ORDER-2020-38 : A Special Act to authorize the City of Melrose, acting through it's Liquor Licensing Commission, to convert up to three (3) retail food establishment licenses for the sale of wine and malt beverages to licenses for the sale of all alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption.

Transcript (~1 h 13 min @ 20:37)

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

▶ 20:35 Speaker 1: much the final order on our agenda is order number 2020 dash 3 8 a special act authorized the city of Melrose acting through its liquor licensing Commission to convert up to two retail food establishment licenses for the sale of wine and malt beverages to look to the licenses for the sale of all alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption and we're cylinder suspension rules in the city solicitors here if you'd like to join us thank you the proposal before

▶ 21:09 Speaker 8: you tonight is a request for a home rule petition special act to the legislature to authorize the Norris liquor Commission the discretion to issue up to two of the three retail food establishment licenses which currently exist which were created by Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2008 for all alcoholic beverages. Currently our retail food establishments can only, under their licenses, serve wine and malt beverages, so the proposal before you is to expand or give the Liquor Commission the ability to expand two of the three licenses for all alcoholic beverages. I will represent to you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, that the intent is not to automatically expand the two existing licenses that have been issued in the city. Both licensees would still, if they so chose, have to petition the Liquor Commission for approval to expand, assuming this does pass. I would also represent that during the mayoral transition that has occurred this week, Mayor Mayor Alec Broder is on board in support of this initiative, I believe he may have communicated that to you as well. He did. So he and Mayor Infern are on the same page with respect to this initiative. I would also add before opening up to questions that as part of this process, the Liquor Commission has been directed by the Mayor to begin the process of revising its regulations with the the goal of accommodating any expanded sales that may occur through this legislation. At the same time, Mayor Inferna, and I believe Mayor-Elect Broda during his travels through the city recently, has heard concern about nips and, I'm not even sure of the lingo and I apologize, quarts and pints and those types of smaller bottles. So the commission would be considering, at the mayor's direction, promulgating a regulation TO BASICALLY PROHIBIT THOSE TYPES OF SALES UNDER THIS LEGISLATION. SO I GIVE THAT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR RATIFICATION AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

▶ 23:25 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MAYOR ELECT BROADER TEXTED ME JUST BEFORE THIS MEETING TO SHARE HIS POSITION. HE APOLOGIZED FOR NOT HAVING TIME TO PUT IT IN WRITING TO EVERYONE. FIRST IN QUEUE IS COUNCILOR MORTIMER.

▶ 23:39 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much, Chairman Libby Garabedian.

▶ 23:45 Peter D. Mortimer: Over the years, there's a lot of changes that have occurred. Some I've been in favor of, some I've been against, because I think we have to look at prudence, practicality, and we have to be very protective of the quality of life here in Melrose. 25 years ago, 30 years ago, they didn't even have drinks in restaurants. Then we went to the beer and wine, select food stores, and now it looks like it's time for this, and I don't think it's a bad idea. I also spoke with Mayor Broda, and he said it would be possible for us to limit it. I wanted to do it to see, I won't do it right away, but I was wondering if we could do it in the form of an amendment to this language we have before us in the agenda packet. The agenda packet, for some reason, I'm not sure if it's a typo, or if we're missing a section by design. But we go right from section one, there's no section two, and then we go directly to section three.

▶ 24:53 Speaker 8: That is a typo. Okay, so that's- So that should be section two. All right. This act shall take effect upon its passage, should be section two.

▶ 25:02 Peter D. Mortimer: All right, so that's a typo on that in section two. So, what I would propose at some point is if we had section 1A which would say that no bottle of alcohol for alcoholic beverages of with 25% alcohol or greater.

▶ 25:31 Peter D. Mortimer: No bottle shall be allowed to be less than 12 ounces. And what that would prohibit would be the half pints and the nips. And if somebody wants to take it down, maybe we can have the half pints. But the problem, the half pints they sell are actually now, because they're milliliters, they're actually 7.6 ounces. And what the problem with it is, is that kids drink the nips and they carry the nips on their person. It's happening at the high school right now. I know a bunch of the high school kids and it does go on. If you have to get a pint, which is now with the milliliters, it's 16.9 ounces, it's a little bigger, a little bulkier, a little more obvious. It doesn't mean the kids aren't going to find ways to do it, but it can be done. But with the nips, it makes it really easy for them to hide it. You can hide it in any small pocket. You can hide it in the cuff of your pants, in your hat, whatever. And there's all kinds of things that can happen. Another problem with the nips, and maybe the half pints too, is you get a lot of homeless alcoholics who like to get the nips. If you go to other cities that allow the sale of hard liquor, which, I mean, let's face it, the plan is both these establishments are going to get it. I mean, of course it still has to go to the elected commission, but let's be frank here, at the end of the day, they're going to get it. And I'm in favor of it, there's some changes we just have to move along with. And I think this will be okay, we can still protect the quality of life, we can be prudent about this. But I would like to see, even beyond letting the Liquor Commission promulgate regulations that would ban nips and possibly half pints, I would like to see us put it right in the language of this special act. Because if you go to other cities, you go to the parks and some back alleys in some adjacent cities and towns north of us, south of us, you see nip bottles everywhere. Up and down, up and down. So for people who are addicted to alcohol and their drug of choice, because alcohol is a drug, their drug of choice is alcohol, you see those nip bottles everywhere. And it's not good for the city. It attracts a bad element, it causes people then after they've had a few nips to possibly commit crimes. And as mentioned before, it's easy for the kids to bring nips into school. And even now that we don't have them in the city, there's a little bit of that going on at our public schools now. Sad to report, although the schools are doing a great job overall as every possible record reflects. So I'll hold off on making that a motion to make it section 1A, but I think it would be a good idea for the quality of life and the protection of our citizens here in Melrose, that we would definitely eliminate the NIPS and maybe the half pints as well. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

▶ 28:53 Speaker 8: And Councilor, I just represent to you that I'm certain Mayor Inferno and Mayor Lickroeder would be in favor of that amendment to, as I understand, incorporate it directly into the statute. My suggestion would be, and this is obviously up to the committee, since section three is already listed, just create section two. Sure. And I would propose, and this is open for discussion obviously, the term, in quotes, all alcoholic beverages as used herein shall not include. And then list what it is that you would exclude from the definition of all alcoholic beverages. pints, quarts, whatever they're called, or maybe on some kind of a metric basis, you could exclude the size of the bottle, however you want to do it, I just throw it out for your discussion.

