ORDER-2021-104 : Amending Chapter 173 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose

Transcript (~27 min @ 33:33)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 33:16 Jen Grigoraitis: thank you ms foote um so just to confirm that without objection we will now close public comment okay seeing no objection the this committee has one order before us tonight which is order 2021-104 amending chapter 173 of the revised ordinances of the city of melrose and at this time i'll entertain a motion to suspend the rule so that we can hear from members

▶ 33:43 Speaker 3: of the administration most of the generals second second so we have a motion to suspend the rules

▶ 33:47 Jen Grigoraitis: made by Councillor Eccles, seconded by Councillor Tramontozzi. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? Tiana Grigoraitis. Yes. Yes. Vice-Chair Migliorelli. Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi. Yes.

▶ 34:06 Speaker 2: Councillor McMaster. Yes. Councillor Eccles. Yes. President Sinella. Yes. Yes. Six yes.

▶ 34:14 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes, so the rules are now suspended. While Ms. Foote brings in our guests, I'll just remind councillors that we will, if you can please raise your hand if you have questions, and I will start with voting members of the committee and then move on to non-voting members.

▶ 34:39 Speaker 1: Mr. Gardiner, can you hear us?

▶ 34:40 Speaker 6: Yes, can you hear me?

▶ 34:43 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes, Mr. Gardiner. Is that our only attendee? Oh, and Mr. Van Kampen.

▶ 34:52 Speaker 6: Thank you very much for letting me participate in this discussion. This is a discussion that's been going on for many, many years at Mount Hood, and we as a Park Commission have not put forward this beverage cart idea. I understand that the ordinance change is much broader than the beverage cart. However, when Mr. Diblin was talking about a nominal, He was talking with the city budget versus what our budget is. He said less than 1%. He's just wrong. The last the difference between the revenues that Mount hood has the Mount hood enterprise fund has has realized. We lost about 118,000. From 2019 to 2020. Although the projections from. Golf management company may not be tremendous as far as our percentage. We only get 11.5 percent of the golf and 11.5 of the beverage and food. It may be 7 percent, but that's 5-7 percent of the budget that we have. We contribute, at least last year on a down year, over 600,000 to the city budget. We're self-sufficient as an enterprise fund. we have an obligation in a lot of senses to follow what the professionals are telling us. In golf management, those folks are the professionals. They run the golf course. They understand what it is. But the point I just want to make before we sign off on this is the fact that this is a control issue. It's more a control issue than it is a money issue. they've told us for years that the golf management folks are that they can control better what happens on the golf course from an alcohol perspective if in fact they have more bodies out on the course with the with the beverage cart to see who's drinking what and who's doing what's going on they are committed to having tips certified folks they're committed to having um people who who are qualified to do this not the you know the teenage the older teenagers minimum wage folks that myron was talking about and i think they at least deserve the opportunity there will be several several conditions placed on any activity on the course that i can imagine through the liquor commission the liquor commission is probably more qualified to to impose those restrictions but i think at the same time i think i think that at least we have to be given the opportunity to consider this it will the process and will be going forward that there will be a a full public hearing on anybody and everybody who wants to weigh in on what should happen here the the melrose park commission is only one step in the process um i think that there's a lot of background and a lot of work that should be done here. Chief Lyle has weighed in. He's come in in favor of the beverage cart for a lot of different reasons, which you folks are probably aware of. I think that in a lot of senses, that this request should be given some serious consideration this year, as opposed to past years when we may not have pushed it as hard as we did before, but frankly, we need the money. Thank you.

▶ 38:33 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Mr. Gardiner. Just for clarification for the benefit of my colleagues and the public watching at home, Mr. Gardiner is the Chair of the Parks Commission. I see Mr. Square with Mayor Broder's name on it. Is the Mayor Mr. VanCampen want to speak next?

▶ 38:51 Speaker 6: Madam Chair, I believe Mayor Broder has some introductory comments connected to this order.

▶ 39:04 Speaker 2: I don't see Mayor Broder. Mayor Broder, are you able to hear us?

▶ 39:16 Speaker 8: There we go. We all good? Everyone hear me?

