Watertown City Council (Tuesday May 12, 2026)

Okay, I'd like to call the meeting to order.

This meeting is a meeting of the City Council of May 12th. This meeting is being broadcast and recorded by Watertown Cable Access. It is a hybrid meeting. The Zoom information as well as email and telephone number are available on the city website. And I'm going to ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Councilor Bays.

Present.

Councilor Feltner.

Present.

Councilor Gannon. Gardner, Issa, Offei, Palomba, Piccirilli, Sideris.

Thank you. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Next item is public forum. Any member here or at home wish to speak, please raise your hand or step up.

Second Chance. With regard to the issues that were raised in the budget, I would just like to point out that Age is not start at one place and end. There's a lot of variety, just like we have elementary school, middle school, and high school kids. I hope that's taken into account. because I did an awful lot of work with focus groups several years ago about services that people wanted and there's a great deal of variety. Number two, ADUs. I went to a meeting about ADUs. I understood that Watertown was going to put something together about this, somehow in compliance with the state, but also their own rules. Recently I was asked by someone to check out an ADU issue. on Hovey Street. It was a three family, three condos. One person is living in another area, one person is living there, and the person There are two people living on site. As soon as that person got the ADU, he used that to leverage the sale of his unit. He didn't put it in. It was a thing to boost the value.

So do we have rules on this or not? Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me a second chance. That's important. Thank you, Council.

Thank you. Anyone else? Joan Gumbelden, you are allowed to speak.

Good evening. I also have a question on the ADUs. I've read a few articles and some of the realtors are questioning how those ADUs are actually going to be assessed. because they're so new that towns don't know what the actual values of them are and what values they're going to add to specific properties. you know I don't know if we've got any way of doing that yet or if it's still too new to Watertown but just something that people I think will be raising that issue in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else in public forum? Seeing none, I close the public forum and move on to the next item, which is the examination of minutes. Can I get a motion on the minutes of April 28?

Mr. President, I make a motion that the minutes of April 28 are approved as written.

Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Next item is President's Report. I just have one item. As you may recall, I did make a City Council. We have a policy statement on what the city is doing to keep the residents of our community safe and outlined a number of items that were on that list. thought it would be an important, powerful message to have the council weigh in and somehow endorse that policy of what has been in place. So I'm looking for a motion to endorse the policy that was read by me at the previous council meeting.

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Second. Discussion? Councilor Bayes.

Well, I just wanted to thank you for giving us the opportunity to endorse the statement. I really appreciate, you know, being able to put my name on this, too.

Councilor Gannon.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Again, echoing Councilor Bay's comments, thank you for putting this before us. It's great that we speak as one body and with a strong message. and I appreciate the efforts to put this together and I also appreciate the ability of the council as a whole to weigh in. So thank you and I will be supporting this measure.

Councilor Palomba.

Thank you. I just want to add my thanks. We appreciate it very much that you've taken the initiative to do this, and I even more appreciate the fact that you came back to us and asked for our support. So I appreciate that, and I will be supporting it also. Thank you.

any other comments? I just want to, Councilor Offei.

I also just want to say thank you for making this available for all of us to add our names. As an immigrant, I'm very grateful for what you had to say and for the opportunity to add my name to it as well.

I also just want to add that prefaced my remarks last week by stating that they were me, and I thought it was very important to put that out there first, rather than assume that everybody would be okay with it, so that's why it's here again tonight. Thank you for allowing me to have this conversation. Can all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Next item is a public hearing and vote on a proposed ordinance amending the code of ordinances regarding non-union personnel compensation and leave Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. As I noted at the last meeting, there was an interest when we repealed the personnel ordinance at the last meeting in preparation in completing the effort of the administrative code to have something in the code of ordinances acknowledging the need to have policies around these particular items. There was some discussion on the council on this and I tried to catch it the best I could. a suggestion essentially that there would be a need to clarify that we continue to have policies around these but necessarily voting to update and change a compensation system every year for non-union staff seemed to be a bit more than something we haven't done in the council era in the last 46 years. So tried to create a simple ordinance to provide some protection to non-union employees by establishing that there is a and that that system remains in place and is followed consistently across the board. Therefore, attached behind my memo is a simple ordinance with one section to it.

about the Human Resources Department of the City of Watertown maintaining employee policies for employees that are not directly employed by the City Council and that are otherwise not covered by a collective bargaining unit including, but not limited to, a classification compensation system, establishing a grade and salary step for each position, a policy for accruing vacation leave, a policy for accruing sick leave, a policy for accruing personal leave, and a schedule of employee holidays. I feel that this is a prudent step on addressing this particular issue and ask the council's support on passing this ordinance as the simple replacement for the things that that were left behind as we removed the personnel ordinance. And happy to answer any questions for you through this public hearing, Mr. President, thank you.

Thank you. Can I get first a motion on the proposed ordinance amending the code of ordinances? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Discussion? Gannon.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President, and Ms. Manager, I thank you for putting this together. This applies to non-union employees, so they don't have collective bargaining contracts. This is essentially the only thing they have. but all of the union contracts have a just cause provision for the enforcement of discipline and other types of adverse employment action. I wondered why a just cause provision prevents Unnecessary Discretion, so that employees are treated similarly. So I just wanted to hear about that justification.

First turn to Attorney Rich.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to remind that this is a public hearing.

Okay, we will go back to that as well. Thank you. Sorry. Mr. Manager, could you answer Councilor Gannon's inquiry?

I guess I have a question for Attorney Rich. If I establish through these provisions, and I don't know if the previous personnel ordinance had something like this, a circumstance that requires me to use a just cause standard if we separate from an employee. Am I increasing the likelihood of the city's ability to lose a legal action in the circumstances where we dismiss an employee? even if we make a cause case, I don't generally find a circumstance where I would dismiss a non-union employee not for cause but it seems like it creates a legal standard I don't have right now and I'm not sure where that leaves us from a from a risk perspective.

Thank you, Mr. President, through you. Certainly when a just cause provision, it's even beyond just cause, you have termination at will, you have cause termination, and then just cause. You are elevating the requirements for demonstrating the basis under which the determination is made so it certainly elevates the process because there has to be a showing and obviously that's something that's subject to challenge whereas without a cause standard, it provides greater flexibility for the employer with respect to employment actions.

and if I may follow that up, Mr. President?

Yes, go ahead, Councilor.

Yeah, thank you. So what I'm trying to prevent is different employees being treated differently. So this provision now, it's a not well, situation, employees can be dismissed for various reasons. The only prohibition is they can't be dismissed or disciplined for a public policy reason like their ethnic or racial makeup. And that's it. I mean, there's no requirement that employees be treated similarly and disciplined and other actions and even a cause action and the attorney recommend you know stated that as a policy body, we can create a just cause, we can create a cause provision, or stick with what is essentially here an at-will employee, and I think

This is for non-union employees, department heads and the like and those exempt from being part of union. I think they should have some protections as well. So maybe 10% of the workforce of Watertown, the city side might be non-union, or can you give a percentage of? What is union versus non-union?