▶ 29:41 Peter D. Mortimer: Yeah, quarts are fine, fifths are fine, that's a big bottle, that's not going to be stashed. And the homeless alcoholics unfortunately can't afford those. But the reason I said 12 ounces, if it's greater than 25% alcohol, Sometimes you might get an eight ounce bottle of Mogan David 2020, or you get a 12 ounce can of beer. And I'm not against people buying a 12 ounce can of beer. But what worries me is when it's less than 12 ounces and it's distilled liquor, something that's 40%, 50%, which translates to 80 proof and 100 proof. Proof you just, to get the percentage, you just cut it in half. So, sometimes I think the strongest wine that's around is Mogan David 2020, MD 2020, known as Mad Dog 2020, MD. And, but if we, I don't want to stop people from buying a small gift bottle of wine or one can of beer. But it's the distilled spirits in small quantities that I think pose the most detriment to our youth and quality of life of having homeless alcoholics trying to stem money begging for money and then trying to go into one of these two stores downtown and I grab a couple of nips so they can get they'll get themselves right for the day Thank

▶ 31:12 Michael P. Zwirko: You madam chair thank you for being here this evening mr. van Kampen to answer these questions I just want to make a quick point of reference so I'm trying research some of the jurisdictions the powers thereof of the Liquor Commission and things like that I went back and I remembered that in 2015 and I'll just cite it for the folks that are not only watching at home but for the members here order 2000 excuse me order two zero one five dash one one eight this is when this board worked with the then mayor Dolan and the Liquor Commission to reduce the amounts of seats in the city to allow for beer and wine licenses to be granted to smaller restaurants there is a slew over ten attachments to that order that out Express outlined liquor regs executive summaries there's decks there's PowerPoint presentations there's Melrose liquor license Commission rules and regulations etc so I I point that out as a reference because I think that there's a lot of good materials there for the discussion that we're having here and that's a long-winded way of me saying that I while I completely agree with all councillor Mortimer points this evening and I've spoken with members of the Liquor Commission and the Inferno administration about that I actually don't think that we need to amend the order that's before us because the jurisdiction to promulgate regulations that we've discussed fall squarely within the Liquor Commission themselves so it's almost like the traffic commission where just the other night about a week or two ago we talked about dedicating a parking spot for the veterans and we found out that that's not something that we could do under the laws of the Commonwealth since the traffic commission has jurisdiction over that so I'm throwing that out as a question I believe that is the case and I ask you now mr. solicitor if that if that is true and if that is the case and as opposed to an amendment what I would like to do if we pass this order is to attach some sort of a statement from this body that expressly directs the Liquor Commission to promulgate some types of regulations that address the concerns that have been raised this evening so I pose that to you now sure so you know it's an accurate statement

▶ 33:26 Speaker 8: that the Liquor Commission under state law chapter 138 is is authorized to promulgate regulations governing the consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages within city limits that is correct but I also represent to the committee if it's the will of the committee to amend the order to incorporate that prohibition and make it statutory so that future liquor Commission's can't buy regulation override that determination by the City Council that that's also a proper Avenue they both both are proper avenues okay I

▶ 34:03 Michael P. Zwirko: I appreciate that. The other question I had is would the regulation of the sale of alcohol, would that also affect the hours that these stores are open? Could that be a contingency? I mean, would that fall within the jurisdiction of the Liquor Commission? I guess I'm wondering if we start selling alcohol, they may say, geez, let's not sell it past 9 o'clock.

▶ 34:23 Speaker 8: MR. Yeah. Hours are regulated by the regulations of the Liquor Commission, so they would be established by those regulations.

▶ 34:31 Michael P. Zwirko: MR. Okay. actually I just have two more there's there are services now that actually deliver alcohol to residences and I I don't mean to catch you off guard but you know how that would work I mean right now I can have liquor delivered and obviously it's not coming from Melrose but is that something that like the private proprietor or business would enter with a vendor to do that is that THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, EITHER THE DISCOUNTERS.

▶ 35:01 Speaker 8: ARE YOU REFERRING TO HOME, LIKE RESIDENTIAL COMPANIES? CORRECT, YEAH. SO THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A COMPANY, A TRANSPORTATION COMPANY THAT IS LICENSED BY THE ABCC TO TRANSPORT ALCOHOL FOR SALE. THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE MELROSE LIQUOR COMMISSION. I IMAGINE IT WOULD BE AN ABCC REGULATORY REQUIREMENT, BUT OUR COMMISSION WOULDN'T HAVE ANY JURISDICTION IN THAT REQUIREMENT.

▶ 35:25 Michael P. Zwirko: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. And then finally, I'm just curious as to why not three, why two in the proposal? And I know that we have one license that's kind of dangling out there right now. I didn't know if that was what was given behind the reason for just two. We have the opportunity for three, so I'm just curious what the reasoning is.

▶ 35:48 Speaker 8: It really came down to a question of what the market could bear and what the community would accept and the mayor felt that expanding for all three retail food establishments particularly where one isn't even issued may be somewhat excessive given that we weren't even certain that third license could be ultimately issued because the market today is dictating in Melrose that only two retail food establishments are able to compete and survive. So the decision really was to limit it to two, given that we actually don't even have three licenses issued and are uncertain as to whether or not the market could sustain all three.

▶ 36:31 Speaker 9: But certainly we could.

▶ 36:32 Speaker 8: It's a fair question. Sure.

▶ 36:34 Michael P. Zwirko: Fair question. So you actually made me think of something else, and I apologize because I said this was my last question. So it's a lead up. It's a follow-up. So I know right now with the two licenses that we've granted to the two stores in Melrose that there's a percentage that they have to have that's non-alcoholic sales, you know, be it gifts, cheese, et cetera, that would still apply here. So they would be able to sell alcohol in addition to those thresholds. They may have to actually bring down some of the . . . MR.