▶ 39:20 Speaker 8: Outstanding. Good evening. I do very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with the committee and the other members to offer some comments on the order that is before you this evening. As you know, this order would revise section 173-2 by eliminating the absolute prohibition around possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in land controlled by the, under the purview of the Park Commission. To be clear, eliminating this prohibition does not mean this activity will be unregulated by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the contrary, any vendors would still have to endure a rigorous two-step approval process through both the park commission and the liquor commission now this process does provide for public notice and an opportunity to be heard excuse me before such a license can be granted and to a point that was raised earlier anyone serving alcohol whether it's for on-premises or off-premises consumption is required to have tip certification for those who don't know that is training specifically designed to help service check ids and assess patrons for their quite frankly their level of inebriation uh in excuse me in particular context um striking down this section will give the city more not less control over patron drinking particularly at the golf course now the licensing process and required controls put the city in a strong position to thoughtfully drive policy around alcohol in park spaces. I want to be clear that despite the heartfelt nature of the testimony that has come before, I want to make sure you-all understand, I know you do, that what we're discussing tonight is not the licensing of a beverage cart at Mount Hood. It would initiate a process where that would be a possibility. But again, that would have to go through both the Park Commission And the liquor commission before any approval of that particular manifestation of this change. Could go forward now, during my campaign for mayor, I promised to explore. Changing our liquor beer wine regulation and ordinances with an eye towards enhancing economic opportunity. And with an eye towards enhancing quality of life, quite frankly, to that end last year, I convened an advisory group to provide me with advice and recommendations in that area. and i want to let you all know who was on that group um it's consisted of the following members of the city solicitor robert van campen kelly cargavan his assistant um emma schner particular who's a senior planner in the office of planning and community development joe nevin is the chair of the liquor commission uh brendan kent who is a melrose resident many you may remember brendan as a former phys ed and wellness PE instructor in the Melrose Public Schools. He is now the athletic director for the Wakefield Public Schools and in that role as a very deep role in terms of wellness, alcohol abuse prevention, substance abuse prevention. You're a real leader in that area. Mark Arelli, who some of you might know as a local resident, is a musician and music producer who performs regularly throughout the Northeast. We also have Lindsay Target, who is a Melrose resident and a mom at the Roosevelt School. I think you all know Dr. Frank Ranchero from the Melrose Board of Health. Richie Talieri is the proprietor at Giacomo's, and Lauren Grimmick, the former Executive Director of the Melrose Chamber of Commerce, who you all quite frankly have a good sense to just appoint to the Melrose Commission on Women. now the group did complete its work in the summer of 2020 and given covid um we that we quite frankly intentionally slowed down the process but one of the recommendations they talked about was the need to revise this section which does delineate various offenses in parks including but lord knows not limited to the possession the possession and consumption of any intoxicating liquors and we've already talked a little bit about two examples that have that have already even referenced that show how the restriction impacts local enterprises. For several years, the Parks Commission has considered the possibility of a beverage cart at the Mount Hood Golf Course. Now, unless and until this ordinance is repealed, that is not possible, quite frankly, to even consider. The Parks Commission nor the Liquor Commission could consider that activity and impose restrictions on it or limitations. That would not at all be possible without this change. Another example that Mr. Dittmer mentioned was the farmer's market, which is located in Bowdoin Park, which is under control, which land is under control of the park commission. Now, this means again that under the current ordinance, the market cannot sell beer, wine, cider, unlike many other farmers markets, including the market In nearby weight field and patrons quite frankly cannot even purchase such items. To take home and enjoy, or to give us gifts or whatever the case might be. Vendors have expressed the desire to offer these products. And these products have been well received when we have had the opportunity to offer them. Uh, at winter markets where the park prohibition. Does not apply and the attention here is to give those vendors. opportunity to sell that full array of products much like they would at their their brick and mortar brick and mortar locations eliminating this section would absolutely ease the current prohibition and would make the farmers market a more attractive venue for local businesses and consumers and i have to note that i did have an opportunity to watch a little bit of your discussion about the santa fe grill which was excellent and i know the question came up uh as to whether or not they would have the opportunity to do outdoor service well in terms of beer and wine or potentially other alcoholic beverages to the extent that the land that they're considering doing that on encroaches on parkland as we sit here today that proposal is a hundred percent dead on arrival and i suggest if we could have a conversation through a regulatory process we might come to something that satisfies folks safety concerns and provides an amenity that we have seen uh with outdoor dining since the pandemic hit is something that our residents and i suspect people outside the community want and will draw more patrons into our community now that having been said as i stated previously this change would not represent an end to the control of possession of alcohol and to reiterate nothing can happen if this order is passed without the express approval of the park commission and the liquor commission now probably of less interest but still important is there are several outdated or redundant provisions in this in this section um it is duplicative of certain city ordinances and state laws which I think Chief Lyle is available to address and there is some quite frankly unconstitutional language depending on how it is applied around limitations to speech and worship. I respectfully suggest that this order provides us an opportunity to move forward to give, quite frankly, our businesses and many members of our community the opportunity, at a minimum, to explore opportunities that are available in many other spaces, quite frankly, but are not currently available in certain other locations within the city. I've already gone on too long. I know you have many questions and myself and the administration are happy to answer any questions you might have