So we have approximately 400 employees across the departments. The folks who are non-union are the department heads and the assistant department heads. It's probably at most 25 of the 400 people. That's like rough. The deputy manager may be able to get me a more exact number, but it's in that ballpark.

No, and I appreciate the efforts of the Collins Center and you and your staff's effort, but I can't support this unless there's at least a cause provision for discipline so that employees are treated in a like manner.

I... Mr. President, may I? Yes. I... I have done my best over the course of the last three and a half years to build a team that has been really worked well and been good for the the community for working with the council and for allowing me to achieve the goals that you want me to achieve. and I really truly do believe and would defend the position that if I were ever to leave this manager position and somebody else were to come in, that I've put together a great leadership team and they should feel confident that that is a great leadership team and they should stick with that great leadership team. On the other hand, City managers sometimes do like to make choices about who they put on their leadership team based upon how they feel that they can best achieve the goals that they're trying to achieve.

and as much as I will back and support my leadership team and the fact that I think they've done a great job, I also just ask the question of whether or not it's appropriate to place a future successor of me in a position where they can't make a change at a department head level if they feel that situation is appropriate to do so. I'll leave this to the council's decision. I am confident enough that with or without this clause I am fine. But to determine for the well-being of the city as a whole going forward and for the potential risk to the city as a whole going forward, I'll leave it to the council to determine whether or not they want to take a motion to add something like that but I didn't include it because I didn't think it made sense at this point but that's Again, up to the council as the policy body of the city. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. Manager. Any other comments or questions? This is a public hearing, so if there's any member of the public, either here or at home, which is to be heard, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and go back to Council Bays.

Yeah, I'm just curious. I just think there's just a typo in here that we need to fix that before we vote on this. there's a wording it says these policies shall include but are not be limited to so either the B has to go or the R has to go.

Thank you and through you Mr. President removing the B

but are not limited to. So it would be.

Shall include but are not limited to, I think is the intent here. Yes. So the B should be removed. The B will be removed. Thank you.

Any other comments? Councilor Gannon.

Yes, thanks, and I just want to, very quick, I just want to respond to Mr. Boricus' comments. So, and George, I'm not making any, Assumption that this will happen your administration you you've run an ideal administration in my opinion but as Speaking with folks about creating bylaws, ordinances, and the like, I like to tell people we're talking 30, 40 years down the line and not the present here. Like I said before, other cities and towns have a cause provision at the very least in their non-union regulations, bylaws, and ordinances. I believe even Somerville does. I just want to throw it out there and like I said, I cannot support this ordinance without that type of provision.

Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? Can I get a roll call, please?

Piccirilli. Yes. Councilor Bays. Yes. Councilor Feltner. Yes. Councilor Gannon. No. Councilor Gardner. Yes. Councilor Izzo. Yes. Councilor Offei. Yes. Councilor Palomba. Yes. President Sideris.

Yes, thank you. Next item is 6B, which is a public hearing and vote on a proposed loan order that the sum of $2,300,000 is appropriated to pay costs of reconstructing Farrer Street and Springfield Street as more fully described in line 289 of the city's fiscal year 2026 through 2031 capital improvement program. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. As noted before you, consistent with the capital improvement plan is a request to borrow $2.3 million submitted alongside a separate $2.1 million loan order for Forestry Connector Roads scheduled Where is that second one scheduled at this point? Was that one done? I'm lost a little bit here. I'll ask Mr. Brady to provide detail on the status of this particular loan order. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Brady.

Thank you Mr. President, members of the council. With the council's continued support, we are working through the street and program which is, we're catching up, is the short version. This is Long Streets and Connectors, this will be Forrest and Springfield, so kind of globally as we're all sitting here, to your left, to my right. from here up to the end. It's a two season construction plan, so it's two years of funding. and I'm pleased to report that at this point we received a very favorable bid. There were concerns about the climate and we got some very good prices from a contractor who did good work for us on Moore Street and helped us out on Russell as well. we're excited if the council moves this forward, our next step will be to work with the contractor, get a detailed schedule in place, and then have a couple neighborhood gatherings to inform everyone and start the process.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's any member of the public here or at home wishes to speak, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and ask for a motion from the City Council.

Mr. President, I make a motion that we approve the loan order for $2.3 million.

Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Sorry, hold on. Councilor Offei.

I just have a quick question for Mr. Brady. I don't know if actually I don't know. but I live on Riverside Street and I know that you guys are supposed to be working on Riverside Street and I'm just curious just because people in my neighborhood have asked me like, you know, if there is any update on when that is happening or if it's happening.

Yes, first, it's a great question, Councilor, thank you. First, as far as in Springfield, in 27 is Riverside, and then fiscal 28 is Summer and Fayette. Next up after this project, as long as everything goes well.

Okay, no, just because the Perkins School is over there and with no sidewalk, it's just a little problematic for all those people coming down the street.

Not to bury you in information, turns out there was a grading issue, to put it gently over there, in terms of making sure that we can make the grades work and keep everything compliant and accessible. So it's taken a little bit more time than I would have liked, quite frankly, to resolve that, but we're pretty close.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Roll call please.

Bays, Feltner, Gannon, Gardner, Izzo, Offei, Palomba, Piccirilli, Sideris.

Thank you. 6C is a public hearing and vote. on a proposed loan order that the sum of $2,100,000 is appropriated to pay costs of constructing and overseeing the connector roads and longer streets project at Forest Street and Springfield Street as more fully described in line 318 of the city's fiscal year 2024 through the 2028 capital improvement plan. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry for my confusion there about these two separate items, but yes, there were two companion items here, one for 2.3 that the council just voted on, thank you, and one for 2.1. Conceptual Recommendation 15 of the Fiscal Year 26 to 30 Capital Improvement Plan, both consistent with the plan, both reviewed and submitted alongside each other. And Mr. Brady can answer further questions about this. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. This is a public hearing as well. If there's any member of the public here at home wishes to be heard, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and ask for a motion from the City Council.

Excuse me. Mr. President, I make a motion that we approve the loan order for $2.1 million.

Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Councilor Palomba.

Thank you. I apologize. I should know this since I'm on the Public Works Committee and we discussed this, but can you help me understand the relationship why there are two loan orders and what one does over the other? Again, my My apologies if I don't remember it from the last meeting.

not a problem at all, Councilor, excellent question. It's a long stretch of roadway that's gonna cost a pretty significant sum and a fairly significant amount of time to construct. So it's actually that fiscal, We're pulling two fiscal years together to get the funding together and it aligns with the construction schedule as well.