▶ 37:04 Speaker 8: Correct. So under the 2008 law, the requirement is that the sale of alcoholic beverages has to

▶ 37:13 Speaker 8: be incidental right to the sale of food and you know I interpret incidental to

▶ 37:25 Speaker 8: mean basically fifty point one percent versus you know the the alcoholic component which should be the minority component right we we obviously have we've seen success in both of our retail food establishments and you know there is a bit of a struggle on occasion with strict compliance with that threshold that configuration right um but that is technically what the law requires okay all right um

▶ 37:52 Michael P. Zwirko: so again i i i look forward to listening to the rest of my colleagues but i you know again i wholeheartedly agree with not only your statement earlier on um limiting it to certain um volumes um as well as the comments made earlier by uh counselor mortimer so that's all the questions i had at this time and i i do appreciate it uh thank you very much madam chair counselor butra

▶ 38:11 Manisha Bewtra: thank you um i think uh counselors rocco asked some of the questions i had but um i guess i want to just reiterate like the making sure that we have real information and not just sort of conjecture on market versus what the community would accept on on expanding it to two versus three um it feels to me a little bit arbitrary to just sort of say we should just do it for two and And I think especially even though, although I appreciate your point about that it wouldn't automatically go to our two existing businesses, it obviously favors them, which has benefits for us because they're established businesses, but I think there are other ways we can monitor that these businesses are running appropriately beyond just restricting to two licenses. I also am curious if we can you know maybe have a little bit more data from a public health perspective on maybe existing whatever we have in terms of substance use or misuse in our schools with regards to alcohol. If we have some of that data particularly if there's anything backing up use of nips I don't know that we would have that but certainly around just substance use in general would be very helpful so we can make again an informed first go forward in an informed way and I think you know outside of what's written here I think your point around the percentage of total sales that's a local that's under our local jurisdiction right the the requirement to have was it fifty point one percent has to be food sales or is it the other way I mean it's kind

▶ 40:13 Manisha Bewtra: of is that that's under like our local jurisdiction to change that correct the

▶ 40:33 Manisha Bewtra: question regarding the required percentage of sales that must be from not not from alcohol purchases correct me so it's a local it's a local

▶ 40:45 Speaker 8: requirement that the sale of alcoholic beverages within our retail food establishments is incidental to the sale of food products right and what was the

▶ 40:59 Speaker 8: percentage again the language is incidental okay so it's so you interpret

▶ 41:03 Speaker 8: it interpret that as that the majority item in that establishment is something that's not alcohol because alcohol is incidental to it understood um so I

▶ 41:12 Manisha Bewtra: think it'd be behoove us to maybe look at that again as well because I just because again I mean this will be higher ticket price items aside from making the businesses more lucrative so I think you know as I appreciate the mayor putting this forward in a way that allows for some community discussion it sounds like we're not looking to make a decision tonight but but certainly as the new administration takes office and we look into this more I think I would love to see us potentially include some modification or clarification around that incidental language maybe even removing that as we go forward that is

▶ 42:06 Manisha Bewtra: Is it for now? Thank you. Thank you councillor chairman Tosi. Thank you. Madam chair

▶ 42:14 John N. Tramontozzi: Mr. Van Camp and you mentioned that the mayor has asked our licensing authority to review the regulations for revisions correct Would not this body be the body to approve whatever revisions to the regulations occur Would we not be approving?

▶ 42:37 Speaker 8: The regulations of the Liquor Commission are promulgated under the authority of the Liquor Commission, which is established under Chapter 138. They would be required, if they revise their regulations, to conduct a public hearing. Yes. I believe it's under Chapter 30A. That public hearing would have to be noticed to the community. I think there's 21 days notice required. And at that point, they would have that public hearing and then they would vote to promulgate, revise the regulations. There's no jurisdiction here at the city council level for that purpose.

▶ 43:12 John N. Tramontozzi: Great, and that's good because I feel like we need more public input into this before we enact it. But I also think that would it not make sense We see what the Liquor Licensing Commission proposes before we act on allowing and granting the full liquor license.

▶ 43:36 Speaker 8: That's at the discretion of the city council. At this point, both the administration in office now and the administration taking office in about 18 hours are going to work dual tracks with both the legislation moving up to the state house and then simultaneously working with the Liquor Commission to revise the regulations to fit in those new provisions that would accommodate this expanded authority.

▶ 44:03 John N. Tramontozzi: Right, because right now, the way this is worded is giving them carte blanche. We will authorize two licenses and then go with it. If we want to do some restrictions, the NIPS, I mean, We have a broad discretion pursuant to the state statute, the State Alcohol Beverage Control Commission and the court cases that allow these local authorities to put and impose reasonable conditions on the issuance of these licenses. Some other reasonable conditions we might want to consider is locations where they might be. We can restrict the locations, whether it's downtown, restrict it from so many feet, from schools, churches, whatever. That's certainly also an ability to do.

▶ 44:57 Speaker 8: That authority though, just so you know, when it comes to the sort of licensing process. The Liquor Commission is charged with the responsibility of determining whether or not the grant of a license is in the public interest. And we did have this discussion in the community in 2008 when we initially licensed the retail establishments. And there were concerns about putting them too close to churches, and schools, and playgrounds, and those types of other uses. And the commission, when it conducts its analysis in either approving or rejecting a license, has to make that determination as to whether or not it's in the public interest. So that authority does belong to the Liquor Commission.

▶ 45:37 John N. Tramontozzi: Yeah, but I think it's still, we should be able to see that, to see what their findings are with the public input. Because now we're granting more ability for the alcohol to be amongst the community, rather than just being sold within the restaurant, by distributing it outside. And I would certainly, if we were to approve this, would like some significant imposition of reasonable conditions.

▶ 46:13 Speaker 3: Thank you.

▶ 46:16 Speaker 1: Councillor McMaster. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Mr. VanCampen.

▶ 46:20 Shawn M. MacMaster: What are the merits of addressing this through a home rule petition? If we're able to do it as Councillor Zorico mentioned, what would be the merits of doing it in the manner that is set forth in this order?

▶ 46:36 Speaker 8: I understand what merits of doing of enacting the expanded through a home rule petition

▶ 46:41 Shawn M. MacMaster: as opposed to what Councilor Zerraco suggested as being a possibility I'm not sure I follow

▶ 46:51 Shawn M. MacMaster: your line of questioning I'm sorry do we is our only option to do this through a home rule petition is that our only option to to make this a good question so under the um

▶ 46:58 Speaker 8: so we're proposing that this be done as the changes in 2015 were done via the commonwealth's home rule procedure and what that entails is essentially allowing a city such as Melrose through its city council with the approval of its mayor to petition the legislature which is what we're doing in this case to enact a special act that would be applicable specifically to the city of Melrose. The alternative which we did in 2008 because it was such a dramatic change historically was to put a ballot question before the voters, basically asking them to authorize the, in that case, it was the creation of three new licenses in the community. At that time, I think we also addressed some issues with restaurant seating. But the preferred approach this time is to go through the Home Rule Special Act process rather than wait, at this point, you'd have to wait until the next, I believe it's the state. You'd have to wait till the next state ballot, which I'm not sure if the presidential primary qualifies for that, but there would be a lag in the ability to expand. So there's those two tracks that you could take, but the decision in this case is that this is the preferred approach since we're merely just modifying existing licenses and not creating a number of new licenses.