▶ 47:57 Jen Grigoraitis: or any clarifications you may want thank you mr mayor um mr van campen or chief lyle did you want to say anything in advance or can we or do you want to get to questions we can go we can go right

▶ 48:08 Speaker 6: to questions i think the mayor has basically covered all the bases okay all right so um so

▶ 48:13 Jen Grigoraitis: far i've seen councillor Migliorelli so i'll turn it over to you thank you madam chair um thank you

▶ 48:23 Leila Migliorelli: um for the administration for being here tonight um some of my questions have been answered but like the mayor said you know to clarify i think for the public we're not voting on beverage card

▶ 48:35 Leila Migliorelli: at mount hood tonight um and what we are doing is it's striking an ordinance that has um a lot of other language in there that prohibits a number of offenses in our parks and it sounds like from the mayor um that most of those other offenses and it was covered in his memo um are are covered by other state laws and city ordinances um so just want to be clear about that the one reference um mayor broder and i don't know if this is for mr van campen in the memo that you did not reference um that the the section that says um not to pray aloud or make an oration or harangue or any political speech or canvas or solicitation that that part in your memo you didn't specify whether that's prohibited by other or allowable under other state laws could you speak to that question

▶ 49:25 Paul Brodeur: quick question first i will do that quickly and i will defer to the city solicitor justin k i like to say i'm a i'm a recovering lawyer um but um there are probably um statutes out there that that do prohibit that activity uh potentially but i suggest with a high degree of confidence that that they are unconstitutional. You can certainly have some limits on time and manner of expression. It is likely that it would be appropriate for if someone wanted to have a large religious service with many people attending, that might be subject to a permanent requirement. Someone standing, let's say, in Milano Park on the corner of Grove and Main, we've actually already seen it on certain occasions. Speaking their mind, that is something that, quite frankly, we shouldn't and can't regulate unless it comes to the point where it is goes outside the bounds of First Amendment protections. It's just solicitor, I'm not sure if there's anything to add to help out with that.

▶ 50:41 Speaker 6: Just just to put a finer point on that. The mayor is absolutely correct. The 1 thing we looked at when considering changes to this ordinance. From a 1st amendment, sort of a free expression, free speech. Perspective, so, as a municipality, as a government, we can't impose reasonable restrictions as to time place and manner. And I think the mayor spoke to that. This is an absolute prohibition. On those activities, so that's why, at least from my office's perspective, we were concerned. About that language continuing in place. I tried to do a little research counselor. As to the, the origin of this particular ordinance, and we know that. We know that the board of park commissioners was created by. I believe special act and I'll refer I'll defer to chair Gardiner on that 1. uh in the 1930s and this ordinance appears to go that far back so i suspect that a lot of the language that's in this ordinance has now become outdated by you know state law changes etc uh and at the time the question of praying aloud or engaging in political activity on public land i can't speak to the solicitor who wrote this particular ordinance at that time but i suspect that it was not top of mind but there were certain restrictions that you just simply cannot impose

▶ 52:11 Leila Migliorelli: uh by what so thank you um also related so in doing some research um i noticed that ordinance 177.2 does place some restriction on drinking in public places so um just for the benefit of everyone else um the that ordinance says no person shall drink or possess in any open or partially consumed container any alcoholic beverages is defined by mg mgl 138 while on in or upon public way or upon any way to which the public has a right of access or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees or a park or a playground or private land or place without consent of the owner or person in control thereof so um i just wanted to focus on that and

▶ 52:55 Leila Migliorelli: if that is creates an issue here or does the statement about with without consent um who would be the consenting authority to allowing um you know possession of alcoholic beverages

▶ 53:11 Leila Migliorelli: um and is that the city at large is that the parks commission so just want some

▶ 53:15 Speaker 6: Yeah, and just, and that's a very good point. Chief Lyle and I actually were talking about 177-2 when we began this process and that ordinance and keeping it on the books actually speaks to the layer of approvals that would be required for any entity to be licensed to sell or consume alcohol on, in this case, parkland. In the case of 177-2, so if it was on parkland, you would still require the consent of the park commission through their regulatory permitting process. If it were, for example, and we're living it today, a public street, a public sidewalk, wooden fire as a prime example, has table or will soon have table service right on Essex Street where alcohol will be served that required the consent of the city through the department of public works so so i view 177-2 counselor as a real strong sort of uh symbolic mechanism that that supports the proposition that there have to be a number of regulatory approvals before uh the activity that is being allowed if you will by striking 173-2 can actually occur okay quick quick comment

▶ 54:31 Speaker 8: That sounds to me like an open container law, which I think might also be embedded in state law. I don't want to get too far over my skis on that, but I think that is a contrast with perhaps New Orleans, which has no such thing.

