that so many of us do on stormwater but that we don't We don't transfer a bill part of everybody's time. We just take, we have a calculation that we do. And so we charge the stormwater fund for all of controller, purchasing, payroll, the time that we spend in the executive office 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 pension contributions for Stormwater employees.

Then the other piece that is really the large piece is you will see on page one at the bottom, We have $2,575,000 that we intend to put into the reserve. We have about $4 or $5 million right now in our stormwater reserve. We will add in next year's budget and those funds, as I said a few minutes ago, go to things like when we 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 in stormwater where we can utilize that. So for stormwater, if you really get into the pages, the first couple of pages don't necessarily give you the detail

that you may be looking for, but it's those back pages starting at page one yet again that really has the detail that I think you are looking for.

Thank you for that clarification. Just curious, the 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 stormwater, because stormwater is a feat. on each account. So our revenue is very predictable, more so than it is in water and sewer. Our stormwater revenue is predictable. And as I said, we manage very tightly. on all of our expenditures. So if anything, you know, we may be off by a couple of hundred thousand dollars at year's end, but it won't be a lot.

Okay, thank you.

I have Councilor Roche, then Councilor Malakie.

Thank you. This comes up a lot, the notion of subsidy for those things that are good and charging for things that we view as, from a public policy perspective, Not good or possibly destructive. So my recommendation 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 it's now more than internal use water but it's not enough more and I think there's no reason that

Residents should expect to pay a reasonable amount for external irrigation water, which is principally used for or largely used for ornamental lawns. So I would like to see us significantly increase the rate of The rate for irrigation water, and in simpler terms, 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. I'm not sure if you then spread that across I would like to see us significantly increase the level for

Albright's point about multifamily Housing, and the fact that they are in a higher tier. If they don't have separate meters, they're in a higher tier for each individual home based on the overall water usage of the building. I would suggest we do something simpler like calculate the rate tier for multi-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 landlord could worry about distributing that cost across the tenants.

So is the, just a point of clarification, switching out of Bullo's 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. Morse. OK. And Commissioner Sullivan, one of the things that we talk about regularly, like for the last 25 years, is that the Road reconstruction required after water main work is significant and extensive. Is this a good opportunity? 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 chicanes, et cetera. 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. Brookline Street, as you know, we just did some traffic calming on. We won't be touching that raised intersection. Woodcliffe Road is scheduled for reconstruction. I believe it's two or three years out. Felsmere Road and Dolphin Road are smaller. We always, whenever we look at paving a roadway, we consider what we can do for traffic calming.

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

So thank you, Councilor, for that question. I would say it's certainly a policy decision that I would be more than happy to bring the concept back Thank you very much. Many, I think, homeowners would be upset if they've gone out and spent anywhere between $1,000 and $2,500 to have an irrigation meter installed. And if we more or less make it almost as expensive as if they hadn't, people may not be happy. But it's a policy decision. But one point you did make, and I will 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 stormwater side if we were to do something on the irrigation side. So each of these funds has to stand on their own. but otherwise your question is really a policy decision and as I said I'll be more than happy to mention to the mayor that you asked about it.

Thank you.

Councilor Malakie then Councilor Golden.

Thank you. Just to clarify on the 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 being attributed to stormwater?

So the street sweepers are the actual purchase of the sweepers. However, at the moment, we still have the labor In the general fund, it's something that I actually have spoken with Shauna about, and I would envision that perhaps next year, now that we're making this big jump Not for 27, because we didn't do it. But 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 the labor charges for all of our street sweeping personnel into the stormwater. But we do currently charge all of the equipment purchases there at this point in time.

Okay, thank you. And to Councilor Roche's point about the irrigation water, do we know what... percent of the, say, well, I don't know, maybe residential and commercial, but 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. 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 tried to estimate 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 anywhere between $1,000 and perhaps $2,500 to get the meter installed, depending on what The inside of their basements looked like some people had to run long lines to get to where their water meter was. Many people chose not to end up. installing the irrigation. So having something in the 10, 12, 14% range probably makes sense.

Okay, so if you increased that irrigation rate, there's not a lot of sort of volume to impose that on that it would make a lot of savings for the non-irrigation 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 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 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 maybe there would be a decision as part of that policy that we only lower the zero to ten HCFs so it's all 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 let's see. We learned in the last year or so at some land use meetings that so-called pervious surfaces are not always pervious when it comes to driveways and things it sort of depends on how they're maintained and there's maybe degrees of perviousness when when we say for commercial The rate is X cents per impervious square feet. What are we counting as impervious surface? Is it all hardscape and roofs or is it anything that... Asphalt or whatever that is not claimed to be pervious. How are we measuring that? Hardscapes, you're correct.

so if it's um roofs okay roofs uh sidewalks parking lots parking lots plazas walkways yeah okay so basically impervious in this context means hardscape Yes. Okay. And what you call commercial, that's applying, as I think you mentioned, to Boston College. Does it apply to... Newton Wellesley Hospital. Does it apply to apply to Massachusetts and federal properties?

It applies to any property that or any parcel or structure that has more than four residential units in it. So even if there were a six unit condominium somewhere, a standalone six-unit condominium, it would be part of the commercial rate.

I'm sorry, you said more than four units? More than four. Okay, yeah. I was really asking about sort of institutional. Does it apply to all institutions? Like the federal, you've got the post office, state properties, you've got... Leo G. Martin, Newton Wellesley Hospital. Is everyone that's an institution paying?

Yes.

Is the... As my recollection, and this is from before I was on the council, that when this was set up, Newton Cemetery was exempted. 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?