▶ 48:26 Shawn M. MacMaster: So those are the only two options. we can't, short of having an actual referendum, we would have to pass this order in the form of a home rule petition that would go before the legislature. There is no other option. We just can't enact an order and not bypass the legislature.

▶ 48:48 Speaker 8: Is that fair to say? No, because all liquor licensing in the city of Melrose is governed by a number of special acts because historically, as everyone knows, Melrose was a quote unquote dry town. So over the course of the last probably 25 or 30 years, a number of special acts have been passed that govern the consumption and sale of alcohol. So in this case, the only alternative other than what's before you tonight would be to put a referendum before the voters.

▶ 49:18 Shawn M. MacMaster: I think that's the only question I have at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

▶ 49:21 Speaker 1: Are there any councilors wishing to speak for the first time? I'm sorry, Councilor Medeiros.

▶ 49:25 Speaker 10: Thank you.

▶ 49:27 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. Yeah, I still can't get used to our new titles. Thank you very much. I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed about the way we are handling this. I really would like to see us have a much larger community conversation. I know we've referenced back to 2008 that we did this as a ballot question. There was certainly a lot of community conversation at that time. I WAS HERE ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME, AND WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE WOULD WORD THE QUESTION EVEN TO GO FORWARD TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND IT DOES HAVE SPECIFICALLY IN THE QUESTION THAT WAS PROPOSED TO THE PEOPLE AND TO, YOU KNOW, INTO STATE LAW, INCLUDES THE DEFINITION OF A RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND INCLUDES THAT LIMITATION IN HOW MUCH SQUARE footage the establishment might have some of this is carried over for instance into our city ordinances in the definition in our zoning ordinances of what a retail food establishment is and what is prohibited from being sold for instance it's not it's really to be food and I think there are some other things that we could do to perhaps make these kinds of establishment more viable but I think these are the kinds of things we should have as a larger community discussion and we might be able to be able to make them more profitable and successful without adding hard liquor for instance I think it would be wise of us to have a bigger discussion back in 2015 for that order in 2015 we looked at changing the number of seats required we had large community discussion we had the liquor licensing Commission through the under the guise of I believe help with your office and through the mayor's office had you know several public forums about this and I attended quite a few of those which were very well attended I think there are a lot of voices that we should be hearing from as we make this discussion and some of the concerns that that I have is this is this is something that does have some negative effects it's not all positive Melrose doesn't see unlike with the marijuana we don't have a local option tax on alcohol so you know city of Melrose does not get any extra benefits from the sale of alcohol in in the city it all goes to the state any taxes it doesn't come to Melrose at all we have a large recovery community here in Melrose whether it be Alcoholics Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous anger management and you know they're part of what makes Melrose a whole community and I think that these are voices that we need to be mindful of and make sure that they're involved in any discussion and you know we do have some statistics that we get I know Council of Butera I mentioned this and we have some statistics that we get from through the youth risk behavior survey for instance and Melrose was just took part in the youth risk behavior survey on a regional level this time it with the whole Middlesex League and we were found to have the highest use I know I had reported to us here on the committee a couple of weeks back we were found to have the highest use Melrose at fifty nine point four percent had the highest percentage of students reporting use of alcohol at least once in their lifetime and the highest level of those reporting binge drinking I think these are things we need to think about and discussions that we should have I live on the edge of town in a town that has nips and alcohol and you know we end up having kind of on a busy street we end up having a lot of trash you know so just this week you know I find the empty nip bottles I know that's something that you know people are are consuming and using these they're obviously they're throwing them out it's they're not getting recycled and you know it's it's indicative of the things that things that you find on the street for trash are the things that people usually tend to hide from wherever they're going whether they're you know cigarette butts vaping cartridges nips lottery tickets that are losers you know these are the things that you find out there and I i don't know that you know we want to bring that in i would be supportive of having stronger regulations written into our actual ordinance that would go to the state if we are going to

▶ 54:41 Monica C. Medeiros: choose this route um but it doesn't mean that people won't drink hard alcohol it doesn't mean that alcoholics are going to stop drinking because we don't sell nips just in neighboring wakefield As of October 1st, they just came up with new rules for the liquor stores that are involved and they're not, they're only selling alcohol once a day per person. And I had happened to go in there before we got this order before us and was kind of surprised to see this posted on the door and asked the owner what was this about. and you know they're having some trouble downtown where people are drinking and then kind of loitering around and going back and drinking some more and you know she said to me you won't have this problem in Melrose because you don't serve this stuff this is a otherwise you will because you're on the bus line and while I was there we actually had somebody come in who you know was well dressed well you know put together who came in and was attempting to buy more alcohol for the second time that day and who had come in and bought a rather large bottle earlier and you know this is this is something that that exists that people are struggling with addiction problems.

▶ 56:17 Monica C. Medeiros: And we just have to think far and wide about the people that this affects. And I think this should be part of a larger discussion than something that this meeting was posted just about 48 hours, maybe plus a little bit more, 50 hours ago or so, and without a lot of time for a lot of discussion and input. And I would suggest that the state legislature is about to wrap up its formal sessions on November 20th. We're obviously going to have a vacancy in our state representative office, which won't be filled probably until March, maybe at the earliest. And I don't think there's a need to rush this, and I think we should have a larger discussion.

▶ 57:09 Speaker 8: I just want to clarify, Madam Chair, just so the committee members understand, the intention tonight is not to redefine what a retail food establishment in the City of Melrose is. All of those restrictions that currently apply, no lottery, no tobacco, no convenience store, Shell Cell, no store over 3,000 square feet, all of those restrictions remain in place. So we're not changing that, the core of what the voters decided to do in 2008.

▶ 57:36 Speaker 1: Sure. Just in response.

▶ 57:39 Monica C. Medeiros: you yes well you know since since I've heard here tonight different discussions about how we might change this we might change that I do think that and I didn't you hear from voters and you hear from people out in the street who have wanting things to be expanded we're hearing from business owners that want to be have their their business me more viable I think this is part of the whole bigger discussion that maybe this isn't the way to achieve what the desired goal If the desired goal is more economic viability for businesses that sell alcohol in Melrose, then maybe there's another way to get to that, and I think we could all be better served, and certainly the community as a whole, I think, would be better served by having a discussion before coming forward and sort of rushing this through with one administration only having a couple of weeks left in office. Thank you.