But they're both for this coming fiscal year. The funds are for this coming fiscal year that will be used over the next two fiscal years.

Correct.

Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. Manager will answer that. If I may, the 2.1 million was set aside when we developed the fiscal year 24 Capital Improvement Plan, and was identified as a conceptual recommendation to be approved that year, and as we've noted before, DPW had fallen behind on some of these, and so in the part of the catch-up, we're borrowing what we're essentially calling fiscal year 24 borrowing. It's been in our debt schedule and assumed since that period of time, but we are not going to borrow it until next month, basically this year. So by doing both, we are, were able to put the funds together to do this very long street project. But they come from two different years capital plans, but capital plans are conceptual that then go into one borrowing package now.

Okay, thank you. Sure. Any other questions? Councilor Gannon.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. So I just want to clarify that for Forest Street, that the entire length of Forest Street will be covered because It's been a long process for the neighbors there, those who live next to the senior center and all the way down to the linear park, so good news for them, so I appreciate your response.

Yes, sir, that is correct. I confirmed that with my engineering staff this afternoon.

Okay, thank you.

Can I get a roll call, please?

Councilor Feltner? Yes. Councilor Gannon? Yes. Councilor Gardner? Yes. Councilor Izzo? Yes. Palomba. Yes. Councilor Piccirilli. Yes. Councilor Bays. Yes. President Sideris.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Item seven is motions, orders, and resolutions. 7A is a consideration and action on the expenditure of $100,000 in Community Preservation Act funds for one off-cycle project the Old Burying Ground and Common Street Cemetery Landscape Architecture Services. Mr. Manager?

Thank you. Moving on to Community Preservation Act funds, Mr. Dorico from the Community Preservation Committee is here this evening to report the CPA funding recommendations. in this particular pool and answer any particular questions that you may have. And he'll be able to explain the details of this particular expenditure item that we're considering this evening. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Manager, Proekes, and City Councilors. I'm Bob DiRico, I'm the interim chair of the Community Preservation Commission. Thank you for consideration of the CPC recommendation of $100,000 in CPA funding from the Historic Preservation Reserve. This request from the Department of Community Development and Planning in partnership with the Historical Society of Watertown as part of a phased project to perform historic restoration of two municipally owned cemeteries, the Old Berrien Ground and the Common Street Cemetery. both cemeteries on the National Register of Historic Places signifying their importance as historic resources and valued cultural assets. For example, the Old Berrien Ground is the oldest cemetery in Watertown,

dating back to 1642 with many historic Watertown residents buried there. Notable veterans from every war are buried in the cemeteries as well. In 2023, the CPC recommended $94,590 in CPA funding for the initial phase of this project, which the city council approved. Again, the total cost for this phase is $100,000 and entails the development of construction documents and specifications for the restoration of grave markers, tombs, crypts, historic fencing, Gates, stone walls, signage, a brick paved entry, a paved path and driveway, as well as landscape features such as tree work to be contributed by the Department of Public Works. this phase is expected to begin in July of 2026 and be completed by early 2027.

In the old burying ground in Common Street Cemetery historic preservation plan, Ray Dunitz Architects estimated the implementation cost of the plan at 1.5 million in 2024. Upon obtaining an updated cost estimate and submitting requests for non-CPA sources of funding from Mass Historical Commission, National Cemetery Administration, et cetera, the DCDP will submit a third and final application for the restoration of grave markers and other cemetery features in spring or summer of 2027. Any questions? I have Michelle Moon, Open Space Coordinator, who's worked on this plan. as well as Lenay Handy, our coordinator, is on Zoom.

Thank you. Questions from the city council? Councilor Palomba.

Sorry. Thank you. I just wanted to be understood. So at first, the first amount of money we requested was about $94,000. Yes. Now it's $100,000. Yes. This is just to do the diagrams, or I should say the documents, the construction documents. Yes, so we could put it out to bid. How long, I'm sorry if I didn't see it in these three pages, but how long does that take? I think we'd like the Sewell to bid in July, I believe. And it would take how long for them to complete the documents?

No, I think the documents should be completed in July, if I'm not mistaken. Correct, Michelle? Oh, sorry, six to eight months.

So from the point that you hire someone, it would take six to eight months, and they're only going to charge $100,000 to do that, huh? Correct. Oh, okay. Thank you.

Fay.

Am I right that you mentioned that these two are on the National Registry of Historic Places? Yes. Are they also on the Massachusetts Registry?

That I'm not sure, I can get back to you on that though. I believe so.

The reason I ask that question is there could be a potential for federal grants for restoring properties that are on national registry. Is that something that you've looked into? Correct. Yes.

Gannon.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. So when I initially saw a request for $50,000 for restoring all the graves, markers, and such, I thought, Is that enough money? So it's good to see that this is going to be used toward the eventual document which will be used for applying for grants for other That's correct. For the real work, then, ultimately. and could you tell me the funders you're looking to beyond the ones you said? Are those the only funders you're looking to apply to?

Lene is online. She could answer. better than I could, but I think so.

I don't see her name here.

I think it's just the ones that I mentioned, which is, again, the Mass Historical Commission, National Cemetery Administration. I don't know who the et cetera is, but we'll find out.

OK. And I should also note that there are other, there might be even particular grant money available. So I believe the first African-American who fought in the Civil War is buried in the Common Street Cemetery. might be a different tranche of money to apply to for various purposes. And Charles Brigham, the architect who helped design the extension of the State House, likewise buried there, so maybe other groups could be targeted based on who's buried there too.

Great point, good. Any other comments? can I get a roll call, please? Oh, I need a motion first. A motion.

Mr. President, yes, of course. Mr. President, I make a motion that we appropriate $100,000 from the community preservation funds from the historic preservation reserve for the cemetery project.

Is there a second?

Second.

Roll call, please. Oh, Councilor Feltner.

Just to note, are there going to be more documents uploaded? Because there's a lot of slots that say no file uploaded, so if people want to see it all in one place when you go to... It says 21 files, but a lot of them aren't uploaded yet, such as the statement showing how it's going to comply with federal regulations. Historic Treatment Standards. I fully support the project just in terms of ease for people to follow. I agree.

I'll find out, and I'm sure Lene has an answer for that. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

all call please.

