ORDER-2019-9 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 177-12: Snow and ice removal as set forth herein.

Transcript (~51 min @ 1:01:15)

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

▶ 1:01:08 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Public comment has been closed. We have the one order on our agenda this evening. It's order 2019-9, amending Mauro's revised ordinances, Chapter 177-12, snow and ice removal as set forth herein. This order is sponsored by President Search and Alderman Wright. I do want to mention that we did receive a communication this afternoon that has been attached to the order, and every member of the committee should have a printout in front of them regarding the request for a financial study that was made at our previous meeting. President Search.

▶ 1:01:42 Speaker 6: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Thank you, Madam Chair.

▶ 1:01:43 Michael P. Zwirko: First, I'll start off by thanking the members of the public for being here this evening and the previous two times this was heard before the Appropriations Committee as well as the Public Works Committee. that this order has of similar nature has failed twice before over the years I knew that this wouldn't be something that would be easily to be passed but I thought it was a discussion that was worth having each winner that goes by we aldermen are inundated with many stories of impassable snow and areas even this past weekend there was reference to the storm that we had on Thursday I myself received two communications about certain areas so we do hear about this a lot and I thought it was worthy to have the conversation once again I will also add that the last time we met I really wanted to push not only the board but this community to think about ways in which this could be improved and I've received a lot of feedback and we heard some of that tonight so these things don't always start off perfect but the hope is that you get them close to perfect upon passage if that's where we're going this evening so I did want to just make a couple of comments because I did have an item a document that was posted to this order it is some proposed suggested amendments to the proposed ordinance so I do have a statement it shouldn't take too long I'll just read that and then we can have some further discussion the amended proposal before you tonight as it's posted in IQM to showcases nearly four months of meetings discussions opinions and suggestions not only from this body but also residents civic organizations and other community leaders this has been a valuable and open process that has engaged the public on this issue through this process of balance has been struck that seeks to address serious public safety concerns of pedestrians being directed into the streets and the concerns around fiscal enforcement of mandated removal over the past four months and up to our penultimate meeting on this topic I have concerns I have heard concerns on five specific areas that these amendments seek to address number one the need to redefine the removal of quote-unquote all snow the use of all snow has been removed and in its place it now reads reasonable amounts a reasonable standard is often employed as it as it allows the enforcing parties to use their own judgment in these matters as opposed to a more draconian standard of all further we define what type of snow is to be removed most residents didn't have an issue with the spirit of this ordinance rather the implementation of it and its feasibility given that Melrose is a very dense area community many times corners and crosswalks are plowed in by redefining the snow to be removed as quote-unquote naturally fallen snow it stresses the need to remove the snow from a weather event and that which is not subject to cleanup efforts although we do ask that every effort be made to ensure reasonable passage to increased times to allow for removal of snow up to 12 hours between sunrise and sunset after the cessation of a winter event given the bedroom community nature of Melrose and the multitude of commuters that reside here expanding the time to allow for sidewalks to be cleared would allow for residents to have the time they need to clear the impacted areas without being fined three the responsible parties to enforce this ordinance change while the hope was that there would be many ways in which this issue could be enforced as a way to reduce burden on any one department it is clear that there can should be only one department responsible for its enforcement the Melrose Police Department however enforcement will only be effective with good education and communication on this new requirement and therefore I inserted language authorizing the DPW to assist in the implementation of this ordinance as they have been successful with prior efforts on educating and engaging with our residents number four different effective dates the imposition of a fine was the biggest detractor to this ordinance after input and feedback I felt that it was important to address the need for some sort of a penalty but I wanted to balance that with a year-long educational initiative like the bring your own bag proposal a delay in its implementation allowed for more seamless transition with less confusion my hope is the same here allow residents more time to understand their responsibility and how to comply with it now the proposal puts the fines in effect as of 1 1 20 fifth and final our appeals the last section of this ordinance provides an avenue to appeal as outlined in the section of mass general laws noted this is a customary process among many municipalities in summation I hope that these changes have identified areas of concern and will allow us to take action on this order up or down with that I do defer to this body for further discussion I once again wanted to say thank you to not only my colleagues but members of the public who proffered their suggestions thank you

▶ 1:06:35 Speaker 1: madam chair thank you other alderman wishing to speak on this order thank you

