ORDER-2019-46 : An Order Creating an Education, Public Safety & Substance Abuse Prevention Stabilization Fund

Transcript (~36 min @ 3:01:34)

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

▶ 3:01:25 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: agenda is order number two zero one nine dash four six in order creating an education public safety and substance abuse prevention stabilization fund this is sponsored by alderman work oh would you like to update us yeah thank you

▶ 3:01:41 Michael P. Zwirko: thank you madam chair and thank you to the members of the board that are still with us I know that it's late this order is before you this evening and we are hearing it this evening because it is timely it would need to pass on Monday June 17 should it should pass so that this fund can be established as of July 1st 2019 and that's important so we can start the three-year clock on this this fund I'll back up a little bit this was now the third time that we've heard about this in this committee I wanted to also say thank you to my fellow members here to helping to improve this order by not only their questioning and and requests that were made of the city department heads and also of myself but we've kind of worked through this and and I think in a very positive way and you know the efforts as I'll allude as I'll allude to now but speak to in a moment and in order to compromise so some of the things that have changed since we last heard about this on May 10th there the city has entered into a community host community agreement with garden remedies which will be providing adult use recreational marijuana in the city of Melrose the city takes 3% of the total sales that that report outlines we also here through this board have elected to collect a three percent excise tax on those sales as well when you combine the two the city is actually getting six percent you could look at it that way of all sales of retail marijuana that three percent that they collect on the total under the community host agreement goes to the general fund the three percent on the excise tax will go to the general fund if we do not pass this order this order has this order seeks to create a take that three percent excise tax and put it into a stabilization fund in order to fund education public safety and substance abuse prevention some of the changes that I have made based on the conversations from this body as well as information that we've received from department heads I have sought to take that 3% and cut it in half make it 50% so 1.5% and a quick sidebar here by making it 50% not 100% it's actually 25% of the total revenue that we would receive from marijuana it's 1.5% of the 6% so I don't want to get all mathy on you but so what this basically would do is it would take 25% of all the revenue received and an earmark or place in a stabilization fund for those three uses secondly the change which is at the very end of this order is to call out in fact to demand a reauthorization of this account on or before june 30th of 2022 there is an a memo from the city solicitor that answered about six questions that were proffered to him and his office and all stabilization accounts can be retired after three years of existence this is no different this operates just like all stabilization funds across the commonwealth is certainly within the city of melrose but i know that there was some apprehension that sometimes things get created and then they don't go away so this is written in a mechanism to demand a reauthorization vote within three years i will also add that it is very unlikely that in the first year well let me let me back up we will not have retail marijuana revenue as of july 1st garden remedies is not up and running we don't anticipate they're going through the ccc the cannabis control commission right now in order to get their licensing i i don't anticipate and i think that they they would say this as well that we probably won't have any revenue streams from retail adult use marijuana until 2020 but i think it's very important to get the account up and let the clock starting to tick it's also from an accounting standpoint and it allows us to see where exactly we are in terms of funding this i will also add cindy taymor is no longer here this evening but a couple of weeks ago with the school committee they had mentioned that they're probably going to need to spend upwards of 900 000 to replace all of their smart boards they don't have a line item for that query whether or not this fund could be used to help offset some of those costs so there are needs there definitely are needs with our public safety we've heard from training perspective from maybe new equipment that they may need certainly there's always a need of public safety substance abuse prevention you could just have one conversation with you know maureen busby and our own substance abuse prevention coordinator and we're not even going as far as probably as we should in terms of prevention and certainly this could help buttress some of their their efforts so trying to be as concise as possible but those are the changes that are before you those are the reason behind those changes and also the reasoning for creating such a fund i will i will pause with this one last statement after this one last statement that there are other communities that are doing this as well we have referenced those in the past i know salem's using one percent of their excise for affordable housing springfield's using it for community neighborhood mitigation i believe there's one in new bedford or another town down in the on the south shore so this is happening and it is a creative way to kind of segregate these funds for specific use my final comment is with the vote being as close as it was back in the fall of 2016 i think that there's a lot of apprehension about this new market especially in melrose and i think that it would assuage some concerns from folks if they know that there is a dedicated source for a portion of these funds again it being 25 percent of overall revenue so i will stop

▶ 3:07:45 Speaker 6: Thank you. Alderman Tramontozzi.