I do. You're correct, Councillor. They were exempted. I assume that they still are. I don't 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 residential stormwater fee, it's a flat rate. You know, with water and sewer, you have the, 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 reduce the Stormwater Fee, which is the same regardless of how big your property is or how much percentage it is. Hardscape versus Greenscape. Is there any thought or is it considered too impractical to make that variable based on like give give people A lower fee if they have a higher percentage of green space, say.

The rest of The residential fee is not based at all on impervious area. It's the same fee for any homeowner.

Right, that's what I'm asking about, which I think 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 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. I believe if you put in a stormwater management system when you're constructing or redeveloping, you do qualify for a discount in your stormwater fees.

And And if you qualify for any of our tax deferral program, you also qualify for a 30%, I believe it is, reduction in your water, sewer, stormwater fee.

okay thank you but that's that's as far as it goes just if you have if basically if it's a teardown and they had to put in a stormwater containment system they get what is the break that they get on the rate

Oh, I think it is determined by the system and the amount of stormwater 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. The size of the system and what it's capturing.

I guess at some point, it doesn't have to be tonight, I'd be curious to learn more about that. Thank you.

Oh, and Councilor, 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 Councilor Golden, and then I don't have any other hands, so I'd like to see after this question and comments if we could have a motion to open the public hearing. Councilor Golden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to expedite this because I don't want to take up. I know there's a lot of items to come throughout the evening. I am interested in sort of teasing out more of the MS4, the permitting, the effect of the Commonwealth's policies on the stormwater. numbers. It's a profound effect and it's coming from on high. So I'd like to drill down on that eventually in some detail, but I don't think I'm going to subject everyone to that right now. But I do just want to echo support for a couple of things that have already been mentioned. because I think they are important. I would like to see an exploration of the irrigation issue that Councilor Roche just raised. I am conceptually 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. It is an absolute human need versus the choice of irrigating one's lawn externally. I would like to explore whether or not some of that burden can be shifted in a meaningful sense and also would be very interested to know more about the golf course's effects on the total revenue generated and the costs associated with them. I can't even, I'm not even entirely sure how many golf courses there are. I can think of four. Four? I am thinking of the public. Thank you. I mean, the vast bits of acreage, so it would be interesting to understand the impact they're having on all of this. So I'm very eager to see what can come of that conversation. Thank you.

Councillor Dahmubed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Lemieux, if you wouldn't mind letting the mayor know that I am joining Councilor Roach's question, I'd appreciate that. 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?

Do they have irrigation meters, Commissioner? I don't know. A number of them are on wells.

Are on wells. OK, so they don't.

I would have to verify, but I think they all might be. Tom, do you know if they are all on 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 teams. So most of it would be in tier three.

Tier three. OK, thank you. And I guess I have another question. I might have missed the answer. It sounded like, Ms. 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's the case that we have not yet determined what we're doing with Bulldoze Pond, how we're planning for that cost as part of this increase.

So I don't have, I do not have a cost yet for what Bullows Pond will be, but whatever it is, I'm anticipating that we will be bonding it. And so we will certainly incur I would assume debt service charges as we move forward. The calculation though, I don't want you to think that I plugged in a number for Bullo's Pond. The calculation was more 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 stormwater, knowing that we have all these large expenditures ahead of us. So it was more of a backing into the percentage increase in stormwater as opposed to building it up based on the different projects that we have.

Okay, understood. Thank you.

Councilor Leary.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just a comment kind of related to what Councilor Golden had just raised. You know, we have a $500 million... Thank you. We're held to that standard while the Mass Water Resource Authority 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 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 are needed to cities and towns to really keep the Charles River to improve the quality of the water. And putting this kind of burden on cities and towns is just completely unreasonable and unfair. Oliver, I think we're ready for a motion.

Great. I'd like to make a motion to open the public hearing.

Councilor 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 aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? I declare the public hearing open. Do we have anyone present who wishes to speak? Okay, seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilor Lucas?

Move to close the public hearing.

Councilor 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 aye aye any opposed any abstentions I declare the public hearing closed This would be the time for any further discussion or questions or a motion on the rates, the proposed rates of course before us on the screen and also printed on our agenda. Leary. I'll make a motion to approve. Motion to approve by Councilor Leary. Do we have any discussion on the motion? Councilor Albright.

So Councilor Roche raised an issue over I guess the question is, is it too late to deal with the irrigation rates and to look at it and study it a little further, or do we have to pass this tonight?

Well, we have a hand from Councilor Oliver, so do you want to weigh in on that? Okay, why don't we let Councilor Oliver weigh in on that, and then it looks like Ms. Lemieux might be ready to comment as well. Go ahead.

I'm also 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. 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, no, just to be clear, I was only talking about the irrigation rate.

I understand that, but 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 stormwater. but once you start to talk about changing the irrigation rates for split metering, for example, 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. Not that there was much on 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.

Ms. Lemieux, then Councilor Kalis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would actually ask that you pass the rates as is for this year. Actually, on my summer projects list, the mayor doesn't even know this yet, but I will tell you. and I didn't want to muddy the waters. I actually think we need to take a hard look at the stormwater rates and so on my summer project list, looking at the stormwater rates is a big concern of mine. When we moved this impervious area model and having residents pay the single rate, we were doing that on a $5 million fund. We're now, if we're contemplating going up to this being a 15 or a $20 million fund, what we don't capture is when you think about all the roadways in the city, we have 300 miles of roadway. that everyone uses.

And the only impervious area that we're capturing are the parcels of land that we own as a city and then of course what Boston College 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 revenue stream, I think it's going to become and unbearable risk for the two largest property owners, which aren't necessarily causing all of the issues and the phosphorus that's going into the child. so I think we need I think you all raised great points and there are even more to be there's more to look at even beyond what you all mentioned so what I would like to do is take this

as a summer project by the administration and between Financial Services and Josh and DPW and Utilities and have all of us work together and try to figure out what the best proposal is and probably come back to you my guess would be in the February So that would be my request. Okay, that sounds fine. Thanks very much.

Councilor Kalis, then Roche.

All I was going to say is if you want to make it more official, Councilor Albright, you could dock in an item.

Councilor Roche.

So I feel duly chastened for not having raised the irrigation rate earlier because I had thought about it, but I'm new here. I do feel like Ms. Lemieux gave us a bit of an answer there where she said that it would be possible to Lower the first tier and raise the highest, the irrigation tier. That doesn't sound terribly complicated to me and sounds like a pretty good policy response. So 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.

But if the offset would be lowering the lowest tier rates, that seems to be a calculation that's relatively straightforward. So question to you, Ms. Lemieux, is that in fact something that is doable in the next 10 days?

I don't believe it is. I know it seems easy, but every single person who pays a stormwater fee gets that lower rate. So 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 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 a comprehensive plan for what we ought to be doing,

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 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, it would still have value. But I hear you and I accept the conclusion.

Councilor Federal.

Thank you, Chair. Two points. One is that 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 Thank you for joining us. 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 who have irrigation rates are growing food in their backyards? I think particularly given the costs of Food. These days, I'll bet a bunch of people are using this money 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 Councilor Leary 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.

Councillor Albright.

Hold on one sec. We had a clarification question from Councillor Dahmubed.

Is this a straw vote?

No. This is an official vote. 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 the end of the show with respect to water, sewer, and stormwater for this fiscal year. OK, I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk, please proceed. Councilor Albright.

Aye. Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby.

Aye.

Councilor Block.

Aye.

Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmubed.

Aye.

Councilor Farrell.

Abstain.

Councilor Getz.

Aye.

Councilor Golden? Aye. Councilor Gordon?

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg? Aye. Councilor Grossman? Aye. Councilor Irish? Aye. Councilor Kalis. Yes. Councilor Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman. Aye. Councilor Leary.

Aye.

Councilor Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malakie.

Aye.

Councilor Micley.

Aye.

Councilor Roach.

Aye.

Councilor Silver. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Oliver. Aye. On this vote, the ayes are 21, one abstention and one, two, 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. Let's see. The city's presentation is going to be made by Josh Morse, 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 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 we aren't going to take any votes on the CIP. Supplemental CIP tonight. This is our sort of primary opportunity to all review it together.

But if anyone has resolutions or further discussion on the CIP or the supplemental CIP, Those would be in order throughout the process, and we'll take a formal vote as we get into the Committee of the Whole, which begins this Thursday night. So, COO Morse, please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Councillor. So this evening, I'm going to go through a relatively brief presentation. I believe almost all of you, if not all of you, got a good A good update on our capital projects throughout the individual budget presentations in committee. So I apologize if this is at all redundant, but at the same time, I know not every councilor serves on every committee, so there's There could be some materials that you didn't have the opportunity to see. I also recognize that we have some newer counselors in the audience, so I'm going to briefly cover some basics as well. But I will just say up front, For any of the new counselors, and of course this offer stands for any of our existing as well, but I'd be happy to meet with any of you one-on-one to go through the CIP and the CIP process, I think more importantly. at your leisure. So that is a standing offer. Anytime I'd be happy to do that.

So without further ado, we'll get right into this. So the supplemental CIP, so the CIP is presented two times a year, once in the fall, which is our full CIP, after a significant amount of work that occurs over the summer. And then we do a supplemental CIP that is submitted in the spring along with the budget Typically, and this is true here as well, the supplemental CIP is pretty straightforward. We don't make a lot of changes in the supplemental. We update anything that is changed. If a project is completed, it comes off. If there are any critical projects that we need to adjust priorities on, we will do that if we're anticipating moving on those projects between the supplemental CIP and the full CIP in the fall. In the case of this supplemental CIP, there were very few changes as outlined in the cover letter.

No new projects added, a few projects slightly changed in priority, and a few completed projects taken off the list. but otherwise as is typical the supplemental CIP this spring is relatively unchanged from last fall. In total there's 602 projects with a total value of 1.42 billion dollars. with about $596 million funded now or within the next five years from a variety of different funding sources. I just want to recap. This came up in committee a little bit. For folks that don't know the Newton Capital Improvement Plan history, back in 2011 under Mayor Warren, The team worked with SEA Kleinfelder Associates who did our building assessment. Buildings are only one portion of the overall CIP, but it's a large portion. 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. And that has also been updated with and a few subsequent updates that were done through Newton Public Schools as well. But from a high level standpoint, 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, almost last few pages, you will see a process that's laid out for how we evaluate each and every project in the CIP. There are risk of failure, impact of failure, and then criteria that all have weightings. And this is ultimately how each project is evaluated. We do this through multiple different criteria 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

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. 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 all done. The project came in on time and on budget. I should say on budget based on what was approved by the City Council. That was one of those projects that we did in the middle of the pandemic. So escalation did increase the project. Thank you. Thank you. The Cooper Center for Active Living Project. This project wrapped up as well. I'm sure anybody in Newton is well aware of this one. This is at the parade just yesterday. So that was quite the scene to see everybody up there on the balcony, up on the deck. Now we've got some projects that are underway.

Countryside school project. This one will be wrapping up 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, we will abate and then demolish the existing countryside school, which will then get converted into our fields and open space. Horace Mann School Project. This one is well underway and slated to be completed later this summer so that we can move staff and students back from 191 Pearl Street, the former Lincoln Elliott School, back into their renovated and added two building at 225 Nevada Street. Franklin School Project. This one is also moving right along. It's a bit of a competition between Franklin and Countryside to see who can get finished first. But we're on track with this to wrap up probably February vacation. but certainly this winter.