▶ 1:06:40 Peter D. Mortimer: very much and thank you to all the people who came out to speak on this order tonight very eloquent very well stated we appreciate your concern for our city also thank you to all the people who have sent emails and communicated through other measures I am inclined not to vote for this I think

▶ 1:07:05 Peter D. Mortimer: I've made my opinion pretty public about that an article on the patch an article law and the weekly and an article in the free press for all of the reasons and a few others stated tonight and I won't review them all I'll add some new ones one we really haven't heard from the mayor's office on this mayor Dolan used to say I propose and all of you dispose and probably 90% of our ordinances get sent down from the mayor's office not saying it can't Thorp 12 people in this city who were legally authorized to submit an order the 11 alderman and the mayor and those are the only people when the mayor's representatives the chief of police and the DPW came before us they were lukewarm at best on this ordinance I've talked to some police officers individually and they have flat-out told me I'm not doing this I'm not I'm not going to do this then they said we don't have the time to do it they said we do have as was mentioned by the public other more important things to do when a snowstorm is on it got to the point with our parking which is revenue positive by the way we get a lot of money for the general fund through the parking tickets we write that we have to meet up

▶ 1:08:43 Peter D. Mortimer: personnel they happen to be men to meet a man who walk around the city of and write tickets and they they bring in a lot of money to the city more than their salaries but as was aptly stated tonight this this will not this this will be a problem in administration and enforcement appeals I'm concerned about

▶ 1:09:07 Peter D. Mortimer: safety but we had one and you know I'm not gonna sugarcoat it we had one little storm Thursday night it was slush it was slush that's all it was it was a couple of inches of slush and we had people who sent us in photographs that the city did not clear their pedestrian and handicapped walkways where you have a little rubber tactile entrances the city didn't do that the city made a financial decision Thursday night they plowed and just a quick aside to mr. Moreau's reference that the plows were going so fast because the snow was so such a small amount that somebody would already cleared ended up flipping snow back on the sidewalk but after a couple of people walk over that or you get a little bit of wind and if this would ever pass and I certainly hope it doesn't how does the enforcement officials supposed to know whether that was put there by plow how was they supposed to know whether that's natural fallen snow or whether it was the plow that was going along a straightaway that put snow on there by going so fast and and not to mention the corners and then it turns into a mound of ice that you'd have to attack with a pickaxe to get cleared up the city of Everett which has a lot of industrial property and has much better demographics than we have to get federal and state aid the demographics allow them much better federal and state aid they have a code enforcement department that includes four vehicles and eight full-time personnel not to mention a clerical staff that services them and other

▶ 1:11:12 Peter D. Mortimer: people too one thing I haven't heard about changing is even an order even something about eliminating the fine let's eliminate the fine we're talking about we'll change it to this definition the number of hours it's two people wide we'll change it from one person watch it but I haven't heard anybody talk about eliminating the fine if this thing is gonna fly at all we got some photos that were passed around tonight and they were a commercial establishment it was the Whole Foods Plaza the Whole Foods Plaza and it was a city crosswalk it wasn't anybody's house it was it was it was it was the Whole Food Plaza ministry the Whole Foods Plaza was already covered by our ordinances because it's a commercial property and the other one was the shell station and a crosswalk but those are already covered by our ordinances I haven't seen anybody somebody was saying the slush we had the other day people didn't shovel but there were people called up and said people haven't shoveled they haven't shoveled but the snow was gone the city made a decision not to send out the sidewalk plows Thursday night they called out the plowing contractors but they did not send out the sidewalk plows for the school because walking because they looked in my opinion they made the right call because it cost money it cost money as was pointed out here and they didn't send out the sidewalk plows because that cost money and the prediction was that it was going to rain the temperature was going to go up it was not going to freeze the next night or the next day or the day after that and our DPW people are intelligent they look at the weather forecast and the slush just disappeared and people were saying oh I saw a woman trying to push a stroller through slush well you can push a stroller through slush what's harder is trying to push a stroller across the 31% of sidewalks that don't the 30% of house frontage is that don't have sidewalks whether they have snow on them or not you go by any given 100 houses in Melrose one or two of them won't be shoveled even after a heavy storm but 31 of them won't have sidewalks for any given hundred houses 31 of them won't have sidewalks and you're gonna have to walk in the street for those for those people because they

▶ 1:13:40 Peter D. Mortimer: don't have sidewalks and this this is just you know a problem our DPW director didn't even know that Linfield had a snow shoveling ordinance but they have have one without a fine. The only city that abuts us, Redding doesn't, Winfield doesn't, but of the four cities that abut us, the only one that has one with a fine is Malden. But Malden has 95% sidewalk coverage. Melrose only has 69% sidewalk coverage. I think it's well stated that what we could do is use any money that this would go for to plow. One One person sent in an email or made a post on social media that sometimes I have to walk in the street and sometimes it's dark and it's always cold.

