ORDER-2018-41 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 177: Peace and Good Order, Section 177-2 as set forth herein

Transcript (~10 min @ 8:28)

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

▶ 8:17 Francis X. Wright Jr.: aye we have one order before us order 2018-41 amending melrose revised ordinances chapter 177 peace and good order section 177-2 as set forth here and i hear a motion well i have a comment

▶ 8:43 John N. Tramontozzi: all the tremendous yeah yeah um mr chairman um uh to you maybe to the maker of the um order um has this been sent to the city solicitor for review do we know there is no comment in

▶ 8:55 Francis X. Wright Jr.: writing as part of the packet from the city solicitor but to the maker of the order alderman

▶ 9:02 Michael P. Zwirko: thank you mr chairman i apologize uh that is not a part of the order this evening but i did uh run this by uh mr van campen prior to filing this he saw nothing wrong with it I can have a letter but if this is successfully motioned out of committee

▶ 9:19 Michael P. Zwirko: to the full board I could certainly have his has his opinion attached to the

▶ 9:27 Francis X. Wright Jr.: order if it should come before the full board thank you is it appropriate to

▶ 9:29 Speaker 2: ask questions at this time or so am I correct I think you pulled this from the executive office of Public Safety and protection right it's sort of like a a template that they provided I've seen a number of other municipalities pass something similar yeah that's correct yeah and I'm just wondering if you considered including in the order or the proposed ordinance any language about enforcement because that was also included in eops is template and I was just pulling up some of the other municipalities that have passed these ordinances to date and most of them do include some information about you know how our public safety officials would enforce this ordinance if there are fines associated with it that sort of thing so I I didn't and through the

▶ 10:25 Michael P. Zwirko: chair thank you miss work oh so this was filed in November and it was used from a template that was provided as you had mentioned I'm happy to any further edits

▶ 10:35 Michael P. Zwirko: or amendments to this this was really just kind of just start get the ball rolling because it's a belt and suspenders approach as it doesn't really it essentially codifies at the local level some loopholes maybe or oversights

▶ 10:49 Michael P. Zwirko: that the the actual regulating legislative referendum question posed I

▶ 10:56 Michael P. Zwirko: will also add that I had a little bit of a concern when I filed this in November because I knew that the Cannabis Control Commission was probably going to promulgate some further amendments to the law or at least give better direction as to what certain provisions should include but i did know that newburyport i believe is one that passed this order recently when their town warrant um so it was something that i thought we should at least do i had received a couple of calls about this um and i also and just to further explain i wanted to put this in with the um peace and good order next to the alcohol just

▶ 11:30 Michael P. Zwirko: considering that these two substances generally are consumed in the same way and to prevent it from being used in the public so but happy for any amendments I mean even if people want to hold this and talk to others you know that that's fine I just figured this was something that was a appropriate at the time before we get to June 30th that's all I had mr. chairman thank you

▶ 11:53 John N. Tramontozzi: well then trim and tozy mr. chairman I am I guess I guess I understand and I and I get what we're trying to accomplish here, but one of the additions to the amendment aren't in or upon any bus or other passenger conveyance operated by a common carrier. But my concern is I don't know whether or not we have any jurisdiction to have this particular order when we don't have any control over necessarily buses. If it's intended to be a bus operated by or under the control of the city of Maros, that's one thing, but are we, I mean, should we be telling other bus companies, the MBTA, that, you know, who could be on their buses with marijuana or not coming through the city? I'm troubled by that language itself. we may need to amend that somewhat to to incorporate the passenger convenience

▶ 12:59 John N. Tramontozzi: operated by the city of Melrose I just don't think we're in a place to tell others how to run their business Thank You all the mature Matozi

▶ 13:11 Monica C. Medeiros: Alderman Medeiros thank you I was just wondering a this is something I'm supportive and of in theory and I had kind of brought it up to Maureen Garapay at the of the health I can I can't think of what the Department Department of

▶ 13:34 Monica C. Medeiros: Health and I think they have been working on something like this so I'm wondering if we have any feedback from them and in particular I'd like to see us get some feedback from them before we pass something in finality looking at I think they were also looking at you know the idea of smoking and we have a lot of looking at it in terms of tobacco use and we prohibit tobacco use I just spoke to her about that angle and that there are certainly some things that might

▶ 14:09 Monica C. Medeiros: come down the pike which would involve public consumption possibly of marijuana so I was asking them to look at it in that review and I believe they have been looking at it so I guess through the chair to the maker of the order wondering if they've they've weighed in and if if not could we get them to weigh

▶ 14:27 Speaker 3: in please the other comments well the chairman

▶ 14:30 John N. Tramontozzi: Tosi well I'm gonna make a motion to hold it in committee I think this needs some work we need some further discussion on it so we'll just hold it

▶ 14:37 Monica C. Medeiros: in committee thank you mr. chairman yes so just to Alderman Medeiros his

▶ 14:42 Michael P. Zwirko: comments so I looked at the I remember a couple years back that the public use in smoking of tobacco included with smokeless tobacco was banned on the park so I looked at that and I thought that you know either fortunately or unfortunately you can consume marijuana outside of smoking it so I thought that the use of the term consumption also saying smoke it kind of was a better catch-all but I have not reached out to the Board of Health on this so you know I'm happy like I said this is a it's a work in progress and even at the state level they're still changing and shifting excuse me with guidance so if folks want to you know offer amendments or hold it in committee or seek other cut you know that's that's fine I just want to just get this I mean we're almost there and I know that's important to kind of think about these things so whenever we get to a you know a place where we feel that it's more complete

▶ 15:38 Speaker 2: happy to do that Thank You mr. chairman I would just echo alderman Medeiros as comments about that I think and to think Alderman's working for bringing this forward I do think it's something that's necessary I did look at the proposed state regulations from the Cannabis Commission and they do have a proposed regulation that would essentially empower you know local regulations I you're absolutely right that this isn't addressed specifically in a state statute and I don't think it's going to be addressed by the Cannabis Control Commission either so I can see why it's really necessary so thank you for doing that I think in addition maybe to checking in with the Board of Health we could also check in with our police and just see if they would like a particular sort of provision or in addition to this that would address enforcement because I've seen that in some of the other municipalities that have moved forward

▶ 16:28 Scott M. Forbes: on this type of language thank you I'd like to second the motion made by all the trim and toesy to hold us in committee I think that what we have done tonight has started some good dialogue and I think the the foundation of the the order that's presented before us I think we all can see that this is something that is is going to happen we can agree with I just think it needs to be tweaked a little bit some of the wording we can make an amendment as such in our next committee meeting but at least the conversation is started tonight and we can move forward with it at our next meeting so thank you any

▶ 17:00 Francis X. Wright Jr.: other comments bring none we have them all the men Infurna thank you very much

▶ 17:03 Gail Infurna: mr. chairman I also think alderman as work go for putting this forth and I certainly agree with the motion to place it on hold but I'd like to do it with with the caveat that we make sure we check in with the police department and the Board of Health so as this is sitting in hold that we're doing you know continuing to do some work on it okay thank you my own comment would be I

▶ 17:29 Francis X. Wright Jr.: also like it to be run by the city solicitor so that ultimately we get a universal review of this within City Hall for purposes of legality health enforcement so that said we have a motion before the committee to hold this matter in committee and seek comment from other city departments including health police and the city solicitors office all in favor aye opposed order passes it'll be held in committee we have no other matters before the this