▶ 3:07:47 Speaker 9: Thank you.

▶ 3:07:50 John N. Tramontozzi: While I agree that the state legislature has authorized the establishment of these type of stabilization funds. And I would also agree, and I thank Alderman Zwirko for alerting us to the the needs of the public safety and substance abuse and education needs that the city and municipalities are going to be experiencing in the future in light of the legalization of marijuana I still i have concerns because as i expressed early on my opinion is that there's these funds should go into the general funds and we can address the needs of public safety substance abuse and education needs through specific orders that can come before this body in this board where we can discuss those specific orders and fund those needs at that time so although I do recommend all the men's work oh for putting this together and spending a lot of time and I respect that and thank you but I I simply will not support it because again I feel that the the funds are more appropriate in the general funds it's a tax that should go to the

▶ 3:09:22 Manisha Bewtra: general funds thank you thank you I am inclined to support this order I I've kind of gone back and forth for a lot of the same reasons I think all of you around the room have per our previous discussion I like the idea of having sort of something that the public can see in terms of where some of this revenue is going and what we're applying it to and while we could do that through other mechanisms this is i think a very clear way to do that um i think having reviewed the host community agreement and seeing that again per alderman zorco's points that that we're going to be getting three percent of all sales as well as the three additional three percent through the excise tax i think helps to allay some of those concerns around tying up too much of the money into the stabilization fund versus having them available on the general fund and I think finally I think you know one of the concerns I had earlier on is is do these three categories tie kind of neatly to I guess the sale of retail retail sales of marijuana and I think I've kind of come around in the sense that I again it's a it's a clear way of showing how we're using particular new revenue for specific community purposes and I think any one of these three categories could have more than enough funding needs to of Of course, we don't know exactly what the revenue is gonna be yet, but I anticipate, given what we know about the three categories and their funding needs in the past, we'll have no problem coming up with orders to, for use of these funds or receiving orders from the next mayor as such. So, yeah, and I also think the addition of having it come back before the, at that point city council um will help i think with reviewing whether or not the fund is working as intended uh those are my comments for now thank you thank you alderman forbes thank you

▶ 3:11:47 Scott M. Forbes: uh i appreciate alderman's worko for the for the updated version of this order um you know to me i think it's common sense uh the the problem with being able to take anything out of a general fund as they can go anywhere and you don't know where it's going to go you don't know where it can be pulled it can go you know to have a dedicated resource to go specifically and have it earmarked for you know local education to me there's nothing negative in saying that i don't it doesn't matter where the income is coming from i that this is a legal thing now i wasn't necessarily in support of it back then but you know as you sit there and you you learn to to understand and you know how things evolve then we have to adjust and and go accordingly so to be able to set aside a specific set of money uh towards the investment of our children in our education system i don't see anything that's negative about that so i would be inclined to support this order this evening

▶ 3:12:55 Monica C. Medeiros: As somebody that has known people who have lost their lives to addiction, including one of my very close friends, and seen so many people struggle with, one of my best friends,

▶ 3:13:15 Monica C. Medeiros: see so many people struggle with addiction and the families the individuals the families the the friends the the greater network and we often we wonder what we can do and it sometimes seems helpless and you know we we try to do our best here as a board of all of them we try to do our best as a city and oftentimes it's those things like like Narcan and the substance abuse coordinator that are on the fringe of whether or not we can fund them and you know of all the things that are set aside in this the substance abuse prevention to me is the most important it's the one that most easily were dependent on grants and that funding could go away this would be an opportunity for us to say that this is a priority for us and that we want to make sure that we are doing whatever we can as a community to make sure that we've set aside funds from this new revenue source to make sure that they go to substance abuse prevention and to hopefully help help somebody who's going through addiction but hopefully help somebody not get there and I I support this as i have from the beginning and i hope that we move it forward and pass it thank you thank you