Councilor Gannon. Yes. Councilor Gardner. Yes. Councilor Izzo. Yes. Councilor Offei. Yes. Councilor Palomba. Yes. Councilor Piccirilli. Yes. Councilor Bays. Yes. Councilor Feltner. Yes. President Sideris.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Bob, Michelle. Thanks to the CPC for their efforts on putting this together. 7B is a resolution authorizing a transfer of funds in the amount of $75,000 from the fiscal year 2026 City Council Reserve to the fiscal year 2026 litigation account. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. As I noted as we were discussing the legal budget, in order to ensure we have sufficient funding for the remainder of the fiscal year in the legal services budget, we did go a little over the We haven't yet, but we are heading towards going over on the budget of $300,000. We're at about $283,000 right now. So we're requesting $75,000 in a transfer from Reserve to litigation to ensure adequate funds for the remainder of the fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. President.

Can I get a motion on the transfer of $75,000 as presented? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion?

Gardner, Issa, Offei, Palomba, Piccirilli, Bays, Feltner, Gannon, Sideris.

7C is a resolution authorizing a transfer of funds in the amount of $824,277 from the fiscal year 2026 City Council Reserve to various fiscal year 2026 snow and ice accounts. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned during the budget hearing yesterday, we wanted to finish the fiscal year with the snow and ice deficit covered. Snow and Ice budgets are budgets that can run in deficit. And for many years we haven't had to do that, but particularly with the two large storms we had towards the end of this winter, this did put us in many communities like us in a deficit situation. Through the snow and ice removal budget, there's a deficit of about $797,815. In addition, public buildings had two other costs, one for 6,827 for equipment maintenance and ice melt, and another $19,635 in additional overtime costs incurred for snow removal. Therefore, we're requesting a transfer of $824,277 from the City Council Reserve account, five accounts, three in the snow and ice budget to cover overtime rental of equipment and sand and salt, and two in the public buildings line, one for overtime and one for groundskeeping supplies. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Can I get a motion on the transfer of 824-277? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Discussion? I just want to say thank you to the manager, the auditor, the deputy manager, the public works department. It's been quite a while since we had to overexpend our budget for this particular line item. Hopefully, El Nino takes effect this year too, so we won't do this again, but we appreciate that we don't have to carry this over and add that to the tax bill. Can I get a roll call, please?

Councilor Izzo.

Yes.

Councilor Offei. Yes. Councilor Palomba. Yes. Councilor Piccirilli. Yes. Councilor Bays.

Yes.

Councilor Feltner.

Yes.

Councilor Gannon. Yes. Councilor Gardner. Yes. President Sideris.

Yes, thank you. 7D is a resolution authorizing a transfer of funds in the amount of $14,768,576 from the fiscal year 2026 Watertown High School stabilization transfer out to other funds account to the fiscal year 2026 Watertown High School transfer in from other funds account. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. So here we reach an exciting moment. One of the things that this council has done so well and I've really appreciated is that as COVID hit and as we came out of COVID and construction costs went up we worked very hard to try to maintain the borrowing number where it was on the high school project and we did that by making some very strategic investments in the stabilization fund for the high school project. And at this point, there's $14,768,576 available in the Watertown High School Stabilization Fund because we set these funds aside for the high school. The project as a whole is still at $220,538,835. We've basically held that budget since the start of construction. We borrowed 150 million plus an additional 1.6 million during the feasibility phase.

We expect an anticipated MSBA reimbursement of 44,283,365. We did transfer in 1.802 from the three elementary school project when it was closed out. We put in a million dollar federal ARPA funding for the solar array. and we transferred funds for feasibility and have some anticipated tax credits and mass save energy rebates of 2.8 million that we are expecting on the project. That means that the funds needed to completely close the budget for the high school is $13,793,777. were asking to transfer the whole $14,768,576, which is about a million dollars more, because essentially it gives us a cash buffer particularly while we await MSBA reimbursements and tax credits.

MSBA always delays their last reimbursement and the government's a little slow on getting us the tax credits and rebates back on the solar projects. with that, with the transfer to 14768576, we're hoping that we can maintain this line. Everything else from here on in is essentially a cash flow question and just making sure that money in is there for money out as we work towards opening this school in the beginning of the school year. Thank you, Mr. President.

can I get a motion on the transfer of $14,768,576 as presented? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Discussion? Councilor Gannon.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. So first question, is this the final payment for the Watertown High School construction, or do you anticipate future costs?

The only reason why we would need to put additional money in this fund is to cover the gap before we get a rebate back. I don't expect that there's... there's no other reason that we would need to further fund the high school project as we're expecting at this point. So as long as the rebates come in on time, this is it.

and with follow up to that question, so the rebates and any funds that we receive from the utilities for producing excess electricity, does that go to paying down the debt? Or does it go to the school side or does it go to the city side?

The initial tax credit rebates, basically in the mass save rebates, the funds that come in as like one-time payments, they go towards the school project itself. Any savings we have on the electric bills essentially because of our solar arrays and such are just built into the operating budget of the school and the school department over time.

Okay, thank you. If I also may add a couple of comments here. We're winding down the project. there are still issues. It's still a construction site. We don't anticipate major changes. Some of the grants, including from the, first the energy grant, takes more than a year because they want to meet her and make sure that they're getting what they're paying for in the sense that we're producing our own energy the way we said it was going to be produced. MSBA typically takes at least a year as well to send the rest of their payments. They want closeout documents. They want things from commissioning. So there are a lot of processes to get the rebates. I will say the project is in the 95 or 96 percentile of being finished.

because as the manager stated, we put this money aside early on, we didn't have to borrow it now. So this money was earning interest for us and I anticipate working with the school building committee when we finally close out this project like we did with the three elementary schools a year and a half or two years later, we could potentially return some funds back to the kids. to the city, which would be at the manager's discretion because it is city funds. Any other comments? Roll call, please.

Bayes, Feltner, Gannon, Gardner, Izzo, Sideris.

Gardner. Committee reports. Committee 8A is a Committee on Rules and Ordinance report regarding its meeting on March 12. Councilor Gardner.

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee convened on Thursday, March 12th in the third floor conference room, City Hall, Watertown with remote participation by Zoom. I called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. and present were myself, Chair, Lisa Feltner, Vice Chair, and John Gannon, Secretary. Also present were City Manager George Powakis and Municipal Policy Analyst Doug Newton. President in the audience were Councilors Vinnie Piccirilli and Caroline Bays. President Rita Colafella was also present in the room, as were Linda Scott and Elodia Thomas by Zoom. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed noise ordinance. Manager Perwickes began the meeting by discussing the proposed noise ordinance. Attachment A is the current and Attachment B is the proposed. Mr. Newton then presented slides discussing the current and proposed noise ordinances, that's attachment C. The committee also received public comment from Rita Colafella in advance of the meeting, attachment D. The committee then began discussion. Councilor Feltner expressed disappointment that the proposed ordinance does not address the following.

Caps on total noise levels, noise duration, definition of various sources of noise and vibration. She also said the statement of purpose describing some fleeting noise as inherent to life in Watertown suggests that noise is being accepted. Councilor Gannon said that construction and demolition has led to vibrations being felt, particularly in dense areas. Gardner. The committee asked staff to conduct research into the issue of vibrations and report back at a future meeting. Councilor Gardner raised the issue of tonal noise. Some other communities restrict this to no more than five DBA above ambient level. She asked for additional research to be conducted with neighboring towns regarding tonal noise limits since the draft does not include it in our current ordinance and the ordinance when some neighboring towns do include it. The committee then discussed the matter of commercial and residential lawn maintenance with discussion centering around if the current ordinance exempts commercial lawn maintenance from enforcement.

Manager Proakis and Mr. Newton shared that their understanding is the current ordinance has a gap which does not cover commercial maintenance and that this is also the understanding of the health department. Gardner said she felt it was important the new ordinance covered this gap. On the issue of lawn maintenance, Mr. Proekes said that the Watertown Environment and Energy Efficiency Committee has expressed interest in an ordinance specifically on gas-powered lawn equipment. The manager views this as a separate issue from the noise ordinance, meriting its own referral. The committee then began discussing the definitions of the ordinance. They discussed the necessity of defining both emergency and emergency work, and asked staff to provide revised language at a future meeting. As to the definition of construction and demolition, the committee asked staff to make the language more concise and avoid listing out specific examples. The committee asked staff to provide a better definition of plainly audible.

While it is defined in the draft as, quote, any sound that can be detected by a person of normal hearing ability using his or her unaided hearing facilities, end quote, The committee agreed that the word normal is not appropriate and asked staff to edit the definition for the next meeting. Finally, the committee began discussion of section 9503, prohibition of noise pollution. Gannon raised the issue of enforcement as health department staff are not exempt from the state trespassing statute. Manager Proek has noticed that he noted that he views it as a core responsibility of his to ensure that staff are properly trained on all applicable laws and regulations and will ensure that this remains the case. Feltner made a motion seconded by Councilor Gannon to continue the meeting. The motion passed three to zero and the meeting concluded at 629 p.m. And this report was prepared by Doug Newton. Thank you, Doug.

Can I get a motion to accept the report? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Next item is 8B, which is Committee on Rules and Ordinance report regarding its meeting on April 21st. Councilor Gardner.

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee convened on Tuesday, April 21st in the Philip Payne Lower Hearing Room City Hall with remote participation by Zoom. I called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. Present were myself, chair, Lisa Feltner, vice chair, and John Gannon, secretary. Also present was municipal policy analyst Doug Newton. President in the audience were Councilors Vinnie Piccirilli, Caroline Bayes, and Council President Mark Sideris. Residents Bob Miller, Jack Bartley, and Rita Colafella were present in the room, as were several additional residents on Zoom. Gardner began the meeting by recapping where the committee left off at the prior meeting. She pointed out that Mr. Newton had worked on several items as requested by the committee in between the two meetings and asked the committee to go through that list. The Committee began by discussing Section 1, Statement of Purpose, with the Committee agreeing to come back to the Statement of Purpose with Councilor Feltner's proposed changes at a future time.

The committee next turned to Section 2 definitions, and Mr. Newton began going through the items he had worked on. 2A, construction and demolition. In the last meeting, the committee wanted this definition shortened. Mr. Newton suggested limiting the list of specific examples laid out in the proposed definition in the ordinance. The definition would then be, quote, any of the following, excavation, highway construction, land development or land clearing work, the erection, demolition, alteration, repair, or relocation of any building or structure, the use of any equipment for recycling, screening, separating, or any other processing of any raw material, end quote. Feltner shared that the following proposed alternative language, quote, any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, Alteration, destruction, or similar action for public or private rights of way, structures, utilities, or similar property.

Gannon shared that he feels it is important not to list too many specific examples within a definition so as not to accidentally create exemptions. he proposed the following language, the erection, demolition, alteration, quote, the erection, demolition, alteration, or repair of any building or structure, end quote. After discussion, Councilor Gardner proposed that the committee approve the following language, quote, any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration, destruction, or similar action, for public or private rights of way, structures, utilities, or similar property, and also the use of any equipment for any processing of any material. This is the language that Councilor Feltner had proposed with an addition, and the committee agreed to adopt this language. 2C, emergency and emergency work. At the last meeting, the committee wanted definitions simplified.

Mr. Newton mentioned that Waltham's noise ordinances uses a similar definition of emergency but defines emergency work as simply, quote, work which must be used, must be performed to alleviate an emergency, end quote. Gannon shared that he prefers the definition in Watertown's proposed ordinance as it encompasses more. After discussion, Councilor Gardner proposed the following language for definition of emergency work. Quote, any work performed to prevent or alleviate the physical hazard or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency, end quote. The committee agreed to adopt this language. Mr. Newton then mentioned that the proposed ordinance sometimes uses the word sound instead of noise, and it may be sensible to change mentions of sound to noise for internal consistency, given that the ordinance defines, quote, noise pollution, end quote. The committee reviewed where the word sound is used, which includes technical definitions. After discussion, the committee agreed to keep the word sound.

2G, plainly audible. At the last meeting, the committee agreed that the word normal should not be used. Mr. Newton shared the following language which had been drafted by Councilor Gardner. Quote, any sound that is detectable and distinguishable from ambient or background noise at a specified location such that the sound source or character can be reasonably identified under ordinary conditions. Gardner, a determination of plainly audible sound may be made by direct observation." Councilor Gannon and Councilor Feltner agreed this definition was appropriate. Gannon then suggested that direct observation may not be strong enough to hold up to a legal challenge. After a discussion, the committee agreed to keep the definition as proposed pending review by KP law. The committee then discussed tonal noise since the retention of the restrictions on tonal noise from our current noise ordinance was proposed during the last meeting.

In Mr. Newton's discussions with Public Health Director Abby Myers, she said that doing so may require some additional training or equipment, but that it could be done if it is decided by the Council. Mr. Newton said that Waltham and Newton both cover tonal noise in their ordinances and define it as, quote, any noise that is judged by a listener to have the characteristics of a pure tone, whine, hum, or buzz, end quote. He suggested the same definition and the committee agreed. Next, the committee turned to section three, prohibition of noise pollution. Mr. Gannon again raised a concern regarding city staff enforcing the noise ordinance on private property given that they are not exempt from the trespassing statute. Gardner said that this is something KP law can be asked to review. Mr. Newton added that the ordinance specifies that determinations can be made, quote, at least

and, quote, 50 feet away and, quote, only if applicable, unquote, which is intended to protect the city from such circumstances. The committee agreed to have KP Law review this matter further. New Section 3B. Returning to the matter of tonal noise, the committee discussed the proposed new language for tonal noise, which would limit the noise measured at five dBA above ambient noise, consistent with Watertown's current ordinance. Feltner suggested that the committee review whether to restrict tonal noise to a lower number such as 3. Mr. Newton shared that Ms. Myers said it makes the most sense to use 5 DBA. After a discussion, the committee agreed to ask Ms. Myers to attend the next meeting on this topic. The committee then discussed the matter of vibrations. Mr. Newton shared that based on his discussion with Ms. Myers, it would not be possible for the health department to enforce against vibrations as of now. Further, doing so would require a sound specialist, which is costly.

The equipment owned by the city currently is also not capable of measuring vibrations. Feltner said that while she can appreciate how difficult it is to enforce, she has heard from residents with concerns about vibrations and would like more information on the matter. Bayes said that Newton has a separate ordinance covering vibrations and that Cambridge covers vibrations in its noise ordinance. Gardner suggested that the committee could ask for vibration ordinance referral if they feel it is an issue in the community and that she would be happy to have Ms. Myers discuss this further when she comes to the committee. Feltner then raised the issue of barking dogs and said she would like to hear from the health department on whether barking dogs can be included in the noise ordinance. She would further like to make sure there's referral for an ordinance to cover barking dogs if the topic cannot be covered in the noise ordinance. On 3C, Councilor Gardner then asked about exempting city-sponsored events.

She suggested that some events such as the Greek Festival and others may not be covered as city-sponsored, though they are somewhat comparable. Newton said that any events which are borderline could seek a noise waiver as prescribed in the proposed ordinance. Councilor Gannon added that individual vendors within city sponsored events could be much noisier than expected or permitted and ought to be covered. Gannon, Mr. Newton said the City Events staff would be able to handle the situation if it were to arise. On 3D, Councilor Gannon expressed concern that the language could be too lenient in permitting people to accidentally cause noise pollution. Gannon. The committee agreed that this should also be reviewed by KP law. Councilor Gannon made a motion seconded by Councilor Feltner to continue the meeting. The motion passed 3-0 and the meeting concluded at 7.37 p.m. And these minutes are prepared by Doug Newton. Thank you, Doug.

Thank you. Can I get a motion to accept the report? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Next item is Committee on Rules and Ordinances report regarding its meeting on May 5, Councilor Gardner.

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee convened on Tuesday at 6 30 p.m. in the third floor conference room with remote participation by Zoom. Present were myself, Lisa Feltner, Vice Chair, and John Gannon, Secretary. Also present in the room were Councilor Vinnie Piccirilli and Municipal Policy Analyst Doug Newton. Joining by Zoom were Public Health Director Abby Myers, Councilor Tony Palomba, Angie Kanellis, George Skoos, Linda Scott, and Joan Gumbelden. Gardner called the meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to continue the discussion of a proposed noise ordinance. The committee began by reviewing open items raised in prior meetings. The following are the attachments. Attachment A is the current Watertown Noise Ordinance. B is a document with proposed edits provided by Councilor Feltner.

C is the original draft ordinance provided by staff, D is the revised version coming out of the committee second meeting, E is an updated table of benchmarks from local communities with formatting changes only, and F is public comment received prior to the meeting. With regard to statement of purpose, the committee agreed to discuss statement of purpose in greater detail and consider proposed changes at the next meeting on May 13th, Wednesday. With regard to vibration, the question of whether the noise ordinance should cover non-audible vibrations was discussed. During the discussion, the following points were made. Gardner, two neighboring towns, Cambridge and Newton, regulate vibration, one in a standalone ordinance and one by including it in the noise ordinance. Councilor Gardner said that audible vibrations would by definition be covered under the noise ordinance. So the question is limited only to non-audible vibrations, which she felt was not within the scope of a noise ordinance.

Feltner noted that vibrations can have negative health effects. The Director of Public Health expressed concerns about including vibration in the noise ordinance. Vibration is difficult to prove or disprove, making enforceability challenging. Furthermore, public health staff are not trained in this field. Specialized and sophisticated equipment and expertise are required such as sound engineers and structural engineers. When vibration is alleged to cause structural damage it falls under the purview of the building inspector. Gannon expressed concerns about the legality of regulating nonaudible vibration. The committee concluded that the vibration should not be covered in the noise ordinance, but the matter warrants further investigation. Feltner made a motion seconded by Councilor Gannon to recommend the City Council refer the matter of vibration to the Rules and Ordinances Committee for further study. including the legal considerations and report back with a recommendation and the motion passed unanimously.

With regard to tonal noise, the question of whether the threshold for tonal noise should be 5 dBA above ambient noise or 3 dBA came up. Ms. Meyer said that she felt it should be five DBA for the following reasons. One, it is a meaningful step above ambient, making it easier to measure and determine if there is a violation or not. 3DBA is too small a distinction, creating measurement uncertainty. Further, it would be prone to challenges. In the course of this discussion, she also shared the following points. Staff are trained in equipment and a measurement takes two people, herself or her deputy, and a second person. Measurements can include multiple readings and include multiple locations. If needed, staff will go over the jurisdictional line to take measurements. Measurements are taken in different seasons since sound can be affected by so many factors. Ambient noise level is measured in the neighborhood in an area where the tone is no longer audible.

The Health Department averages one or fewer complaints per month. Equipment is recalibrated after every reading. The Health Department is most often called for mechanical and consistent noise. If there is a dispute or challenge, they invite the DEP to do a second reading. The committee concluded that 5 DBA was the appropriate measure to be used for tonal noise. During the course of the discussion, Councilor Gannon asked about repeated noise complaints from Ms. Cedar Pruitt of Newton. Ms. Meyer said that the staff had taken measurements and at the time the difference in noise level was below regulatory limits. on the matter of exclusion for domestic animals on residential and commercial property. The committee agreed that residents should not be subject to continuous loud animal noise, whether from a neighbor's home or a business nearby. The committee concluded that domestic animals whether on residential or commercial property should not be exempted from this ordinance and agreed to strike this exclusion in its entirety.

on the matter of boundary determination, determining a violation of the noise ordinance. The committee agreed that the measure should be taken at the property line of any property, whether residential, commercial, nonprofit, or other. The committee discussed the fact that in large properties that are publicly accessible, such as a large mixed-use development, the public has the right to expect ambient noise consistent with the neighborhood. Sometimes machinery can bring the noise level more than 10 dBA or 5 dBA of tonal above ambient. Therefore, the committee added a clause stipulating that measurement will be taken 50 feet away from the source of noise within any property that has publicly accessible space. with regard to the manner in which a violation occurs. Councilor Gannon said he felt it was important to strike the words quote,

willfully, negligently, or through failure to provide necessary equipment, service, or maintenance, or to take necessary precautions, end quote, from the ordinance for simplicity. Gardner felt these words might help the staff explain why someone was responsible if in violation, regardless of their reason. When asked, Ms. Myers said she didn't think the proposed change would change the enforceability of the ordinance either way. The committee agreed to strike this language. on the matter of construction and demolition and domestic and commercial maintenance allowed hours. The committee agreed to change the language to say when these activities were allowed rather than when they were not allowed since it would be simpler to understand. The committee removed the language on where measurements take place since it is not applicable in this section. Waiver. The committee asked on the matter of the waiver. The committee asked Ms. Myers and Mr. Newton to prepare departmental regulations for the committee to review.

And the committee agreed that all councillors should receive copies of all waivers issues. Gannon. Minor wording changes were made for clarity and accuracy. On the matter of penalty, Councilor Gannon recommended the following language be added. each subsequent day or part thereof of violation of this chapter, whether continuous or intermittent, shall be construed as a separate and succeeding offense. Feltner. The Committee agreed. On the matter of right to appeal, Councilor Feltner asked that this be placed on the agenda of the next meeting. The meeting was continued with a unanimous vote at 8.52 p.m. and this report was prepared by me.

Can I get a motion to accept the report? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Can I get a motion to refer back to the Committee on Rules and Ordinances for further study, including legal considerations, the matter of vibration, and report back with a recommendation. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Item nine is communications from the city manager. 9A is a request for confirmation of appointment to the historical commission. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. The recent vacancy on the historical commission, I had the opportunity to have a number of people recommended to me by the Residence Advisory Committee who are all very well qualified. I interviewed those and I am recommending Kevin Lee who has a background in architecture and has done a number of adapted reuse architecture projects. He's worked for Sasaki, for Howler and Youn, for Elkos Manfredi Architects. He has a very in-depth knowledge of architecture and design. As I said, he was recommended from the Residence Advisory Committee. And I'm submitting her for an appointment for filling a vacant term that expires October 1st, 2026. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. This goes to the Committee on Economic Development and Planning. 9B is a request for confirmation of appointments to the Watertown Cable Access Corporation Board of Directors.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have two appointments here, one to fill the unexpired term of Christopher McKenzie, who resigned, the other to fill a newer opening. Miss Adrienne Roberts, who has a background in in donor planning, basically fundraising and raising funds for nonprofits. And Ms. Lindsey Graham, whose background was in athletic communication works a lot on basically on work with broadcasting sports programs on regional and national television. So two very different but very good backgrounds for the Cable Board, Adrienne Roberts for a term to expire September 15, 2027, Lindsey Graham for September 15, 2029. In both cases, these were recommendations from the Residence Advisory Committee and I look forward to passing them along to you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Those go to the Committee on Education and School System Matters. 9C is a request for confirmation of reappointment to the Cultural Council. Mr. Manager.

Phyllis Perrone, who has been serving ably on the Cultural Council and with recommendations of the Residence Advisory Committee, I'm recommending a reappointment of Phyllis for a term to expire May 15th, 2029.

That goes to also to the Committee on Economic Development and Planning. 9D is a request for referral to the Watertown Housing Plan, 2026 to 2030. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mr. President. Before you is the Watertown Housing Plan as endorsed by the Watertown Affordable Housing Trust during their April 21st, 2026 meeting. This plan is the result of a year of work on behalf of the Trust and their staff, including discussions and opportunities for public comment during the Trust's February, March, and April meetings, and the May, June, and July 2025 meetings as well. I request this matter be referred to committee for review by the City Council. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Back in 2021 when we did this the last time, this was referred to a dual subcommittee of human services and economic development and planning. If there are no objections, we will be referring that to the same dual committees. 9E is a request for a referral, the affordable housing incentive studies. Mr.

Manager. Thank you, Mr. President. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council is finalizing the affordable housing incentive study for the city of Watertown. seeking a city council presentation. The study focuses on incentives to encourage affordable housing development. After that you, Mr. President, and I had, we felt it was best to have a committee host MAPC for this presentation and other councilors could attend at that committee meeting if they are so interested. I'm requesting a committee referral of this particular item to schedule a meeting to have the MAPC team come present to the committee that can then report out to the full Council. Thank you, Mr. President.

This gets referred to the Committee on Human Services. 9F is a request for extension of contract negotiation period. Mr. Manager?

Thank you, Mr. President. With appreciation to the Council for the amount of time I know they have spent now in three executive sessions discussing my contract, I realize from the requests that the Council President has been making for additional information that we are making significant progress towards an extension that will allow me to continue to remain here beyond August of this year. but just to address a little detail and make sure to close the loop on this detail, section 2A of my contract says in the event the parties are unable to reach agreement on a successor contract by May 14th, 2026, the contract shall expire on August 14th, 2026. And then afterwards says, unless mutually extended by the parties. To support continued progress in the negotiations, which I know is ongoing, and to ensure that my contract doesn't trigger a clause that ends my employment here in August, I'm requesting additional time for us to complete this work.

My request is that the Council mutually agree with me to extend the negotiation period through June 30th, 2026, which would provide us plenty of time to maintain continuity of operations and adequately finalize a successor agreement. Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Council.

Can I get a motion to extend the contract negotiation period to June 30th, 2026? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Manager?

Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of other quick notes here. As we were preparing our budget documents, documents, our grants manager gave us some information on the work that he's done to date, and I didn't get a chance to share it in the budget hearing, but I just wanted to note that since our Grants and budget analysts started in September of 24, not including schools. Our city departments have been awarded 51 grants totaling $4,020,284. So that's a lot to cover. Our grants manager worked very closely with the senior services director for the $110,000 MassDoc grant for the new senior shuttle. led the process to apply for a million dollar grant through our federal congressional delegation for a new senior center in Watertown Square. These are pending. This is like the next round of trying to get earmarks. We were very successful last year on that front, or as they call them now, congressionally directed spending.

worked with Human Services and the library to repurpose grant funds that were awarded but not going to be used, allowing the library staff to run digital literacy courses. and is currently working with Department of Public Buildings to apply for funds through FEMA to cover the cost of a number of generators in city buildings and will be assisting with applications to a state grant to secure funds for projects identified in the ADA self-evaluation transition plan. in addition to the city funds that we're allocating to that particular purpose. Other notes, I had a chance this past week to tour the project at Victory Field, which is going on and moving quickly, making a lot of progress. there was a lot of underground work that had to be done on that project that you don't get to really see and appreciate as you drive by but that underground work is essentially complete and There's a number of pieces now working on fences, working on the track and field operations in the middle of the field, etc. I just want to share because a number of people have asked.

the construction work on the site should be done in the end of fall and we expect that the field and track area would be able to open in March or April in the spring after that field has had some time to be planted and rest and do all the things that our fields need to do. We may be able to open some of the hard court surfaces before that. We're still working out the details of that, but our expectation is construction crews out of there in the fall and and the ability to use the actual green space on there in the track come the spring. on Salt and Stall Park over here right next to us. I just wanted to share a quick update. As you may recall, we went through a flash vote process designed what we wanted the pavilion to look like there. And if you noticed for the last many months, the pavilion looks a lot like that flash vote minus the roof. and that otherwise everything else in that park is complete, that park is ready for farmers market.