▶ 58:35 Speaker 1: Thank you. President Forbes.

▶ 58:40 Scott M. Forbes: thank you um all right a couple things here i'm going to try to take a different viewpoint on this uh melrose doesn't have any liquor stores here we're not like other communities where you have a store that is solely selling the purpose of selling you know alcohol whether it's spirits wine lottery tickets we don't have package stores here in the city of melrose we also have restaurants we can go in we can order spirits um numerous restaurants downtown and in the franklin street area so these things do exist already in the city of melrose i feel like we had that same conversation i know we've alluded to this in in previous conversation uh melrose was a dry town and then when the topic of alcohol sales came in in retail establishment selling alcohol we had this very same discussion what the concerns would be and slowly but surely we implemented these things and downtown became vibrant and then in 2008 we connected these licenses where retail food establishes could sell beer and wine and again they had these same conversations in these in these concerns but over the last 11 years I mean it's been a rolling boil but it's been 11 years and we've evolved and it's become a part of the normal you know marketplace for people that want to come downtown it's a demand so now what we're trying to do here is to change the dynamic 11 years later and add spirits to these stores um i i don't think that this is a big ask i think this has been a long time coming i do think we need to be mindful of what we have but these establish these stores are established and they're successful and being able to add another viable option for consumer consumption and be able able to add revenue for the city of melrose to me is the next obvious step in the process and i don't think we've rushed it i think we've waited 11 years for it and you know i'm obviously welcome the back and forth but we're asking for you know converting to retail food establishment licenses here in the city i i don't think that's a big ask here and if this stays in committee you know we continue to have the discussion but in terms of where we need to go and how we need to get there you know i'm going to buy spirits i'm going to go to another town and i'm not going to invest in the city of melrose i'm going to wakefield i'm going to go to saugus because all of these people sell them all the establishments sell them and they're taking the revenue out of melrose consumers and we come home and and we put them in our houses and we celebrate and we go back out again when they're empty it's just the normal next step in the process so i am in favor of this order i am in favor of the amendments that were talked about here this evening uh and i won't uh speak on behalf of uh council mortimer and council's workouts i think they were well said uh but i mean i'm ready to move forward with this if my colleagues are if you're ready to keep this in committee uh i welcome the chance to have another dialogue with all of you so thank you thank you any other council for the first time counselor mortimer

▶ 1:01:34 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you very much chairman little garabedian i've appreciated this conversation immensely a lot of well thought out comments and perspectives um i like the idea that we do want to increase the business as president forbes just mentioned if a grown-up wants to come downtown and buy a fifth which is 28.5 ounces or a quart which is 32 ounces of rum and or a half gallon of rum and go home and have a pina colada party that's fine i'd rather have them come to melrose than go elsewhere to another community um but the people who come to buy nips

▶ 1:02:16 Peter D. Mortimer: are less they're not really good customers and it's not really a thriving business and Maybe the type of business that the stores that are in existence want. So, I'm in favor of it overall. I appreciate the comments of President Ford, but I think it is time we evolve. There are problems, and we're not going to stop just by stopping the nymphs. We're not going to stop alcoholics or kids from drinking, but it is a step in the right direction. It'll do a little bit, at least, and if we can do a little bit, that's good. I'm really interested in that rule that people can't go to the Paki twice in Wakefield. That's crazy. Yeah, that's people putting on disguises and going back in like they do at the casinos. Yeah, that's really an interesting wrinkle. First time I heard of that. But in the meantime, I think what we can do to stimulate business in Melrose, which would be a good idea but to also have a little patina of protection for our quality of life and for our children to be a little protective of Melrose is to have this amendment and I will make this amendment that would be section two of this ordinance and the amendment that I am proposing I am moving to add this as an amendment, reads as follows. Any alcoholic beverages with an alcohol concentration of greater than 25% may not be sold in containers with a capacity of less than 12 ounces.

▶ 1:03:59 Speaker 4: Anyone like me to read all that again? Please do.

▶ 1:04:03 Peter D. Mortimer: The proposed amendment that I'm moving is any alcoholic beverages with an alcohol concentration of greater than 25 percent may not be sold in containers with a capacity of less than 12 ounces.

▶ 1:04:25 Speaker 1: We have a motion to amend made by Councilor Mortimer.

▶ 1:04:31 Speaker 7: Second.

▶ 1:04:32 Speaker 1: Second provided by, was that Councilor Medeiros? Yes. On discussion. We still have a couple people in queue. Are you finished with your time for now, Councilor Mortimer?

▶ 1:04:41 Peter D. Mortimer: that yeah that's that's my motion and i i sort of discussed the discussion and then we'll have

▶ 1:04:48 Michael P. Zwirko: a vote so um counselors work out thank you madam chair um appreciate the amendment made by my colleague um i just want to say a couple of things so we just spent the better part of six months in an election year with a competitive race for mayor and a competitive race for this council and at least three of the candidates for mayor myself included maybe all of them expressed interest in loosening some of the liquor restrictions in this community specific to the sale of spirits the community over 10,000 people voted in that election nearly 50% of the registered voters this was a large discussion that the community undertook this was a part that was in the forefront even if we pass this here tonight or if it moves forward there are still other opportunities for further community input we've heard from the city solicitor tonight that not only the existing administration but the future administration is something of supportive of this this came up for members of the City Council both old and new this is not coming out of left field tonight this order was before us at the full board weeks ago this has been covered in various news outlets I have heard from residents new and old that it's time to make this change. I think that we need to move forward. We had the conversation of how this has relaxed over time has been fulsome. It's gone to the ballot. We have a very active and very prudent liquor commission here, as well as even the discussions tonight. So I think that we do need to understand the environment that which we're coming from, where the citizenry and the folks that voted expect this of us and I think we should give their will when we were a dry town kids in high school we're still drinking alcohol still existed you know substance abuse is always going to be an issue when I lived in Europe the drinking age was 14 at the country that I lived in but kids also treated alcohol a lot differently you know maybe the fact that we didn't have alcohol is might be some of the reasons that's the rise to abuse because people don't know how to use it correctly I don't know maybe it's a cultural thing I don't know but I don't think that the problems are going to go away whether or not we pass or fail on this order but the motion that's the excuse me the motion to amend before us I would like to expand it to three I don't think that keeping it at two makes sense again the liquor commission can or deny or allow for a third license should they feel the need just because we have three doesn't mean we need three we had the same discussion when it came to marijuana but if we're going to ask the legislature to make a home rule petition a year from now if we decide we want another we have to go back to the legislature so let's take advantage of the opportunity before us now and let's expand it to three in my opinion um i i actually would like to see the volume go higher than 12 ounces i'm in favor of something around 750 milliliters that might be too high but to me that's a bottle that one would purchase for use within their residence that's not something that's going to be transported and used elsewhere so I do feel while I'm in support of the amendment in general I would like to see the volume go up those