▶ 54:59 Leila Migliorelli: And then one, I have a few more questions. So you can, in the memo, it mentioned that no alcohol will be sold on school grounds or at other athletic fields? Does that mean that non-school athletic fields or athletic games? I know there were some questions about that from the public.

▶ 55:14 Speaker 6: Yeah, so there's a statute on that activity. Chapter 272, Section 40A actually speaks to selling, delivering, or possessing alcohol on what is called school premises. So for example, depending on, again, depending on the nature of the real estate that we're talking about, if it's deemed school premises, any ability to sell or consume alcohol on that real estate would require approval of the school committee. Once again, council, that's a very good point. Here yet again is another layer of regulatory oversight. For example, I would argue if Fred Greenfield, As an example, we're considered for some type of an alumni event, let's say, and they wanted to have a 1 day liquor license. And have, you know, have that kind of an event. My argument is that that would require school committee approval. Power commission approval liquor commission approval 3 layers of regulatory approval. In order to allow that 1 day liquor license, and obviously the liquor commission would be the last step. In the process, because if the park commission and the school committee said, no, then clearly the commission would have no authority to issue a license at that point.

▶ 56:36 Speaker 8: If I go ahead in terms of in terms of youth exposure. The, which is the regulatory body for. I guess I take school related athletic events. That's an absolute prohibition on alcohol being present at their events. As do most, if not all of the. Youth sports federations, like, you know, literally baseball does not allow. Serving a serving of liquor, um. So, there's also the, those kind of control provisions that you will.

▶ 57:23 Leila Migliorelli: Okay, thank you. Um, so just getting back to the sort of the impetus for this around, um, helping to if we strike this ordinance, it then goes through several steps. But with the ultimate goal of stimulating economic activity in Melrose, and so we've already talked a little bit about Mount hood and the farmer's market. None of those are neither locally owned businesses, but do you envision any other instances in which people would be working with the business community, supporting the business community Melrose?

▶ 57:48 Leila Migliorelli: And what type of events would you see happening at some of our other parks that would sort of necessitate this ability to have like alcohol at parks? So like the Common or El Pond Park, Gooch Park, what are the things are you envisioning? Is it private parties by people that can, seek a one day license if it's not, if it's not school related athletics, I know there's adult teams that play at parks. Is that something that you could seek a one day license for? So what's sort of the vision and kind of how do you connect that to economic activity in Melrose specifically?

▶ 58:28 Paul Brodeur: Sure, I'll start and I think Joan or Bill might want to speak to it as well. But first of all, I mean, quite frankly, I disagree with the proposition that the farmer's market and the folks operating the golf course within the city of Melrose aren't Melrose businesses. One is a nonprofit that is, Yeah, that has a board of directors and employees that are all as far as I know. Melrose residents and the wow. Golf management is not located here, but they, they are effectively run the business there. And we certainly want to see them do well, and their success is our success. I also, and there are certainly opportunities for. Our local, our local businesses say. Um, or or, you know, our restaurant folks. To be creative about what they might. What they might want to propose, and we would have to listen to that. I think on a case by case basis, but. 1 thing that strikes me is if you want, you want to create an atmosphere. Where people are are drawn to Melrose. So, in the example of I'll use the golf course, but maybe a better example is when. The symphony played out on. You know, they're outdoor concert out on the baseball field. And I suspect many of us were there and I think while they're. Well, there was no permitting or licensing there. I think we are all. Not so naive to believe that there was no drinking going on at that. But it was a very well, very well run. Highly controlled event and I certainly think we should consider the possibility. That that could be duplicated. With whatever vendor wants to make a proposal as long as they are responsible. And willing to go through the process, and we see the symphony.

▶ 1:00:44 Jen Grigoraitis: mayor broder i'm sorry to interrupt speaking of laws um we this body needs to comply with open meeting law um so we need to recess from this so that we can open public comment for appropriation yeah sorry welcome welcome to a busy night don't worry so um just for the public watching at home where i will entertain a motion recess from legal and ledge motion recess second we have a motion