▶ 3:14:32 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: president lemon thank you um i do appreciate some of the changes particularly the three-year mark of um writing into statute that we would have to revisit this it helps me to see it more as a pilot and to see if it would be working i i still really struggle with i wholeheartedly agree with with alderman medeiros there is a very direct connection there and there's a very clear need there i think there can be a direct connection also to public safety and we know that they will be impacted by this market in our city borders i still struggle with things like why for example the smart boards would be paid for through this i mean i obviously do um i want our schools to have everything that they need i don't see this the same direct connection that i see with some other things there and i think that if we're going to be segmenting off money um and and you know restricting the way that it can be used instead of it going to the general fund it should have that direct connection um i would be more inc i am more inclined to support it with the three-year mark because if after three years it seems like it is not going to things that are directly connected to the addition of this market to our city i feel like i could have that analysis and um at that

▶ 3:16:01 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: point would could decide whether or not to support it going forward um but that's the one piece i really struggle with is i want to see it connected um to this and and some of them i just don't see

▶ 3:16:17 Michael P. Zwirko: that thank you for the first time ottoman zirko thank you madam chair and just to address some of the questions that have been raised and i also just want to reiterate again that i deeply appreciate the work of my colleagues in raising some of the questions and also reaching out to me and and working through this and hopeful that this gets passage so um so thank you um they're act so i was toying with the idea of whether or not to remove the education when i was thinking about this over the past month and the reason i didn't is because if we if we left it out

▶ 3:16:48 Michael P. Zwirko: and there was a need over the next three years we can't put it in without restarting the clock on the stabilization fund right so i was worried that any manipulation i was i was i was set on keeping this a pilot set on keeping this for the first three years so i said okay well i'll leave the education in because then at least if we do need to fund some sort of an education uh component through this fund it's available versus striking it out i'll also add that there doesn't under the the statute you don't need to have a direct connection to marijuana like salem's using their funds for affordable housing i don't know where the connection to marijuana and affordable housing would be but here the purpose and the reason i have public safety and substance abuse prevention is because there is a direct connection right so there is gonna be a strain on those resources for sure so let's let's prop them up through the funding that comes from that actual resource the education pieces I just know it's it's not only broad enough but there are issues that we deal with in the schools with respect to marijuana there are issues that we deal with with respect to substance abuse in our schools as well as potentially even some programs maybe some training for teachers in this regard so I was I thought very hard about removing education or even defining what it could go to and I felt with the education piece it was best to leave it broad specific you know we do have three years I think we'll probably only have about two and a half years really where there's funding coming in on this so we could see see what comes up and again maybe the demand will be so large in the substance abuse prevention area that we won't ever get to the other two potential uses maybe it'll be very large in the public safety component and we won't get to the others so I thought about it and I thought it was best to have this body deliberate over it and if they wanted to further amend we could but that's that's really the purpose as to why I left it there I guess I just I

▶ 3:18:51 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: have a question about the last component the sunsetting essentially if I could so it reads after three years of being established this education and public safety stabilization fund must be reauthorized by a vote of the melrose city council before june 30th 2022 did the city has a city solicitor looked at that okay because i understand the intent but i wonder for purposes of drafting if we need to be clear that it's to be able to continue essentially is what you're saying right it needs a an affirmative vote of the board to not sunset after three years

▶ 3:19:27 Michael P. Zwirko: yeah and and i and i thought about the i'm sorry yes i'm at yes please i'm asking um so

▶ 3:19:32 Michael P. Zwirko: uh i i thought about the language and so it's an interesting provision because basically