And this is something we're already working with Newton Public Schools on. Similar to Countryside, what will happen is staff and students will move over from the existing school, which is just to the right of this picture, into their new building and then we will abate and demolish the old building and complete our fields projects and the playground installation. I should mention that all three of those projects are on time and on budget. 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. The Ward Elementary School Police Headquarters and Newton South High School projects we are We just went through public facilities and finance committees seeking feasibility funding to begin those projects. The feasibility design phase, there were a couple questions here that I thought would be helpful for the entire group.

Feasibility design phase is where we get answers to all the questions that are burning in our heads right now. So it's always interesting. People ask a lot of questions. The answer for most of them is that's what we find out in feasibility. There was a question that came in as to why all of our feasibility requests are identical in total cost. even though the projects are each different. We actually model pretty much everything we do off of the Massachusetts School Building Authority processes at the state level. and as part of that, our feasibility design fee when we advertise it is set at $1.25 million. 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 they have a good shot at landing the much larger project.

So it's an industry standard, at least in the Massachusetts area, and we stick with that with all of our projects. We have, it does increase slightly over time. When we started with Anger, I believe we're 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 keep those things static. If we don't utilize all those design funds, they just roll over into the next phase and they reduce the next ask, if you will, for the total project. As I mentioned here too, Underwood Elementary and Brown Middle School. So for everybody's information, if you didn't see it in committee, I will be presenting to the ward and Underwood School communities on May 26th, Tuesday at 6 p.m. ultimately to explain the recommendation that I will be making to the school committee on June 1st

with respect to the question of whether or not we should consolidate the Ward and Underwood elementary schools. As I put out in that invitation to the Ward and Underwood communities and shared with the city council, My recommendation is going to be to not consolidate the two elementary schools. There's a lot to go through. I won't do that this evening. It's a pretty lengthy analysis that I did over the last four months. but I think it will be pretty explanatory once I lay that all out for everyone. I also recognize that with that recommendation and understanding that the school committee had ultimately in their order of priority with respect to Ward and Underwood. Ward was and is going first. The question that will ultimately be asked and I'm prepared to discuss both there and then have a discussion with the school committee is What is the schedule for the Underwood Elementary School?

And somewhat tied to all of this is what is our plan for Brown Middle School, which is something we started to talk about in committee at both public facilities and finance. What I will say is the administration and Mayor Laredo, we are committed to moving forward with Ward, South, Police Headquarters, Underwood and Brown Middle Schools. The question remains the speed at which we tackle both Underwood and Brown. The working theory right now is that the Brown Middle School would be a good project to submit a statement of interest on and seek MSBA or Massachusetts School Building Authority funding. As folks who've been around the block a bit know, 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 funded by MSBA.

So, they, MSBA, historically, and quite consistently will not invite districts in if they're in the midst of a project that is already funded by their program. So we really need to wrap up countryside before we have a good shot of getting in But it is going to be my recommendation that we start submitting a statement of interest for the Brown Middle School starting next winter, understanding that it could take a few attempts before we get invited in. The question remains, 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 We are committed to moving forward. We are still working on the overall plan with respect to how quickly that happens. I will be as strong in my statements as I can be, but there's a lot of moving pieces here. This is a lot of work.

And I think the other thing that is important to point out is that we only have one elementary swing school. And that is something certainly we need to consider. When we're thinking about the Ward and Underwood elementary school projects. 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 rec land. So that is something that we would have to consider if we were ever to look at building on site and keeping the Ward School occupied. So lots of moving pieces there. 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 our administration has continued the commitment to moving forward with various projects such as our fire apparatus replacement plan. Engine 7 has been received.

Ladder 3 is about a year out. and Engine 4 is slated to be ordered this July, of course, pending city council approval. What we're seeing is that The lead time on the apparatus has become longer and longer. Right now, the national lead time on these is about three years. So what that means is we have to get into the queue much sooner, 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 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 moving forward with the SCBA harness replacements, the Jaws of Life replacements, those are smaller projects. Some of them true capital, others not as much, but all of those projects are quite important, not just the big ones. Paving.

So I just want to point out if anybody didn't catch it in the CIP, included in the supplemental CIP, I believe for the first time, we have published our five-year paving plan. This is available on the city's website as well. So this covers FY27 through FY31. I didn't grab all the screenshots for tonight, but I did just want to point out our FY27 paving plan. This is all based on our PCI and also factoring in other work that's happening in the neighborhood. So you've got the previous slide was FY27, a little bit of FY27 here, and then it rolls into FY28 and right on down the line. I think this is important. You'll see at the bottom we say this report is intended for general planning and informational purposes only. Basically, what we're saying is it's subject to change, especially the further out in the plan you get.

There's a lot of moving pieces and we are constantly updating the plan based on the condition index that's out there. A little bit of this is a little repetitive for those who went through the committee meetings. So DPW has been working through our paving plan, the $9.5 million a year. and they are continuing to go strong on improving our overall PCI which is up I think more than 10 points since the program started across the city. So that is, they're doing an excellent job out there. 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. Paving is important, but also keeping a close eye on when and to what extent Complete Streets plays a role in this.

making sure we're tying in not physically tying in but looping in our utilities division with respect to stormwater making sure that we're well thought out with respect to our intersections and our curb cuts there's a lot of moving pieces there Our street trees are curbing. So there's going to be a lot of work that we're doing. We've recently reinstituted the infrastructure cluster, which is an internal group that brings all those stakeholders to the table so that we're all talking. and making sure that we're coordinating our work. I think that that's going to be, I know that's going to be imperative as we move forward. So our transportation network improvement 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 improvements. and our pavement 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 program.

So from a transportation and traffic calming standpoint outside of just paving, we have a handful of projects that we're currently working on. I won't read through all of these, but... I'm going to skip through water, sewer, stormwater fairly quickly because we just talked about all these, but I'm happy to go back to any of these slides. I will just hit on Stormwater. One thing that I think that was mentioned that I really want to point out that I think I'm really excited about. and I'll explain why I think you should be too is that we're working on the city's stormwater capital plan and our maintenance plan. This is Thank you for joining us.

Thank you so much for joining us. It means that we need to do a better job at investing in our stormwater systems both from a capital and a maintenance standpoint so that we are being more resilient so that we are helping to Minimize the likelihood of flooding our residential and commercial properties and of course the damages that come with that. So we've got a robust plan, an awesome team working together to make that happen. Herculean task and this is going to be something that we really are going to be pushing hard on over the next year. same thing as we talked about earlier, these are just a lot of our FY27 priorities. We're going to go through some of our fields projects. This is the athletic field improvements over at Albemarle.

If folks haven't been by very recently, about half of the large soil piles are on their way out. and we have a plan to remove the rest here in short order. We will be ready for the Fourth of July celebrations. We're excited about that. and the project will be substantially complete by the end of September, September 30th to be exact. So we are on track over there. This is a project that I am keeping on top of with our team at Parks and Rec because this is a high use field and we're excited to turn this one back over to the community and also to the FAA Day School. Burr School Fields Project. Folks probably saw the mayor's announcement the other day. We are going to be removing The fence and opening the field up for passive recreation use.

We're going to hold off a little bit longer on the organized league play. Right now we're looking at July, probably mid to late July to remove the fence. We've got to get an application of weed control down. First, and there'll be more details on that coming. But again, looking to remove that fence this summer so that we can get that field back open for the neighborhood and certainly for the schools in the fall. If folks haven't been by, the walking track is already up. It looks great over there. Looking forward to seeing that fence come down. McGrath Field Project. So this one I checked with our Parks and Rec team. They're looking at bidding this out this fall with the bulk of the work starting next spring. So this one is a coming soon project. Speaking of coming soon, I just wanted to plant the seed on a few of these.

So the mayor has said, he said it many times as a councilor, maybe even as far back as an alderman, and it certainly is committed to it as a mayor. We are going to be looking in short order to begin the process of a comprehensive plan for Crystal Lake. This is not just the bathhouse, this is the park, the beach, the bathhouse, and the lake itself. So it's going to be a holistic look at all of it to ensure that we're striking the right balance, working with the community and the various stakeholders and delivering something that we can all be excited and proud of. Also coming soon is we're going to be looking to tackle the Bobby Braceland project. So good size playground and fields over there. This will be one that we are likely going to submit a pre-proposal with the CPC for CPA funds. I would think that this is probably a good summer project for us. So this one will be getting going pretty soon.

and then also we're going to start looking at Pellegrini Park. As folks may know, the field lights over there are in tough shape. They need to be replaced and the fields in the park could certainly be improved. At the same time, I want to be very clear here. We need to work with the community to fully understand what this project looks like and maybe most importantly, we need to figure out how we do whatever this project is while not interfering with all the incredible events that occur on that field. And it's also a field who has some very close direct abutters. So we're going to have to work with our neighbors as well as we start to think about 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 the big picture. I'm happy to answer any and all questions. 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. It's not behind the scenes because we don't want it to be public. It's just a massive amount of work. So again, I will extend that 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 these things come to be, You are more than welcome to reach out to me anytime. My cell phone number is 617-594-2564. 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. Okay, hold on. Let me just jot down a couple hands here. We have Councilor Dahmubed, then Lucas, Gordon, and Kelley. then Bixby and Roche and keep your hands up if you want to get my attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, CEO Morse, for your presentation. I very much appreciate the meticulous mathematical scientific nature of the CIP and how projects are prioritized and determined. based on that I had a couple of questions and based on the cover letter that you submitted when I asked in committee 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 just kind of wondering if you could perhaps walk us through the math of, the two projects that have changed significantly. My understanding is that 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. and how the math works, which factors change.

So the Warden 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. I saw sort of split up projects. having to do with the police headquarters. 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 a program in the schools, so maybe that's the new math.

So, sure thing. No, those are very fair questions. So what I would say is I'll take police first. I was just pulling up the CIP, but so I can get you the exact number and the FYI. 27 CIP. 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 scattered throughout the CIP. The train of thought under the previous administration was that we would tackle those smaller projects as needed over time before the larger police facility project happened. With the new administration, 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 was a complete surprise, either, because for many counselors who joined us on the tour, I think last year and then again this year, Last year, we started talking about the larger project and using ARPA funds, we began the design 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, 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 As such, what you will see in the supplemental CIP is that the larger project was moved up

and then what would ultimately happen over this fall is all those smaller projects in police headquarters would likely come off the list in favor of the larger project that would replace all of those. So that's a long way of saying that police headquarters moved up because we were no longer focusing on kind of a longer term phased approach towards upgrades at police headquarters. So it's a bit of a balancing of the scales. On the school projects, with respect to Ward and Underwood, Grossman 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. It kept getting moved down because of a lot of reasons but not because the condition of the building was getting better. or even staying the same.

It was especially as of late, it was what I would call artificially suppressed in priority ranking Because we were as a community and specifically a school committee as a body, we're grappling with this question of enrollment, consolidation, and what the plan should be to address those two schools. Again, I want to say with one of them already having reached its centennial and the other very close, there is absolutely no question of need here, more just a question of getting answers to those very lofty high policy questions that would then in turn adjust the ranking. So that's a long way of saying that we adjusted the ranking with the understanding that 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

We wanted the supplemental CIP to reflect the speed at which we would be moving forward on those projects.

Okay, thank you. That helps. And I have two, one clarification, maybe, and then 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 reassessed given deteriorations and anticipated remaining life of the building and that kind of thing.

No, it's a fair question. I wouldn't say it was necessary. It was certainly reassessed. We reassess our projects all the time. I think that where you oftentimes find Thank you. Thank you. and 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 does become slightly subjective based on the leadership that is in place

especially when you're looking at comparing a kind of a phased renovation as was the plan in the past to a new or major renovation 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 have developed a lot of faith and admiration for our CIP as a community. Thank you for watching! It's theoretically also possible. And I think that this should be an unbiased mathematical document that helps us determine 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 reasonable and good things. It's just good to understand. So thank you, Mr. Morse.

Thank you. I would just add one thing on that. And I do certainly hear you with respect to the potential for artificial elevation. But what I would say is, for example, the Ward and Underwood projects, With just sticking with the department mission, for example, I can absolutely see the concern there. But what I would say is, When the school committee, for example, is 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 were low and at the time declining, It's not a question of artificially suppressing or reducing the risk of failure or the impact of failure as much as it is for example, that department mission.

That is a criteria that helps capture policy level decisions that are made by the body that is responsible for that particular item. So in the case of Ward and Underwood, for example, We are trying to reflect that the condition of the asset and the impact of failure of the asset are not changed. But for some of those criteria, they might be slightly different if, for example, Thank you for clarifying.

Ms. Lemieux, I see you have your hand up, so why don't you go ahead and then we have Councilor Lucas followed by Councilor Kelley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will make a very brief comment. 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 realize that we have barriers to completion of projects, they in a sense get suppressed. So the police headquarters, for instance, Earlier in the prior administration, we spent a lot of time looking to see if there was somewhere else Thank you very much.

the facility itself has been a high priority but we've 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 and so forth. And I think that's what we need to do. I think that's what we need to do. and so on. 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 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, Ms. Lemieux. I think the additional transparency and clarifications are really helpful.

Thank you. We have Councilor Lucas, then Kelley.

Thank you. I'll be as brief as possible. I have a question on the police station. Some of my questions have already been asked and answered, but one of them was... The funding source for the new police station that says bonding. I was always under the impression that we needed a debt exclusion override. I just want to verify if that's still the case.

Lucas, that is definitely still the case. In this case, both can be true. We will need to bond to that project. 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 Lowell Ave on there from Com Ave to Austin Street. Now I take Lowell Ave every time I Come to City Hall when I drove on it this evening. The road seems fine to me. Maybe it's... Me. But what was the PCI rating? I think it's PCI. What was the rating for that part of Lowell Ave.?

So the overall stretch of that section had a PCI of 74.5. So the overall is quite high. But this is an ultra thin bonded wearing course. So 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. But I will double check and I'll get you that answer.

Commissioner Sullivan has 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, Chair.

Thank you. We have Councilor Kelley, then Councilor Bixby.

Thank you. I'll be even briefer. My question was asked and answered, so I'll pass for now. Thank you.

Councilor Bixby, then Councilor Roach. Thank you. And COO Morris, I guess, building off of the conversation we had in, I think it was finance, about the Freecash for the feasibility studies and your answers to Councilor Dahmubed just now. What are the plans to align our CIP with the school committee or NPS's goals on the school building projects and these different things. We've talked a lot about just the school community's expectations, family's expectations from what might be happening in the future. Can you share a little bit about your thinking, how we make sure that That communication can happen. And I know you've started just now with the ward underwood. 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 will preface this by saying I'm going to speak out of turn a bit here because a lot of this is the school committee, but I will do my best. I think that there are a few things at play here. With respect to 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 the subsequent vote should they be ready on June 15th. But for the broader question that you're asking about with respect to overall capital planning, I would say many years ago, the process was a little different. There was more involvement with our school committee in the CIP process that plays out over the summer months. And that is something we're going to be getting back to.

I've been working with the chair and vice chair of the school committee along with the administration and school department leadership and they are going to be Having a much more active role with us on planning for the CIP from large projects right down to very small ones because sometimes smaller dollar value projects can be very, very important and impactful. I want to be clear, that doesn't mean necessarily that our process is going to change because it won't 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 in that process I think is going to pay dividends. and I also just want to declare the school department has been involved quite a bit every summer as we develop the CIP and into the fall. School committee votes on the CIP every fall.

but certainly they can and will be taking a more active role in working with us in advance of those presentations and votes so I think that's one I think the other thing that I think will be important with respect to Newton Public Schools and kind of 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 believe the school committee leadership and the school department are on board with this as well, is that that plan be updated annually and communicated out so that parents really do understand where their school stands with respect to larger projects on a year-to-year basis. 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. Just briefly, you dangled a bunch of very interesting projects out there in your presentation. How are you thinking about funding sources for some of those? Crystal Lake, McGrath, some of those don't have... 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 funding sources for any of those that could be quite substantive?

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

Fair enough. Thank you. And thank you. Yes, I do see that. 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. That's helpful. And thanks for all the work you've done on this.

Pleasure.

Councilor Roche, then Kalis.

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. We make no assumptions before we've completed our feasibility work. As long as I've done this, as much as I think I've got it all figured out, I don't. and none of us do. So it's important to go through the process, evaluate all the sites, see what options there are and work through the system. Showing how everything is made and how we get to the conclusion is oftentimes more important than the conclusion itself.

Perfect. Thank you.

Councilor Kalis.

Thank you. So dating back to, I think, Bob Rooney, I've been asking about the light at Newton Center at Center Street and Walnut. and it was always, well, we have Needham Street that's being done, we'll coordinate it, it'll be smart once we have Needham Street done. I know Route 9 was just done by the state, but what's the status? I looked at number 27 on your list, and I see Newton Highlands in general. I'm just wondering about that light, though. 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, Councilor, I'm going to have to look into that and get you a sense as to when we would tackle it, but I can certainly get you that information very quickly.

Okay, I appreciate it. And just know that I'm channeling Councilor Bixby and Roche 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. Councilor Albright.

So this is sort of a forward-looking question, but free cash has been something that we funded projects with 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?

So certainly would be interested in hearing our CFO's response on that as well. But 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. And what was more common back then was we would bond those smaller projects for shorter bond terms. and I would imagine that that would be something that you see happen more frequently as we move forward. But also just being clear, 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, it certainly does present some challenges with respect to not our bond capacity, but our capacity to pay the bonds.

So those would be things that we wrestle with in the years ahead, but you are very correct in pointing out that we will have less free cash and therefore have less opportunities to utilize free cash. Maureen?

If I may, actually, I think our COO did a very good job of explaining it. We do not expect to have... Our free cash will be less that will be declared this coming September. Thank you. Thank you. of a little bit more free cash than we will probably have in the following year.

So as we move into the future, I look forward to having this conversation with you to say, have we made the right decisions? 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 if we bond things, you have to pay more money to pay the bonds. So this will be a conversation, I think, to pay attention to as we move forward. Thank you.

Councilor Dahmubed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been sitting here thinking about this prioritization list. And it seems to me that Ward, it says here, number 16, Ward slash Underwood schools renovation slash replacement. And It seems to me that if the scenario that you've described, Mr. Morris, where you're going to recommend that 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 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, 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, Underwood School is deserving of finding its own specifically identified place on this list if it's going to be taken out from 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 great point, and I would love to respond to that. So I think one of the challenges that we always have when we're presenting any document such as a CIP is that is it a snapshot in time? and that when this supplemental CIP was submitted and even tonight, the school committee has not, I have not made my recommendation, the school committee ultimately needs to take a vote. As it stands right now, As of this minute, it's that project that is listed there still holds true. In a few weeks, should the school committee vote to recommend 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.

I have two very quick questions of my own, and then I would love a motion to open the public hearing. Councilor Charm, you have a question as well? Okay, I'll come to one sec. Let me just... Finish my thoughts. So the first COO Morse, you put the paving plan for the next five years up there. In the last couple weeks of public facilities, my recollection from our Transportation Network Improvement Plan update is that we're getting a new PCI index. Thank you so much for joining us.

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

Okay, thank you. And the other one is 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. 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. 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 off the top of my head, but I'd be happy to work with Commissioner Sullivan and get you that answer right away.

Thank you. Councillor Charm.

Yes, thank you. My question refers to item number one on the list, which is the Transportation Network Improvement Program There's descriptions in the CIP about how we prioritize different streets. using the very scientific PCI score. 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. Thank you so much for joining us.

And particularly, you know, if these are sidewalks that are near elementary schools, it feels like something may be off with our calculus. So I would love to understand a little bit more about that.

I will give you my take on this, but I recognize that I'd like to bring in the voices of DPW on that as well, so I can get you a little more information from them. This is something that the mayor and I have talked about quite a bit along with the rest of our team. I think we've done, as a city, a very good job at tackling our streets. Our PCI is up quite a bit. We have a lot more work to do. I want to be very clear about that. There are still a lot of streets that need love. But I think one area where we can and should do better are our sidewalks. and that is something that we have already begun work on this end to better understand how we prioritize those sidewalks 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?

You know, also looking at the we did an overall analysis of all of our sidewalks that inventory was done I believe two years ago now-ish. So that is something that we factor in based on those field reports. We also look at walking data. There's some good data that comes from Safe Routes to Schools, for example. We also have our village centers. So there's a lot of things that we look at with respect to that. But I do think that sidewalks is certainly an opportunity for us. And this kind of gets into complete streets as well. There's a cost that comes with that. But at the same time, those sidewalks are very important.

Thank you. 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 definitely an area where at least having more transparency would be appreciated by the community, particularly if there has been an ongoing cadence of requests to understand why something never moves up. Thank you.

OK, 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 aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? 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? Motion by Councilor Roche to close the public hearing. Any discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? 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. Councilor Kelley. 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 aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstention? Those are held. Can I have a motion to adjourn this committee, the whole meeting? Motion by Councilor Kalis. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? The Committee of the Whole is now concluded. Thank you, President Oliver.

All right, how are 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 two-minute bio break, right? So we'll just come back in two minutes. Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you for watching!

Thank you.

All right, folks, why don't we try and grab our seats again here, see if we can't push through this. Counselors, no relief.

Who wants to go?

All right, we should probably turn the recording back on. Are we recording, sir? Are we recording? Fantastic. All right, folks, then let's proceed with first call items. We're going to jump right in with Landius, Councilor Kelley.

Yippee! Thank you, Mr. President. The 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 four feet in height and to amend special permit number 211-21. at 43 Kenwood Ave. Oh, this is all on page 91, sorry, of your reports docket. That was approved 8-0. Next item we approved was number 165-26, a request to further extend nonconforming FAR at 104 Eldridge Street. That was also approved eight to nothing. and the final one that we approved was 166-26, a 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 announce some, to schedule some public hearings.

Please proceed.