▶ 1:14:28 Peter D. Mortimer: Well, we can't change that winter is cold. I wish we could. I wish we could have enough money to while be on cruise ships. But this comes down to real money. This comes down to real money. And if you take from one, ultimately it all comes out of the same bucket. And I would like to see more money go to our schools, obviously. I would like to see more money to fix the police station. I would like to see more money to fix the fire station. Our library is badly in need of repair. We have these priorities, but even now with this ordinance coming up, people are saying, I couldn't get by the sidewalk. The snow was melted by 11 o'clock in the morning, but it already, even without the ordinance being in place, created people who sent us information who were in favor of this ordinance and people who sent us information who were against this ordinance. And if anything, I would go for something educational, especially, and I'll bring it full circle, whereas the mayor herself has not weighed in on this. She has not come out and said, I hope you pass this and we'll implement it this way and that way, because ultimately it would be the executive branch. We're the legislative branch. I know we all know this. I'm being a little didactic, a little pedantic here, but we're the legislature. The executive branch, and it's a very strong executive form of government in Melrose, should propose an ordinance, especially something as far-reaching and sweeping as this, Because if we haven't heard from the mayor that she will do this, and she will do that, and she will do this. We got, again, this lukewarm letter sometime late this afternoon, which really doesn't say too much beyond we'll do some education, and I'm all in favor of education. I'd like to see that gentleman taken up to pay that $175 for the door hangers if we don't pass this. Yeah, yeah, thank you, thank you. I'll do it. right now that would that would be a good thing but you know this ordinance is is a bad fit at this time for the city of Melrose we have more important priorities we have more important fish to fry than this and its convenience but I've said it before and no one that I can remember in Melrose has ever been hit on the street in the winter time by a car. And I've lived here for 50 years. I've heard of a lot of people, about six or seven in the last 10 years, who got killed in the summertime and the fall, and I named one of these meetings and I won't name them again, but it wasn't because of snow. And I know it's inconvenient and sometimes you have leave early and one nice lady said well one side of the street well sometimes you might have to cross the street and walk on the other side of the street in the winter you have to leave a little early you have to do what you have to do but ultimately the money all comes out of the same bucket and I'd rather see it go to the schools the police station the fire station the library etc etc road in control I'd like to see it go to these things and we could do an educational outreach and that i think that would be a better use of our time and money thank you madam chair

▶ 1:18:08 Francis X. Wright Jr.: thank you alderman wright thank you madam chair um you know i i signed on to this order um and i proposed it a few years ago and maybe it has to do with where you live in the city i don't know um people i have three elderly complexes in ward three i have a lot of people around me and i know a lot of other people around the city who like to think of melrose as a walkable city um you know they they will walk their children to school they'll walk from around my neighborhood you'll walk your children to the lincoln to the roosevelt you might walk with them and get them on their way to the middle school and they certainly the kids themselves walk to to the middle school and the high school many of the residents also walk to the bus stops they walk downtown to Main Street they walk to West Wyoming I'm sure they walk all over the city we have a number of bus routes to the city they walk to Oak Grove I say we will go down Washington Street or Main Street in the morning in the darkness or at night in the darkness this time of year you see a a number of people walking to and from Oak Grove commuter rail stations number of people in the neighborhoods walk to the commuter rail stations number of people in those elderly complexes walk downtown they walk downtown for their appointments whether they're doctors appointments or hair appointments or they get to the supermarket or maybe go out to lunch now and then but certainly some of those appointments they need to keep when Thorp snow on the ground um i just believe that

▶ 1:19:51 Francis X. Wright Jr.: melrose sees itself as a walkable city and i see it as a walkable city so i thought this was worth pursuing um you know alderman Letter garabedian i believe gave us a list of communities uh last meeting um i believe there are more than two dozen perhaps um and somehow those communities seem to be able to function with these ordinances pandemonium does not break out when they try to enforce these ordinances somehow they're able to keep their sidewalks clear they're not overrunning their citizens they're not trying to you know force citizens into paying fines that they shouldn't have to find they're reasonable i think people in melrose are reasonable we spend a lot of money in this city and and i'm the first one to say i'm proud of it to clear our streets to make sure that if you got to get out in the morning you can get out in the morning you can drive your car you can get to the Malden line you can get to the Saugus line and you can get to the Stoneham line and you might say boy these communities aren't plowed as nicely as Melrose is we spend a lot of time and effort money plowing those streets I'd like to have a little bit of effort put into clearing the sidewalks so people who are walking can do so safely that's all i thought we were trying to accomplish here

▶ 1:21:29 Francis X. Wright Jr.: but it's clear that Thorp a vocal group in this city who don't want to see it happen but i'm still behind it i'm still behind the people who walk i'm still behind public safety i'm still i still believe that if we're going to invest that amount of money in making sure vehicles can get where they need to go that people who need to get the public transportation or need to get downtown I need to check on their neighbors I can do that safely too thank

▶ 1:21:55 Shawn M. MacMaster: you thank you thank you madam chair when this order first came before committee prior to that I had reached out to President Zwirko and to alderman Rita I notified them that I had some concerns with the order that was before us and since that time I've spent a lot of time listening and studying the issue without weighing in on the merits but tonight I wanted to state my position on the order I understand the purpose of the order I appreciate Alderman Wright and President Zwirko intentions and although I agree with the spirit of the proposed order I disagree with the approach there are four concerns that I have one of the concerns mayors what Alderman Mortimer raised at a prior meeting and the other three i don't believe have been discussed to date the first is that the maintenance of roads and sidewalks is an inherently governmental function i don't think that removing snow is something that we should require of the public we should hope for it but not require it now i realize that it's not practical to expect dpw with its current resources to maintain every sidewalk in the city but if we fail as a board that the removal of snow from residential sidewalks is that important and I think it's the responsibility of the city to figure out how to get it done and I don't think Thorp an easy solution to that my second concern is about precedent if this order passes who's to say that this order does not become a springboard from which to file other onerous orders on the public so especially in trying fiscal time so might we expect homeowners to chip ice away or shovel snow from a catch basin or to shovel out a fire hydrant or to maintain the big blue sand barrel in front of their residents we should hope for that but i don't think that we should mandate it and i think that's a slippery slope to head down

▶ 1:23:55 Shawn M. MacMaster: my third concern is that this would be very difficult to enforce and this is what alderman mortimer discussed at a prior meeting i think we'd be overburdening our city employees and setting them up to fail from inspecting properties to communicating with residents and non-compliance to handling hardship requests or exemptions as i think the amendment says i don't think it would be cost effective finally my fourth concern is that i don't think that an order that contains a fine structure is equitable i'm concerned about the elderly and the disabled who may not be physically or financially able to comply i'm concerned about our low-income residents and those living on fixed incomes i'm concerned about the single parents who naturally would be hesitant to leave their infant or young child unattended in order to shovel and finally i'm concerned about our immigrant residents many of whom live in ward 5 and work multiple jobs making it nearly impossible to comply with the proposed timeline as the data show between one and two and a half percent of parcels go unshoveled of the 8 506 parcels only 58 58 didn't shovel during both storms studied i hardly think that this is an issue so severe

▶ 1:25:21 Shawn M. MacMaster: of a problem that we need to legislate it i think a more prudent and cost-effective alternative would be to target the habitual offenders with outreach and education frankly i'd rather compel someone to comply through a conversation than coerce them to do so through legislation put another way i think our goal should be to achieve voluntary compliance

▶ 1:25:42 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: thank you madam chair thank you alderman Tramontozzi thank you madam chair

▶ 1:25:46 John N. Tramontozzi: as i expressed that other times that this ordinance has been presented i am not inclined to support it for the same reasons that alderman mortimer and alderman mcmaster have finally expressed you know we do have and currently have a snow and ice removal ordinance it's been in place for some quite some time and this board has not seen fit to amend it to add in the residential requirements and i don't see any reason what has changed over the past 20 30 40 years that this particular ordinance which covers commercial um owners of property and i see no reason why the conditions in the city have changed that requires the additional amendments to this disorder ordinance i agree we you know we can have public outreach and education without amending the ordinance and and i do like suggestions that are made and how we can just make it aware to the public then the desire and the need to make our sidewalk safe and to assist our neighbors without requiring it in an ordinance so I too would be inclined not to vote in favor of this amendment thank

▶ 1:27:15 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: you thank you thank you and I'll try to be brief since we've talked discussed this a couple of times I really appreciate the members of the public who have weighed in tonight and also over email and I appreciate presidents work Oh providing to our committee a redlined version of the initial draft which I think includes many of the amendments that were recommended in previous conversations so thank you for that work just to update the board since the last time we met and talked about this I did reach out to the municipalities of Arlington, Belmont, Swampscott, Gloucester, Wakefield, Newton, and Medford. Only Medford did not get back to me, but I was able to talk to someone or multiple people at the other six localities. One conversation that really stood out to me is Swampscott, which only passed their bylaw this past year, will be enforcing it for the first time this winter. I spoke with the police chief there, Police Chief Madigan, who told me, quote, this is a public safety issue. I want to make sure our kids and people with disabilities have a safe place to walk and that really I thought was Encouraging to hear from the the responsible party in Swampscott Arlington provided me with some numbers I apologize deeply and I'm happy to provide these later in the middle of bedtimes and packing for Thanksgiving. I left my spreadsheet at home but there there were certainly both in Arlington and Belmont anecdotal and quantitative data that had been collected that suggested there was quite a bit of requirements with respect to reaching out to people to provide warnings that it wasn't that there were resources that were involved but that when it came to actually issuing fines they were there were very few that most times the warning was very quite sufficient and Wakefield again that was a community where there are only certain streets that are required to have their sidewalks and most of those are not residential neighborhoods like ours but in any event as alderman Wright indicated it's true and some limited research that I did 27 of 35 towns or cities that are either near us or have some comparability to us have an ordinance in place and not one of these towns or cities that I've looked at plows all the sidewalks I don't know that any municipality and the Commonwealth does that frankly so that that's just you know some background on the fact that having an ordinance like this in place would not make us an outlier in fact we would be falling in line with what I would say are a larger percentage of cities and towns in the greater Metro Boston area I've stated before that I think our composition of not providing public transportation for students in Melrose public schools and requiring families to figure out ways to get their students to school differentiates us in a way that speaks in favor of some type of requirement same with having three commuter rail stations and being next to Oak Grove and having bus lines and with having a vibrant senior population as well as commercial districts where we want people to frequent that said it seems to me that it's quite unlikely tonight we have the votes to support this ordinance since we would need eight members of this body to eventually pass the ordinance nonetheless in the interest of moving this to some sort of closure I would make a motion to approve this ordinance with the red lines that presidents work Oh has submitted that are publicly available with one additional amendment which would be that in the paragraph e 2 under an enforcement we delete all references to fines so that it would then read whoever violates any of the provisions of subsections a through C of 177-12 shall be fined $50 per day for the first offense in each subsequent offense that's related to non-residential properties with the exception of a violation of owner occupied residentially zoned one or two prop family property which shall receive a warning noting that the owner occupant has violated ordinance 177-12 Alderman Lipper-Garabedian is making a motion to

▶ 1:31:45 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: amend this order to include the updated changes provided by President Search in addition to this current change is that correct yes thank you we have a second

▶ 1:32:02 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: The motion fails for lack of a second.

▶ 1:32:05 Speaker 1: Thank you.

▶ 1:32:07 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Alderman Medeiros.

▶ 1:32:09 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. And I, too, I won't belabor this. I expressed in the past my opposition to this order. I think that we can accomplish the goal of this without the ordinance as such. I think Thorp major problems with enforcement that it could be selectively enforced. frankly the bottom line is is i don't think we have the resources to to enforce this i don't think we have the financial resources to do that we have a memo here from mr shenna talking about just some of the the costs talking about up to four thousand five hundred dollars in printing costs if we want to notify the entire city and if we opt to send a mailer the total cost would be twelve thousand five hundred I think we can do this and you know we certainly I think are all united in wanting to see the streets cleared in Melrose and have it impassable and safe I think that we can we have a problem with we're seeing one to two percent of the residents according to DPW I think Thorp confusion and you know we've seen we still have the problem of winter happens

▶ 1:33:31 Monica C. Medeiros: I think Alderman Mortimer said it right winter happens and it's we have a limited space and we don't have a lot of space to put the snow when it falls and inevitably much of the problem is areas like the corners where the city has maybe even gone through with the sidewalk plow but come back and there remains a whole lot of snow on that corner and ice that is too much for a residential homeowner to to clean up sometimes I think you know we don't

▶ 1:34:09 Monica C. Medeiros: necessarily have any extra money to start new projects but if we are going to do this and I know I said this at a previous meeting I think we could look at some of the commuter routes and adding look at those you know routes to go to bus stops routes to go to the train station we look at school routes in terms of what the sidewalk plow uses to plow snow this is something it would cost us more money to do it I'm sure but you know they are out there it might be a reasonable reasonable solution that wouldn't cost that much more to do I think we can do we have some of the suggestions from residents and I think we've heard it from some of the members here you know very well put tonight we have the list of people who want to who've signed up to be the snow shovelers from people who need community service and others maintained by the mayor's office a robocall out to the residents letting them know that this exists perhaps you know neighborly outreach to those who are not complying to see if Thorp some other reason if they need help did they know that Thorp a list of people who are willing to do this and I think we could solve the problem but you know it's the and we do have and I want to make it really clear to the residents that they know that we do have an ordinance already on the books that if somebody in a commercial district doesn't clean their snow they can be fined and if somebody puts snow on a sidewalk that shouldn't be there or on the street for that matter that they can be fined so you know we saw the picture of the snow that was passed around by a resident of the Shell station with big mounds of snow over the sidewalk on Main Street well first of all that business owner at that point in time didn't clear their sidewalk and actually they caused snow to be to fall upon the sidewalk and that's against our ordinances already and i think the other picture that i saw i'm sorry to say i think that that was the mccarthy house which was you know which is city property and that means you know we can think about ways in which we can be a better neighbor and you know those kinds of issues where Thorp snow build up on corners or in areas where Thorp you know a park or public property you know those wouldn't be addressed by this ordinance but it seems to me from what i'm hearing from the public that it's an area that people do want to see addressed so you know i think i hope i'm sure that the mayor has followed this meeting it's ultimately it's up to the executive to to do these things but i hope she's taken some good suggestions and will implement them i would like to see that done but i think this ordinance you know doesn't create the right culture it has enforcement issues and i think we can and it has a cost that i don't think we can bear right now thank you thank you alderman Bewtra

▶ 1:37:20 Manisha Bewtra: thank you I'm not sure how it's possible to agree with sort of two sides of an argument but that's kind of the situation I keep finding myself in with this and I'm really struggling with it so with regards to the kind of idea that one to two percent of sidewalks not being very much I totally I do disagree with that notion in the sense that it's sort of like a clogged artery I think we do very much as a city need to figure out ways to prioritize walkability as much as we prioritize roadways as alderman Wright

▶ 1:38:09 Manisha Bewtra: suggested that said the ordinance even as amended which I appreciate the amendments I also appreciate the amendments that alderman liver Garabedian suggested still don't quite get there for me unfortunately I think given the way it's going I could propose more suggested changes but I don't think we have the votes right now my concerns are ultimately I do wish that we had a mechanism for consistently problem properties uh so maybe something like after the third warning getting a fine or maybe increasing the amount of time so that there is some recourse for the city

▶ 1:38:59 Manisha Bewtra: for non-commercial properties that said um i do like the idea of public outreach i would support that and i very much think that our department of public works i know they do a great job i think this issue of plowing from the streets onto corners on the sidewalk is something i just observed as of this thursday a lot of the examples that people sent to us were examples of sidewalks that were clogged along our sidewalk clearing routes and i would love to see over the next year that we really focus on making sure those sidewalk clearing routes are actually clear and that we work with the Department of Public Works to do a complete streets review as I think they suggested they will do through our earlier conversations a complete streets review of those routes to update them so that routes to transit are prioritized as well as routes to school so I guess

▶ 1:40:01 Manisha Bewtra: that kind of leaves me in a position that I didn't expect to be in I'm reluctant to support this as is with a caveat that this does not mean I want this issue to go away I think we do need to figure out ways to to address sidewalk clearing and we need to be an example through our own sidewalk clearing routes over the next year thank you thank you are there any other

▶ 1:40:31 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: aldermen wishing to speak for the first time president's work oh thank you

▶ 1:40:39 Michael P. Zwirko: madam chair so I know that the comments come up a couple of times that you know we the board have better things to do and a lot of times I'm told that we don't do anything and now I'm being told that we need to do something so you know beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder I guess so I I put some some thought and some work into this proposed ordinance as I had referenced earlier it is attached to the order two zero one nine dash nine it is item three I move to amend the ordinance as outlined in that proposed ordinance with the amended changes I'd appreciate a second on that from my colleagues if possible so we can at least take an up-or-down vote on those proposed amendments we have a

▶ 1:41:19 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: motion to amend as outlined by President Zwirko. Is there a second? Seconded by

▶ 1:41:29 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Alderman Wright. All in favor of the amendments? Aye. Opposed? For furthering of

▶ 1:41:45 Michael P. Zwirko: discussion I move to further amend the proposed order of 2019-9. I would just like at this time to simply strike section e2 of the ordinance I would replace it leaving the owner it would it would be stricken and it would read the owner tenant or occupant of any estate in those sections of the city containing commercial office and manufacturing facilities that violates any of the provisions of subsections a through C of this section shall be fined $50 essentially what that does is it incorporates all of the red line excluding section e2 it then cuts out residence puts forth as proposed in the red line attachment striking a residential fine a motion to amend made

▶ 1:42:36 Manisha Bewtra: by presidents work oh there a second could I just point of order ask you to

▶ 1:42:40 Michael P. Zwirko: repeat that one time please certainly so this would what we just voted on the red line this would be inclusive of all of that except for section e2 it would be stricken entirely and replaced with which essentially just removes the residential fine the owner tenant or occupant of any estate in those sections of the city containing commercial office and manufacturing facilities that violates any of the provisions of subsections a through c of this section shall be fined fifty dollars it just retains the commercial fine that is already on the books it strikes the expansion into the residential zoning areas we have a motion made

▶ 1:43:16 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: TO, AS JUST READ BY PRESIDENT Search, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY ALDERMAN GARABEDIAN ON DISCUSSION.

▶ 1:43:32 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: MAYBE THROUGH THE CHAIR, IS THERE A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T GO BACK TO JUST WHATEVER THE ORDINANCE SAYS INITIALLY THERE? I CAN'T TELL IF, THROUGH THE CHAIR, PRESIDENT Search, IS THE ordinance right now as it stated just $50 or is it $50 per day I think it might be $50 per day for commercial office and manufacturing facilities and it sounded like your proposed amendment is just $50 thank you madam chair it

▶ 1:44:06 Michael P. Zwirko: states the $50 per day earlier in the ordinance itself I was just removing and altering section e2 I'll just add the other reason I kept the other and didn't with what what's on the books is i did think it was necessary to make the changes that we've heard not only from the residents this evening but also members of this board regarding all snow naturally falling snow and adding the portion about the outreach efforts and engaging the public on this so um those items i wanted to to keep and remove the rest in the hopes that um you know it's i've spoken with people and they've said if i had a choice between no fine and no ordinance i'd choose the no fine so in an effort to at least get this into the the public and before them uh that's that's the hope here is that just simply striking the fine and leaving everything else will

▶ 1:45:00 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: at least move this forward okay thank you for that clarification because i think it would be fine to keep the current fine approach for commercial office and manufacturing facilities the same as it is on the books right now and essentially my sense is what you are recommending is what I probably inartfully recommended a little earlier which is to accept your red lines and sections B and E1 which would allow for some responsibility on the books and then you know authorization of DPW to provide a lot of awareness and um an outreach um so that's fine any further discussion alderman

▶ 1:45:41 Peter D. Mortimer: mortimer um i'm concerned about this i think what we need to do is have some type of committee and study this really really diligently because even if we eliminate e2 which is the fine, E1 still mentions have the authority to enforce all provisions of 177.12 and upon petition demonstrating serious hardship due to combination of health and financial limitation, temporarily exempt owner occupants of one and two family residential property as to said owners, and then it says one or two family residents, I think it probably should say of one or two family residences but it still leaves in a reference to one and two family references I think at this point we should just leave things the way they

▶ 1:46:41 Peter D. Mortimer: are there needs to be a lot of work rather than work this out sentence by sentence paragraph by paragraph in this venue at this time I don't think we should do any amendments I think we should just vote against this and because it still does mention the one or two family residential property and it does include the the language upon petition demonstrating serious hardship and that means it would be the homeowner who would have to petition previous and I just think it's it leaves it open to some degree of ambiguity and cast a shadow that that this is upon the owners of residences to to demonstrate their hardship but I'd like to see this just let's just leave it the way it is look at it over the winter see how education goes see what kind of feedback we get further and let's let's craft another ordinance next year maybe maybe next year when this is not an amendment it's just a point of discussion maybe we could do something for non owner occupied residences but at this point we've had four meetings several months of this and I think it's time just to

▶ 1:48:02 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: put this to bed for this year thank you on discussion of the motion to amend

▶ 1:48:11 Shawn M. MacMaster: Alderman McMaster Thank You madam chair I'm willing to vote to support all the Zwirko's amendment so long as the fine isn't there and of course that's the amendment or the motion that's before us I don't I don't think it's necessary but I know that President Zwirko has worked diligently on this for quite some time now not just this year but in the prior year with Alderman Wright so in the interest of compromising I would be willing to support it I do think although it's not necessary that this could be a mechanism to formalize response protocols to identify those who are not in compliance and to ascertain the reason why and then to provide appropriate resources or referrals as needed the one thing that I think is missing though if we look under section e enforcement part one it talks about the exemption in the first sentence part Part two talks about the outreach, but Thorp nothing that promulgates response protocols. And I think we're setting ourselves up to fail if Thorp no affirmative step by this board to promulgate response protocols that identify or attempt to identify the habitual offenders, conduct that outreach, have a conversation, and then have some type of referral plan in place to appropriate services. whether it's the Council on Aging or the Health Department or Elder Protective Services, whoever that might be. But I think Thorp something missing there as is. That's not to say that I wouldn't support it as is. I'm not making a motion, but for discussion purposes, if we did have something to the effect of promulgate response protocols, and whether that's the police department or DPW, which shall include a referral plan for who identified as in need of snow removal assistance. Again, that's not in the form of a motion, but just in the form of discussion.

▶ 1:50:16 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank you, Alderman Baxter. Any further discussion on the motion to amend?

▶ 1:50:21 Speaker 1: Alderman Bewtra.

▶ 1:50:22 Manisha Bewtra: I just wanted to thank President Zwirko for asking for this additional amendment. I'd be more inclined to support it. I appreciate Alderman McMaster's comments as well.

▶ 1:50:36 Speaker 1: Thank you.

▶ 1:50:39 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: All in favor of the motion to amend?

▶ 1:50:42 Speaker 8: Aye.

▶ 1:50:44 Speaker 1: Any opposed? Opposed. Opposed.

▶ 1:50:49 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: I'm gonna need hands on this. Could I see a show of hands for those ayes?

▶ 1:50:59 Speaker 1: Motion passes. The order. I saw four hands. I saw five, and then. Can we see the hands again, please? One, two, three, four, five, six.

▶ 1:51:14 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: the motion as amended is before you motion for passage as amended

▶ 1:51:21 Michael P. Zwirko: we're in appropriations motion to recommend as uh motion recommend as amended we have a motion

▶ 1:51:31 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: to recommend the order as amended uh second or maybe i would draw because i think um maybe with uh alderman mcmaster's addition would be would be worth considering

▶ 1:51:42 John N. Tramontozzi: point of order this is this is getting out of hand i mean we got a motion it's been uh recommended let's just go with the motion we do have a motion on the floor

▶ 1:51:52 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: anyway so we cannot at this point unless we were to be withdrawn have further motions i see apologies is there a second on the motion to recommend for passage

▶ 1:52:14 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: motion seconded by alderman wright we have a motion made and seconded to recommend this order to the full board for full for passage all in favor aye show of hands please the and uh any

▶ 1:52:30 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Any opposed? Opposed. The motion passes to recommend for, you are opposed? Opposed. Okay, motion passes to recommend to the full board for passage.