▶ 3:19:40 Michael P. Zwirko: i i i essentially had to add a kicker right i had to add a provision that that mandated a reauthorization or a vote to reauthorize um so on the language piece i was a little unsure basically you can have a stabilization fund and the only time it can be killed or removed or unauthorized is after three years of its existence someone moves to have a vote on it otherwise it just continues in perpetuity like our contract stabilization fund etc so here because we needed or I needed to have something be a catalyst of the vote that was the language that I chose listening to you read it back to me though I think maybe the word reauthorized might be wrong I almost vote to authorize or it would it be after three years of being

▶ 3:20:26 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: established this education and public safety stabilization fund shall be deauthorized unless reauthorized by a vote of the Melrose City Council is that what you're essentially trying to say I guess I'm trying to me it sounds like it

▶ 3:20:43 John N. Tramontozzi: automatically is dissolved unless there there's a vote there has to be a vote

▶ 3:20:51 Michael P. Zwirko: after the third year to react that was that that was the thought because i want yes because i wanted folks to know there was apprehension about this going beyond the three years so i wanted something that was going to mandate us to authorize it to go forward yes so i think the way

▶ 3:21:08 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: that it's written though it simply says you you must re it must be reauthorized i mean it's okay just wonder if to be perfectly clear it could say after three years after three years of being established in order to continue comma or in order not to be deauthorized these it must be reauthorized you so I guess it's not

▶ 3:21:38 Speaker 9: clear as written must be must be reauthorized that's what it says right

▶ 3:21:42 Speaker 6: Yeah, all right. I will I Have to yeah

▶ 3:21:47 Michael P. Zwirko: I think it's reasonable to assume whomever the city solicitor would be would would understand that the intent the intent is pretty clear

▶ 3:21:56 Robert A. Boisselle: They could go to the legislative history history, which is right now if it's not reauthorized does it default to the general fund?

▶ 3:22:01 Speaker 4: Yes, yeah, okay

▶ 3:22:03 Robert A. Boisselle: No, he doesn't hang out there in limbo until someone know we just in May we discussed that point

▶ 3:22:07 Michael P. Zwirko: Yeah, it goes and it's actually in the city solicitors memo as well

▶ 3:22:14 Speaker 6: yeah from June okay yeah as long as yes president Lemmerman thank you this is

▶ 3:22:17 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: not about that piece so I do understand that other cities have used this for for other uses Mike for me for what would make me want to support this I feel it needs to be connected and I you know I sort of feel like if the concern is that that something else might come up that is of higher need that's not directly connected and we wouldn't wanna not,

▶ 3:22:48 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: we wouldn't wanna take these funds away from being able to use for that, then the question to me is why are we doing it and why would it just go into the general fund? So I'm wondering, and my computer died about 30 minutes ago, so I don't have the language in front of me, so maybe one of my colleagues could help me, but through the chair, if a amendment would be considered would be considered that that said something to the extent of funding decisions or you know items for funding will be prioritized based on

▶ 3:23:23 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: demonstrable connection to the sale of recreational marijuana in the city of

▶ 3:23:35 Speaker 6: Melrose you say that again undemonstrable I don't know if connections a great work

▶ 3:23:38 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: her legislation but you know some way to it say that it is the is the intent of this body and in setting up this fund that we would that the money that we are recognizing that there will be needs in this city based off of this new market and that is we are attempting to ensure that funding is available to meet those those needs, and so therefore, we would prioritize those needs first through this fund.

▶ 3:24:11 Speaker 6: Vice Chair Boisselle.

▶ 3:24:13 Robert A. Boisselle: Would you consider prioritizing, we'll say, public safety? I mean, there was a discussion about a year ago that the life saving medication for overdoses was in short supply, and you needed funds for that. And that would be your priority if public safety came in for either the fire department or the police department who are the first responders that we need another thousand dollars to get another series of uh medications for overdoses absolutely i mean that's what what i mentioned

▶ 3:24:41 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: the public safety the um the things that are connected to substance use you know as opposed to