▶ 1:08:10 Peter D. Mortimer: are just the comments that I wanted to make through the chair if I make 750

▶ 1:08:15 Speaker 1: milliliters this is why don't we put you in queue because I have someone waiting

▶ 1:08:18 Peter D. Mortimer: did I just get a point of information quickly how many ounces is that I don't of roughly I'll do okay thank you that thank you sorry sorry for the

▶ 1:08:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: improper master thank you madam chair I tend to agree with some of the concerns raised by consulate Madera's and I appreciate some of the points raised by consulate Bewtra relative to the potential corollary impacts that I think we can't be dismissive of and I also appreciate the chair having had contact with mayor-elect Broder but I do have some concern over a text from the incoming mayor does not provide the type of context necessary to really understand the new administration's overall position on the larger public policy issue this is an issue that has public safety and public health implications we haven't heard from the police chief we haven't heard from the director of public health when you look at the the agenda from the 2015 meeting when this council looked to make changes relative to the license for table service there were 13 attachments to that order there's only one attachment to this order and it's a memo from the current mayor it doesn't provide really the type of policy insight that i think would be important for us to consider i also think that you know it'd be interesting for us to know from the administration why we're looking to really legislate this issue in piecemeal and i think it might be more prudent for us to to consider an omnibus order that addresses this issue in a singular and more comprehensive way. Now, maybe there's a reason why the incoming administration doesn't want to do it that way, but we don't know because we don't have anything in front of us. And I think a text message with a position is rather superficial for us to move forward on this, and I don't see why it would create a hardship to anyone to hold this in committee to at least have something substantive from the next mayor, a policy position, something more. Again, 2015, there were 13 attachments. There's one attachment from the current mayor, and I think it would really be in the best interest of the public. I think it would be smart from a public policy perspective. I think we would be doing the right type of deliberative work that is expected of this council to have more information before we move this out of committee. So I understand there's already a motion on the table, I would be looking to make a motion to hold into committee just for the simple purpose of getting more information from the incoming administration second well we have a current motion on the

▶ 1:11:17 Speaker 1: on the floor so we which is duly seconds we have to vote on that one first I believe

▶ 1:11:23 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: we do have some gamers in queue but I haven't spoken yet and I actually can right now so I'm just going to go with it for just a second this is a really helpful discussion and thank you Mr. Van Campen for being here with us tonight. Thank you to both mayors for giving us at least a sense that they are supportive of this. And I agree with Councilman Zwerko that we certainly heard a lot about it during the campaign. There was some policy platforms and positions put out there for people to digest and consider. It's a little different from actually the deliberation here tonight, but nonetheless, it's something that's been in the public view. I would be supportive of the motion that has been seconded for point of reference 750 milliliters is 25 fluid ounces I would also support that if that's more the will of my colleagues here tonight because I do think limiting it in statute is preferable to me compared to the Licensing Commission I think we are elected officials by the community and so we have a level of accountability that's a little bit different from the Liquor Licensing Commission which is appointed by the mayor so I'd like to if we feel like the will of the the community sort of be more incremental over time that seems like the right place to do it is in the statute I also would support making it up to all three licenses I don't understand that the limit on the two in fact I would wonder if our current limits are what is dissuading a third licensee from coming forward um and that's why it's been open and available for so long um i'm trying to think there's anything else i would just share um at some point it would be great if we could add the letter that we've all received from beacon hill's owner to the public record so i don't know if we need to is that it but we might need a motion just to do that at some point in time and i think that's all for now so i just wanted to put myself on the record so people kind of had a sense of what i was thinking and we have in queue uh counselor butra um thank you i um in terms of

▶ 1:13:27 Manisha Bewtra: the i believe the motion on the floor um to clarify i believe that was 25 percent alcohol by volume so more than i at this point would hesitate to support that mainly because i mean i've just been doing a few quick searches on sort of like what um thresholds you know constitute different types of liquor and some some are as low as 15 although i think 25 would typically include like vodka or gin and other uh types well so it's fine if um you know i i appreciate uh counselor Mortimer knowledge on the subject but i just think it'd be nice you know if we're going to be amending the order to actually have a little bit of memo backing up why we are selecting that percentage if we go with that and I also would support an amendment to increase to three licenses as well I have no personal issue with holding this in committee because I do think some level of additional public process would um is beneficial that said if we do decide to move forward not opposed to that either per se just because we will obviously have at least one more opportunity um at public comment not to mention um the publicly posted liquor license commission um meetings i appreciate councillor mcmaster's points regarding um just wanting to hear from the new administration as well um regarding you know its perspective on on uh the new mayor's perspective on this um and having that in writing before we move forward so that's it for now so we have

▶ 1:15:23 Speaker 1: counselor mortimer in queue if there are no objections because i think under our rules

▶ 1:15:30 Peter D. Mortimer: you've spoken twice thank you very much i've received information on that 75 milliliters and and I've received mentions of 25 ounces or 26 ounces. I have no problem with people, 750 milliliters. My amendment is less than 12 ounces. So if somebody wants to buy 25 or 26 ounces and go home and make a rum punch or a vodka punch, I have no problem with that.