Thank you. These are all on page 103 of your docket. I'd like to assign hearings for May 19th for items 173-26. 174-26, 175-26, 176-26, and surprisingly, 177-26. Again, all for May 19th. on page 103. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. For zoning and planning, Councillor Albright.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to fill in. The only item that was approved by the committee at our meeting on May 11th is on page 93, and it was 129-26, his honor, the mayor, reappointing Marcelo Marino, 66 Cloverdale Road, Newton, as a member of the Economic Development Commission and that was approved seven to zero and that's, I move the report.

Great, thank you. Programs and services. This evening we're going to have Councilor Malakie.

Yes, so the report is on page 93. Committee met on May 6th. We approved item 150-26, appropriation of $325,000 from June 30th, 2025 certified pre-cash for NPS science curriculum. That was approved 6-0. And item 153-26 appropriation of $500,000 from certified free cash for full-day kindergarten aides, and that's to cover the period of FY26. That was approved 6-0.

Well said, thank you. For PS&T, Councilor Lucas.

Thank you, President Oliver. The report begins on page 94. The Public Safety and Transportation Committee met on May 7th. We had two items. First one is 148-26, His Honor the Mayor 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 hydraulic rescue tools, also known as the Jaws of Life. That was approved 6-0. And then the other item is 149-26 is under the mayor. requesting authorization to spend $1 million from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for an SCBA harness. And that was approved 6-0. And that concludes the report.

Thank you, sir. For public facilities, Councilor or Vice President Kalis.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Public Facilities Committee met on May 6, 26. We had many items. Item 123-26, Request for Relocation of Drainies, Minton Road Street, was held. Item 136-26 Authorization to Appropriate and Expend $1,250,000 from June 30, 2025 Certified Free Cash for Newton South High School Feasibility Design Phase. That was approved as amended.

Thanks for watching!

137-26, authorization to appropriate and expend $1,250,000 from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for police facility feasibility design phase. That was approved 8-0. 138-26 authorization to appropriate and expend $1,250,000 from June 30, 2025 certified free cash for elementary school feasibility design phase was approved 8-0. 140-26 authorization to accept a grant of $52,000 from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Sustainability Materials Recovery Program was approved 8-0. Item 141-26, authorization to appropriate and expend $63,573.42 from June 30th, 2025 certified free cash for Underwood Security Cameras. That was approved 8-0. 145-26 appointment of Emily Printer to the design review committee was approved 8-0.

147-26 appropriation of $3,200,000 for snow and ice expenditures was approved as amended. 158-26 appropriation of $345,697.55 from June 30, 2025 certified free cash for North and Craft Street was approved 8-0. and 159-26 repurposing of $833,948.85 for Burr School Roof was approved as amended. 160-26 repurpose of $500,000 for multiple small projects at NPS was approved 8-0. 161-26 appropriation of $142,370 Dollars from Energy Stabilization Fund for LED projects at Day Middle School was approved 8-0, and that concludes the report.

Thank you, sir. You guys have been busy. For finance, Councilor Grossman.

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 7-0. 137-26, authorization to appropriate and expend $1,250,000 from free cash for the police facility feasibility design phase was approved seven to zero. 138-26, authorization to appropriate and expend $1,250,000 from free cash for elementary schools feasibility design phase was approved seven 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 six to zero.

Item 141-26, authorization to appropriate and expend $63,500 $173.42 from free cash for Underwood security cameras was approved seven to zero. Item 147-26 appropriation of $3.2 million for snow and ice expenditures was approved as amended. 6-0. Item 148-26, appropriation of $75,000 from free cash for Jaws of Life was approved 6-0. Item 149-26, the appropriation of a million dollars from free cash for SCBA harnesses was approved six to zero. Item 150-26, the appropriation of $325,000 from free cash for the NPS science curriculum was approved six to zero.

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 7-0. Item 153-26, the appropriation of $500,000 from free cash for full-day kindergarten aides was approved six to zero. Item 158-26, the appropriation of $345,697.55 from free cash for North and Craft Streets was approved 6-0. Item 159-26, the repurposing of $833,948.85 for the Burr School roof was approved as amended 7-0. Item 160-26, repurposing $500,000 for multiple small projects at MPS was approved seven 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. In addition, Mr. President, I would like to request a suspension of the rules to report on an item in the Committee of the Whole held earlier this evening for which there is no written report where the water, sewer, and stormwater 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 aye. Aye. Objections or abstentions? 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 abstention, and two absent. With that, I move the report.

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

Albright. Aye. Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block.

Aye.

Councilor Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmubed.

Aye, except for number 157-26, on which I vote no.

Could you repeat that number, please?

Number 157-26. Thank you.

Councillor Farrell. Aye. Getz.

Aye.

Councilor Golden. Aye. Councilor Gordon.

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg.

Aye.

Grossman.

Aye.

Councilor Irish.

Aye.

Councilor Kalis. Aye. Councilor Kelley.

Aye.

Councilor Krintzman. Aye. Councilor Leary.

Aye.

Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malakie.

Aye.

Councilor Micley. Aye. Sir Roach.

Clarification, are we doing 167 and 26 on second call or did we read that as part of the first call?

Sorry, good question. That item was not reported out as it has not been approved through the Finance Committee to this point. So it was not read into the record.

I save 157.26.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

I, except for 157.26.

I'm sorry, Councilor Silber, could you repeat your vote?

I have not voted yet, but I vote aye.

Thank you. Councilor Wright. President Oliver. Aye. On this motion, the ayes are 21. There are three members absent. There are two exceptions on item 157-26, which makes the final vote on that. 19 ayes, two nays, three absent. Motion carries.

Thank you, sir. I have a motion to adjourn. So moved. We are adjourned, folks. Everyone have a lovely evening. Thank you, Councillor Grossman.