▶ 3:25:04 Manisha Bewtra: like the example the smart boards would just change I appreciate the intent of this amendment I think my concern would be if we could maybe broaden it so it's not specifically whatever the language used but demonstrable connection to marijuana sales but rather sort of substance use and abuse more broadly given sort of I think what we know and will be learning about marijuana use specifically like yes there will be probably more pressure on on substance substance use prevention as well as public safety as a result of these new this new facility but at the same time there's also science out there that shows that marijuana sometimes another substance used in place of more harmful substances that lead to overdoses so I think that would be my concern there is can we broaden it so that there is some language that the funding the priority would be given to uses related to substance use and substance abuse I don't know we have to define substance more specifically than that as a way of maybe handling that but then also perhaps leaving room of again saying priority but but a secondary use could be non related public education uses in the event that these this revenue is so great that we've funded all of the things that could be funded that are more directly tied oh and actually I had one more thought on the last the last point regarding the language at the end i don't know if this is more or less what you just suggested too but um if perhaps we added a sentence saying so it says after three years of being established this education and public safety stabilization fund must be reauthorized by a vote of the melrose city council before june 30th 2022 and if this is literally what you said i apologize but um uh pres or chair lippert garabedian but something like if no such vote is taken any um revenue received by this city that would have i don't know any revenue that would have been placed in this fund would then go back to the general funds i'm not exactly sure how to word that at this point but if that a second sentence might address that lack of complete clarity

▶ 3:28:03 Shawn M. MacMaster: thank you alderman trim and chozy that's okay okay point of information madam chair yes is there an

▶ 3:28:08 Speaker 6: amendment on the table there is no amendment on the table did you is that all right now yes

▶ 3:28:18 Michael P. Zwirko: thank you madam chair so let me let me try to address uh president Lemmerman comment here i think i can actually let me work through this in live open meeting law all right um so the last whereas I know that your computer died sorry the last whereas actually this would be the last page of the amendment I'm looking at the red line version just so folks know if you look at page two

▶ 3:28:47 Michael P. Zwirko: supplementing funding to the Melrose public schools and her prevention efforts I would add after efforts comma

▶ 3:29:07 Michael P. Zwirko: with a direct relation to I'm trying to think of the words here with a direct relation to any adverse effects of retail adult use marijuana so is that a

▶ 3:29:30 Michael P. Zwirko: motion to amend well I guess before I make the motion I guess I make two

▶ 3:29:33 Monica C. Medeiros: minute recess to just think about language independently yes out our own

▶ 3:29:46 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: stations and we have a motion to recess for two minutes so that we can all sit here and work on a possible amendment is there a second second all right all

▶ 3:30:01 Speaker 6: all in favor aye opposed opposed I guess that motion carries it's a simple

▶ 3:30:07 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: majority to recess is that right so we're in recess for two minutes but keep in mind open meeting while we're not actually continuing this conversation we're just working on a language together separately excuse me

▶ 3:30:32 Speaker 6: back from recess and alderman uh i don't know who has the floor would you like the floor is the

▶ 3:30:36 Michael P. Zwirko: maker of the order thank you again and thank you for the recess um i i hope i can still craft something here um same section uh after the last sentence in the final whereas this is the sentence that starts on page two on the red line um i would strike the period make a comma with priority given to expenditures associated with or showing a direct correlation to

▶ 3:31:12 Michael P. Zwirko: recreational marijuana or substance abuse okay and is that a motion that is

▶ 3:31:17 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: okay so we have a motion to amend the order before us this would be in the

▶ 3:31:25 Michael P. Zwirko: last whereas i apologize inclusive of the for other amendments on the red line yes

▶ 3:31:30 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: including the other amendments of the red line we have so um in the last whereas i'm reading the that statement to read the stated purpose of supplementing funding to the melrose public schools and its administration public safety police fire and or ambulatory services and or substance abuse prevention efforts with priority given to expenditures associated with or sharing a direct correlation to recreational marijuana or substance abuse for a second for that second okay so we do have a second for that amendment to the motion along with the other red lines that were presented tonight to make this 50 of the funds received from the local option excise and retail sales and adding the language on the last in the last paragraph related to the need to reauthorize this essentially in three years alderman Lemmerman thank you um and thank you

▶ 3:32:27 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: for the amendment i do appreciate the consideration of the concern um just one if the maker of the moment would be willing to consider one nitpicky change just related to the language that we use if we could change it to misuse instead of abuse a request has been made to

▶ 3:32:43 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: change the word abuse in the new language to misuse to accept that what

▶ 3:32:56 Speaker 4: we need to ask that there's a friendly amendment yeah yeah for sure all right

▶ 3:32:59 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: okay other discussion Alderman Bewtra would you mind reading the new amendment

▶ 3:33:04 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: or as I hear it the languages and I read the entire provision whereas the education public safety and substance abuse prevention stabilization fund will allow 50 percent of funds received through the local option excise on retail sales of marijuana for adult use of three percent imposed by the city on the sale of marijuana and marijuana products to consumers by marijuana retailers to be utilized for the stated purpose of supplementing funding to the melrose public schools and its administration public safety police fire and or ambulatory services and or substance abuse prevention efforts with priority given to expenditures associated with or sharing a direct correlation to recreational marijuana

▶ 3:33:53 Manisha Bewtra: or substance misuse um i i may go with this amendment but i just wanted to read um what i had written down um to see if there's any um so i'm kind of i i think we already have a substance abuse challenge or substance misuse challenge within our community and and again i recognize that the purpose of the stabilization fund is specifically intended to deal with revenues related to recreational marijuana but i think my concern is that the needs will be around other substances so i made a more general amendment which was priority for use of these funds will be given to substance abuse prevention efforts we can say substance misuse prevention efforts and to address public safety concerns arising from substance misuse if these funds are to be used for other purposes it may be dem it must be demonstrated that no priority uses need funding um with a question for clarification regarding the amendment is that now the amendment by alderman's work oh is it now intended that it would only be used for correlated purposes

▶ 3:35:06 Michael P. Zwirko: based on your amended languages through the chair um this is not to just single out

▶ 3:35:15 Michael P. Zwirko: misuse of marijuana no i heard that i heard that sorry i'm sorry then what's your question no the

▶ 3:35:17 Manisha Bewtra: new amendment and this is a give partially just that it's getting late and so i'm like trying to a process in real time but the new amendment will address President Lemmerman's concerns about making sure that the fund is tied but does it it doesn't allow for if by chance this revenue were so great that we had extra funds left over that we could use them for a purpose that's not correlated that

▶ 3:35:54 Michael P. Zwirko: was my question through the chair I guess I would respond by saying so we you can always modify the intent of the stabilization fund however in doing so it resets that three-year clock so should we be in a position where we have more funds than we can dedicate to because of this scope we would this board would then have to debate should they want to modify it so there there is

▶ 3:36:23 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: lever that one can pull there's just a counter to it and if I might add I think that to answer your question as I read it if we had an excess amount of money beyond those needs relate specifically called out in theory there could be other appropriations made to education public safety and substance abuse prevention because we're giving a priority we're not saying it's exclusive so the language was that was recommended and second it was with priority given so it would take priority but not exclusive there thank you okay so we do have a motion on the table to amend the order before us with the language added tonight as well as the red lines provided in advance that were in the public record duly seconded so this is a motion to amend the order all All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so it is now amended. So these have been accepted and are part of the order, which is now before us still.

▶ 3:37:23 Michael P. Zwirko: I make a motion to recommend for passage as amended.

▶ 3:37:27 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: Second. There is a motion for passage as amended, made by Alderman Zwirko and seconded by Alderman Medeiros. Any additional discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

▶ 3:37:41 Speaker 9: Opposed.

▶ 3:37:43 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: two opposed so this uh motion i think fails because is this does it this need to be a super majority or just a majority just a majority oh i'm sorry right so to the full board we have a recommendation for passage apologies um made with two um nays all right wow guys this was a long