▶ 1:16:01 Peter D. Mortimer: My amendment means you can't buy less than 12 ounces if it's 40%. Wine, and for these percentages, wine is 12 or 15%. I have no problem with somebody even buying a small bottle of wine, even if it's a 12 ounce gift bottle. You see sometimes those little tiny bottles in a gift basket. I have no problem with that if people want to buy a little bottle of wine. The less than 12 ounce, a half pint's about this size with the little tapered top. That's what I'm against, and the nips that are this big. 750 milliliters fine, people should be, they can even buy, usually the pints, which would be allowed under my amendment, are 16.9 ounces. And even those, those are kind of small, but when you talk about alcohol, when you talk about greater than 25%, you're talking about vodka, whiskey, rum. And those are the items that I think should not be sold in less than 12 ounces. That means you can't buy a two ounce nip. You can't buy the seven ounce half pint. It's only a seven ounce half pint. I have no problem with the, even the pint is okay. But if you want to go up, I don't want to restrict the business owners that much. If they want to sell a pint, somebody wants to buy a bag of Doritos to make it incidental with food, and buy a pint of rum, then that's the way it works. We're not going to try to cut them off that much, I'm hoping, but if that's what it takes to get this amendment passed for now, and then we can hold it in committee, I'd be fine with that, but for now, I'd like to get a little work done and just give a little

▶ 1:17:51 Peter D. Mortimer: indicator of where the board, of where the council stands, that we would like to do it, if that's what it takes to change it, but I think a pint is okay. I mean, it's not great, but it's small enough to put in a golf bag, which actually I had one of my buddies who plays at the hood all the time say, I can't buy nips, how am I going to golf? And that's a real quote, so the nip's got to go. So I think less than 12 ounces, no nips, no half pints is fine, and then we can discuss the rest of it later. But right now, what we have before us is this amendment to be included in the statutory language of the city of Melrose. That you can't buy hard stuff, basically, without getting it too complicated and finding reports from this and that. We all know what hard stuff is, we all know what wine is, we all know what beer is. Just can't get hard stuff in half pints and nips. That's what this amendment says. No hard stuff in nips and half pints. Okay. So I hope everybody votes yes.

▶ 1:18:58 Speaker 1: on that thank you thank you chair as long as there are no objections thank you

▶ 1:19:00 Michael P. Zwirko: madam chair and this is just to clarify so I just wanted to explain why I said 750 this is directed to everybody here but specifically to the the maker of the amendment my opinion hard booze in the form of a pint is still portable and I don't want us selling something that you can slip in your back jean pocket and go to Fred Greenfield and watch a playoff game of football if you're buying a 750 milliliter bottle of booze that is a lot for more than just personal consumption it is a larger representation of a container that is generally taken to either a house party or set up in your home bar that is the reasoning for it everything else in the amendment I appreciate make great points I just wanted to explain my reasoning for the 750 versus the 12 ounce thank you

▶ 1:19:53 John N. Tramontozzi: Thank you. Look, I don't mind voting on the amendments to this particular order, and I think we can work that out. But I think Councillor McMaster makes some great points. If we send this along, I think the first thing you're going to see in the press is backlash from We think we're pushing something without a real look and a real public input. So I'm not ready at this point to push it forward. I want to keep in a committee, work on these amendments. We're doing fine. Let's continue to pursue the amendments to this order and go from there. Thank you.

▶ 1:20:39 Speaker 1: so we currently have a motion on the floor for an amendment duly second and and we have Alderman Dutra wishing to speak thank you I just wanted to

▶ 1:20:47 Manisha Bewtra: clarify what the motion on the floor is again because my understanding was it was not only the volume of the bottle it was also the alcohol by volume piece and that was the piece which I would like further clarification on if it's 40% That's pretty clear. I feel like the 25% alcohol by volume was also mentioned and that Can cover a wider range

▶ 1:21:21 Speaker 2: Any alcoholic beverage with an alcoholic concentration greater than 25% May not be sold in containers with a capacity of less than 12 ounces Is that your understanding?

▶ 1:21:34 Peter D. Mortimer: Yes, yes, so it mean hot stuff can't be sold It's if it's over 25% you're in the realm of hot stuff. You're under 25%

▶ 1:21:44 Speaker 1: You're still on wine and for five counts of you to sell as the floor. So did you want to comment on sure? Um

▶ 1:21:47 Speaker 2: again, I

▶ 1:21:53 Manisha Bewtra: I'm looking online and you know, just a quick search. It's like fruit liquors the cures typically range from 28% to 30% gin ranges from 35 to 40 vodka 35 to 46 and so on but the standard applies to liquors which are 40 alcohol by volume so i think if we pick the 40 number that feels like it's based in more of a typical metric um the 25 just feels a little more arbitrary to me but it would obviously cover the full range that would exclude beer and wine that's mainly the clarification i was looking for but um just would be curious if councillor

▶ 1:22:35 Manisha Bewtra: mortimer would be willing to make that change or if the 25 percent alcohol by volume is is

▶ 1:22:46 Speaker 1: where we're setting that so through the chair counselor would you like to respond i mean we have a motion to really second it would you would anyone i can't i'm very sorry i cannot recall who made who motioned initially and seconded you were the second um maybe counselor mormer you made the motion initially so if you want to withdraw it to or if you're comfortable or if you want to respond to counselor futures or we could just take a vote sure i'll i'll yield the floor at this time i've

▶ 1:23:16 Monica C. Medeiros: spoken a lot i'll let all the uh councilmen address that and i think you know my intent in seconding this is to include things that are hard considered hard liquor which would include schnapps and fruit liquors and things like that that would come in potentially in nips and in small bottles that are apt to become trash and so that's I wouldn't be I

▶ 1:23:44 Peter D. Mortimer: would not want to change my second to 40% thank you once you get into yeah some of the other hard stuffs like B&B brandy and Benedictine or something might be through but then they're 70 proof you basically you're the line for cutting off hard stuff from wine is 25% and that's that's the difference it's I don't mind a small bottle of wine in a gift basket but I don't want to see half pints going out the door on nips it's basically hot stuff or not hot stuff and

▶ 1:24:15 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: that 25% is the line thank you so I think we've got it straight at this point I really appreciate everyone bearing with us while we talked it through let's go ahead and we have a motion duly seconded to amend the order to include the language of a new second section that would create a limitation on the sale of certain types of alcohol in small quantities okay all in favor

▶ 1:24:39 Speaker 1: and any opposed and any abstentions i'm just going to stay on discussion madam chair just

▶ 1:24:47 Speaker 1: one point i want to explain my vote before vote i'm so sorry okay go ahead counselor mcmaster

▶ 1:24:50 Shawn M. MacMaster: thank you madam chair just very briefly i am not uh opposed to the amendment i just think in fairness to the the administration that if we're if there's an appetite to hold this in committee so that we can hear from the administration on the order itself the order that was filed by the prior administration so if we're interested in hearing what the the mayor-elect thinks about the order why you know why two as opposed to three would the the new mayor be open to three is this a more of a policy plan to legislate this in an incremental way if If so, why not through an omnibus order? We don't know that. So I think the same standard should apply to motions. We have no idea how Mayor-Elect Broder would feel about changes that this council, within its authority, is looking to make tonight. But Mr. Van Campen is in a position where he can go back in conversation with the incoming mayor about some of the uh issues that were raised tonight uh counselor's work goes point about uh potentially going to three the uh amendment that um was brought forth by council of mortimer so i just think i'm not in a position to vote on it and i don't want my my opposition uh or my vote to be viewed as an opposition to the amendment because i'm fine with the amendment i just think in fairness to the new administration if we haven't heard from mayor-elect broder on the issue itself i don't think it's fair to move forward on amendments without having a sense from him