The stage actually, if necessary, can be used for the summer concerts without the roof. both the contractor and our city staff are equally as frustrated that the subcontractor developing this roof has taken so long to get it done. We are still working with it with a number of contingency plans working with our contractor to make sure that this thing actually happens and gets delivered and is everything we've expected it to be. This one little piece is taking a lot longer than we expect it to be, but we do want everybody to enjoy that the rest of the park is open and available and as farmers market season opens we will be able to use it again and I'll provide updates to the roof as things go forward. Next thing I wanted to note to you is I did have a referral to you about a month and a half ago for confirmation of Earl Smith, our city auditor. Since that time, we did pass the administrative code that doesn't require a council. Assessor. Excuse me. Sorry, Megan. The word Assessor is right here on my screen.

Yeah, Cassidy Assessor. And that the The chief assessor, the head of the assessor's board, doesn't require council confirmation under the new administrative code, so I just wanted to note that I believe that ended up in a committee referral doesn't need action at this point of time. Earl is safely here, even if that committee does not take action. So I just wanted to assure you all that that is where that all landed. One other complex announcement and then a couple of quick date announcements. I wanted to provide an update on the post office returning to Watertown Square. This has been a topic of discussion a lot, and I don't want anyone, you know, there's been a lot of behind the scenes work on this at this point, and I think it's time to share where we stand on this situation. So, as you know, as the housing and retail development at 104 Main Street, is making progress towards completion. We met with the project developer to talk about the post office. As you know, we'd all been working on trying to bring them back there.

Representatives from O'Connor Capital Partners shared with the City that they have engaged with the Post Office about returning to the storefront location in the newly developed building at 104 Main. Those developments took place over several months and there was great interest in welcoming the post office back to Watertown Square. I think we were all kind of working optimistically in the right direction. And then recently, the USPS informed O'Connor Capital Partners that they no longer wish to explore adding locations as part of a wider strategy shift despite the willingness and interest from the parties involved. My understanding is they cancelled multiple in progress conversations about opening retail storefronts far beyond just Watertown. The city fully recognized the importance of a downtown post office on a community, especially Watertown. and that is why we have reached out to our congressional delegation to help us with this effort. I've engaged in direct conversations with our representatives office and Representative Clark's office.

She's working with teams across the House and Senate to encourage the USPS to return to Watertown Square and serve our residents. whether we are able to get the location at 104 main or it's another storefront in the square we're looking forward to eventually welcoming the post office back to our town we at the city are very committed to continuing to inform the community to trying to work with our congressional delegation and the US Post Office to see what we need to do to make this happen. We hope to have positive news coming from all of this process at some point in the future. We have not given up on this. worked very hard at trying to make Watertown Square a vibrant downtown. And I think a post office is a part of a vibrant downtown. It's a piece of it that is missing in Watertown Square. I think our friends at the US Post Office are much more focused on cost cutting and on efficiency while I'm more focused on

kind of the foot traffic of a main street and the things you're supposed to be able to do here and one of those is mail a letter, mail a package, pick up your packages and all of the things that you typically do at a post office. I was sad to hear that O'Connor had gotten so far along in this conversation and then got stuck based upon a larger USPS strategy. Congresswoman Clark's office is well aware of this frustration and is working to help us, and I'll have more information on that as I find it, as we move along in that process. Finally, some key elements related to Memorial Day. On Wednesday, May 20th, from 5 to 8 p.m., cemetery flag planting. Volunteers will help Watertown Veterans Services replace veteran flags at Ridgeland and St. Patrick's Cemetery. Rain date, May 21st. If you're interested in volunteering, call or text 857-202-0176.

Friday, May 22nd, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., the annual Poppy Social at the Commander's Mansion, an open house with light refreshments, tours, and a wreath-laying ceremony at 10.30. on Sunday, May 24th at 8 o'clock. Wreath veterans organizations will depart from the Marine Corps League to visit local cemeteries, do wreath ceremonies, and pay tribute between 8 and 10 o'clock. and, of course, on Monday, May 25th, our Memorial Day Parade will begin at 12 p.m. That is all I have today, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Requests for information. Any requests for information? Announcements, any announcements? I just want to remind people that Wednesday, May 20th, we do have an open house from three to eight at 9 Galen Street on the Watertown Square demonstration project. Feltner. There's plenty of time for people to come over and take a look. They'll be available to take a walk across the street to see where the locations are. So I encourage people to please stop by at some point and take a look at what the manager has proposed for the Watertown Square demonstration project. Public Forum, any? Yes. Oh, another announcement?

Oh, yes, sorry, Councilor, I didn't see your hand. Oh, sure. So this coming Saturday for music fans and community events everywhere, Watertown is having its porch fest that runs from 12 to 6 p.m. There are a number of locations across Watertown and it's an amazing event for folks who love community building as well as Good Music, and seeing their friends pick up an instrument for the first time. So thank you.

Any other announcements? Councilor Feltner.

Thank you, Mr. President. Just a reminder, and because it's a little unusual concerning potentially lifting a demolition delay, I wanted to announce that the Historical Commission has posted their and we'll be discussing 22 Stonely Circle, 45 Mount Auburn Street and 1820 Washington, Washburn Street, among other matters. And the public is encouraged to attend. Thank you.

Any other announcements? Public forum?

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who to address this through, probably Mr. Manager, but I'm having real problems with the phone system because so many different departments have different formats. DPW, for example, lists everybody with the phone number and an extension so I can leave a message directly for the person I'm trying to reach. Other departments have the same number for every single person. They refer me. I have to go through a person to get to a person. People don't have voicemails set up, so I don't even know if I reached the person. Could we move to have one standard format, or is there a problem with the system? And the Muzak is awful, and I'm spending an awful lot of time listening to it. So could we change it up? But I'm not the only one that's frustrated with this, but we talk about communication, and it's a major breakdown right from the get-go. And maybe I'm the only one that calls people. I'm very lonely when I can't reach them. I don't know how we can address it, but it's a real pain in my behind.

How about if we play some rock and roll?

Yes, or some jazz, or some blues, but anything, what I'm listening to.

Anyone else in public forum wish to be heard? Seeing none can I get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Thank you.