▶ 1:26:33 Speaker 8: how he would feel about such amendments okay thank you could i just chime in on that i i mean i think i can speak with some certainty that mayor-elect broder would support councilman Mortimer amendment and he would likely also support amending it from two to three so that all three retail food establishment licenses are allowed to have all alcohol we can certainly put that in writing if the committee so desires but my sense is that would be mayor elect rota's opinion on

▶ 1:27:01 Michael P. Zwirko: this thank you councillor smirko thank you madam chair so i think um and i know we want to get to a vote and i know we want to do some work and i know we want to hear from the new administration i don't think anybody here on this committee has a problem with holding this in committee I think that there is some work that this committee would like to do before we hold it in committee and also hear from the administration. I think that the way legislation works here in the city of Melrose, it's also a two-way street. If we come to an order at the end of this evening, we can still get the feedback from the mayor. We don't have to do nothing and get the feedback. We can say, Mayor-elect Broder, here is what we, the council, have done with all the powers inalienable in the rights of this committee and said we're going to support three we're going to support capping it at 750 milliliters what are your thoughts to that and then at that time because it will be held in committee we can then further amend should we choose to or we can do nothing and hold it in committee ask mayor-elect broder what his thoughts are and then amend it so i think the discussion that we've had tonight we're approaching 90 minutes in this committee it's been very good discussion discussions occurred throughout the community so far in 2019 about this we have some some really wise amendments that have been made I think we should finish the work that we've done get to a place where we feel that we're comfortable hold it in committee get some feedback from the administration and then move forward on this it's just my opinion I will not be supporting the amendment due to the fact that I think that the volume should go higher so that's probably where I'm gonna land on

▶ 1:28:38 Speaker 1: on the amendment that's before us okay and of course to be clear we could always have a second amendment after we address the one that is before us okay so we have an amendment

▶ 1:28:50 Speaker 1: proffered correctly the second that we've heard from the clerk of committees read to us so all in favor of that amendment please say aye aye any opposed opposed so we have

▶ 1:29:06 Speaker 1: four opposed so that amendment carries if you want to raise your hands if you opposed it so just that the clerk can make note of that or I can say councillors Zirko McMaster not McNaught and vice-chair Boisselle thank you so now we have before us an order that has been amended and we could take further

▶ 1:29:31 Speaker 1: amendments on it at this time motion to further amend yes and did you want to what would your

▶ 1:29:33 Michael P. Zwirko: amendment i would i would move to raise it from two to three and uh volume of 25 ounces

▶ 1:29:40 Speaker 1: do you want to do that in combined or would you prefer to maybe separate those just in the event that people have different opinions about those two things uh we'll take the volume first okay

▶ 1:29:50 Speaker 1: so we are madam chair certainly so uh counselors werco has moved to amend the amended order um to change it i believe to um what you've seen in the past it would say any alcoholic beverages with an alcohol concentration greater than 25 may not be sold in containers with a capacity of less than 750 milliliters is that what you would like or sure yes yes 750 milliliters okay is there a

▶ 1:30:21 Speaker 1: second second okay we have a motion before us now to raise essentially the minimum size of the container to 750 milliliters made by counselors burko and seconded by vice chair Boisselle any discussion okay all in favor any opposed okay can you please raise your hands if you get opposed so we can see so we have four opposed this time did you get all this and for folks watching at home it was counselors Medeiros McMaster Tremont Ozzie and president Forbes so the amendment carries move to further

▶ 1:31:04 Michael P. Zwirko: amend to strike two licenses and replace it with three okay we have a motion provided by

▶ 1:31:09 Speaker 1: counselors worko to amend the language in section one to allow for the conversion up to three licenses for the sale made made by counselors work was seconded by counselor futra any discussion

▶ 1:31:32 Monica C. Medeiros: counselor medeiros thank you i feel like this is something where i would like to hear more input FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE I TAKE A FINAL POSITION ON. I WILL JUST SAY THAT I FEEL THAT TWO DOES SEEM A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY. IT BEGINS TO A LITTLE BIT OF A STRANGE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TALKING, ESPECIALLY WHERE WE HAVE TWO LICENSES THAT ARE IN EXISTENCE WHERE WE START SEEMING LIKE WE ARE GIVING LICENSES OR EXPANDING LICENSES FOR SPECIFIC BUSINESSES RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THIS FROM A COMMUNITY perspective and I three would be more equal however I'm not sure that I I'm

▶ 1:32:14 Speaker 1: not sure okay thank you any other comments on this particular motion okay so we have a motion duly second so all in favor all right any opposed opposed opposed opposed so we have three opposed thank you for the I think you caught all that probably the people at home heard voices too so that amendment carries as well yes counselors

▶ 1:32:35 Michael P. Zwirko: work motion to hold the uh order before us as amended in the committee second second we have

▶ 1:32:40 Speaker 1: a motion to hold the order as amended made by councillors rocco and seconded by councillor mcmaster all in favor aye aye any opposed opposed so we have one opposed we'll hold it in committee

▶ 1:32:51 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: and um mr mangan thank you very much for being with us and perhaps you've heard a little bit of of some of the questions that we've had so if you want to proactively work with mayor inferna and mayor-elect broder to perhaps put some things before us in advance of our next

▶ 1:33:08 Speaker 8: meeting that would be great thank you madam chair if i could just ask the clerk of committees also to provide me in writing with the specific requests for the next committee meeting that

▶ 1:33:18 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: would be helpful all right thank you thank you for being here thank you motion before we do that i'd move that we also put into the record the letter that we received from beacon hill wine as owner okay second all in uh favor okay and then just before we adjourn i would just say that um i believe we are going to have a mayor transition in less than 24 hours and so to the degree that our current mayor inferno is watching or we'll see this in the future we thank her very much for her service and um i appreciate the work that we have been able to do with her um and we look forward to working with the next mayor at our next meeting so we have a motion to adjourn made by by Councillor Mortimer, seconded by Vice Chair Boisselle. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned.