PUBLIC COMMENT

Transcript (~20 min @ 1:48)

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

▶ 1:50 Speaker 3: All in favor.

▶ 1:51 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. And I'll also look for someone to open public comment. So moved.

▶ 1:59 Speaker 2: Second.

▶ 2:00 Kimberly Vandiver: We have a motion to open public comment. We will do entirely roll call tonight as we have someone remote. Will you call the roll to open public comment?

▶ 2:12 Speaker 3: Yes. Vice Chair Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abramski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes.

▶ 2:33 Speaker 2: You can turn it on.

▶ 2:34 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. Public comment is now open. This is the portion of the meeting where the public may speak to any item on our agenda tonight. Comments on other matters are also welcome. And as I stated, please try to limit your comments to five minutes in the interest of time tonight. Thank you.

▶ 2:49 Speaker 2: Good. Hi, everyone. Finn McSweeney, 160 West Wyoming Avenue. I'm here to support, with reservations, the El Pond Park design spending. The specific aspect of this developing plan that I oppose is what I see as an assumption baked into the plan that we're going to have synthetic turf fields, at least one at the park. I oppose this for three reasons. The first is I think it's gonna scratch the itch we have in this community for easy button municipal spending that I think has been growing in recent years. We're getting on this hedonic treadmill of we have a tax base that's willing to support overrides, it's willing to support exclusions, and so we're going to spend money on a really nice salt shed. We're going to spend money on the third fire station. I think we have to check ourselves as a community, anything that's going to tempt us into what we can spend a couple of million dollars on this solution, and it's just going to be easy. It's going to solve the problem. I think we have to be very wary of that as a community. The second reason is, while I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of our local youth sports organizations, they're incredible. Our kids in this community are so lucky to have organizations like them. I think that those organizations should be asked to substantiate the idea that turf fields in particular, which many of them are advocating for, are going to improve field access. This community has half as many kids as it had a generation ago. And as someone who has multiple kids in youth sports in this community, I'm curious to see how a turf field would improve access to the fields. But to me, the main limitation in this community is time. It's not the field material. So I think that the organization should be asked just "What are your registration numbers? Show us how your scheduling blocks would improve with a turf field," and then we can debate that. And the third reason, and probably the most important, is that turf is disgusting. It's gross. I know it. Everyone around this table knows it. Go stand on the turf field at the high school tomorrow in the middle of the day. You will hate it. You will leave in two, three minutes. It stinks, smells bad. It's hot. It's like hanging out in a parking lot. The number of organizations every year, from professional sports organizations to youth health organizations that come out in opposition to turf fields, synthetic turf fields, is growing every year. From children's health organizations who understand that children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental contaminants, and no one really knows, despite what the manufacturers will tell you, no one really knows what's in the turf fields. It's a major concern, all the way up to professional-level organizations. The NFL Players Association, the organization that probably has access to the best, most highest quality turf fields on the planet, opposes-synthetic turf fields and wants their players to play on grass fields. They're kicking up another stink about this because of the World Cup, and the reason is because injury rates are higher on turf fields. They know this. Everyone knows this. I know that your sports organizations have included some comments in their letters that they're safer. They're just not. I think that's wishful thinking. So those are my reasons. I appreciate everyone's time. I think we should invest in L Pond, absolutely, but that aspect of the plan really concerns me, and I think we need to do more work before we move ahead into the spending real money phase of it. Thank you.

▶ 6:28 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 6:31 Kimberly Vandiver: Hello. Welcome. If you can sign in and then state your name and address, please.

▶ 6:39 Speaker 3: I would if there was a pen.

▶ 6:41 Speaker 4: Oh, we can get you one. Thank you.

▶ 6:43 Speaker 3: Hi, my name is Susan Grossberg. I live at 98 East Wyoming Avenue. I'm here about item 2026-1175, the appropriations for the L Pond Park. And my concern is regarding the synthetic turf, and I'm going to quote Diana Conway, who is the president of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc. This is from a Beyond Plastics website page. And she says, "I would like to compare synthetic turf to a bad relationship. It gets dangerously hot, it's toxic to everyone around me, it's unsustainable, and it's really hard to get rid of."

▶ 7:29 Speaker 3: So it's an average field of 80,000 square feet, contains about 40,000 pounds of plastic carpeting and 400,000 pounds of infill, and the infill is from recycled tires or alternative materials, many of which may not be tested, and some of which have been found to contain PFAS. Fields average a 10-year lifespan and then need to be disposed of, which is either done by landfill or incineration, so further putting communities at risk for chemical exposure. And synthetic turf fields have been shown to contain the following chemicals: benzene, a human carcinogen; arsenic, human carcinogen; styrene, anticipated to be a human carcinogen; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAH, human carcinogen; zinc, neurotoxin; cadmium, carcinogen; chromium, carcinogen, respiratory irritant; VOCs, SVOCs; hexane, toluene, formaldehyde, respiratory irritants, asthma triggers; neurotoxicants; phthalates, which are a reproductive toxicant; crystalline silica, which is a respiratory irritant; latex, which is an allergen; and particulate matter, which is an asthma trigger. Additionally, being made of petrochemicals, they're highly flammable. As a result, many fields contain toxic flame retardants. Many also contain antimicrobials following the higher incidence of MRSA. I can't pronounce it, but the MRSA infections from playing on synthetic turf fields. This is not a healthy alternative for our children to play on. I would hope that you would consider not using synthetic turf on this field. Thanks.

▶ 9:42 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who wishes to speak?

▶ 9:58 Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you.

▶ 10:00 Speaker 3: Oh, I have handouts.

▶ 10:04 Speaker 5: I don't know if there's enough.

▶ 10:06 Speaker 2: I guess I'll sign in.

▶ 10:19 Speaker 2: that. I'm Pete Walter. I'm here in support of the Conservation Commission's appropriation for money for pond management. Since moving to Melrose a year ago, I've enjoyed all three of the ponds a lot. L Pond you probably hear about a lot because that's in downtown, and that's fun. I've had my granddaughter there, showing her the swans and the birds and it's just beautiful and it's fun. There's also Towner's Pond and Swain's Pond, which are kind of like the hidden gems. There are people that go hiking around Towner's Pond. There's a big rock that they go and sit and just kind of seek solitude and look at the beauty. Swain's Pond, there's always people fishing at it and just relaxing. So they're a gem for a city like Melrose to have three ponds. They've recently been doing some work on Towner's Pond to deal with the lily pads because they overtake the pond and then it makes it so that the guys couldn't fish. It's just unattractive, and it's slowly filling the pond in. It's only six feet deep. It was created to generate ice for Boston. So it's not a real deep one, which is also another fun thing. Kids go ice skating on it. Hockey games are played there. So anyways If they could do things to make the ponds in Melrose more beautiful and more accessible, it would be a great thing. So thanks a lot.

▶ 12:06 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 12:14 Speaker 4: Hello, welcome.

▶ 12:19 Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Paul Morgan. I live at 295 Swains Pond Avenue, which is right on Towner's Pond. I'm here to support ID number 2026-1202. The ponds are a great resource. All the ponds in Melrose are a great resource to the community. We've lived on Towner's Pond for about 20 years. I love watching hockey games in the winter. I can watch five hockey games in the winter. I can see kids fishing. And it's not just on Towner's, it's on Swains, it's on L. Also, the ponds up at Mount Hood are critical to the community. Unfortunately, they're filling in. They're filling in with silt. In fact, to be honest, I haven't seen anybody fishing on Towner's Pond this year at all because it's too shallow. It used to be six feet deep, but there are islands forming on the pond. So it's really important for the community, I think, to start focusing more on management of all the ponds. It's a resource that we could lose. All you have to do is go up to Mount Hood and take a look at the ponds. Pond number one at Mount Hood, it's turning into a swamp. The far side of Towner's Pond is already a swamp from silt filling it in. So we have an opportunity, we have time to start to manage that now, and this appropriation would help to start that, but it's a long-term project if we want to have these resources available going forward. So I hope you vote in favor of that.

▶ 13:56 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 14:00 Speaker 4: Do we have additional people who'd like to comment?

▶ 14:12 Speaker 4: Thanks again. Hi, welcome.

▶ 14:14 Speaker 3: Hi. Thank you. I'm Sherry Qualters. I live at 41 Albion Street, and I'm here on behalf of myself and a number of members of Zero Waste Melrose who couldn't be here. Some because of children's sports banquets. But I'm here to comment on 2026-1175, and we would also respectfully request that the design not include artificial turf for any fields. I was struck that FIFA has banned artificial turf for the World Cup soccer games, and also I believe the US Soccer Association opposes it. There's a lot of plastic in it, and over time it breaks down a little bit at a time, and all the plastic is going in the air. And there's PFAS, those forever chemicals that we can never get rid of. There's a lot of toxic chemicals as well that interfere with health, and it's been studied by organizations like the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and other organizations. And it just would be great to have fields that don't heat up so much. The fields get really hot, as the other gentleman mentioned. When it's a hot day, the artificial turf gets even hotter than natural grass. So that's not ideal because we're getting a lot of hot days the beginning and end of the school year. So that's it. We just would like to register that we're hoping that the design can include a focus on grass instead of artificial turf.

▶ 16:22 Speaker 4: Thank you. Thanks for your comments.

▶ 16:39 Kimberly Vandiver: Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak at public comment?

▶ 16:47 Speaker 4: Hello, everyone.

▶ 17:00 Mark Garipay: Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity. I'm here to speak in support of item 2026-1175, the appropriation for 710,000 for the design and permitting of L Pond. I strongly believe we need to move this project forward to the next phase. This project is a project that has been studied and debated for the past six years on and off. As someone who sat around this horseshoe in your seats for six years, and as a member of the last two capital improvement planned program committees, I have consistently been a strong supporter of this project. And I ranked it probably in the top five both times. To provide some historical context, the city of Melrose has made very few substantial investments in our parks, fields, and recreational spaces over the last several decades. Aside from playground replacements fencing, park redesigns, routine maintenance, and other wear and tear improvements. There have been no major city-funded investments in recreational facilities since the late 1970s. The Melrose High School baseball field was renovated right around 1984 through the generosity of a donation of Dr. Richard Morelli. Pine Bank's track and field projects, along with the Melrose High School athletic complex, facilities that are among the finest in the area, were funded through the Mount Hood Enterprise Fund rather than the city's operating budget. So in essence, the golfers in Mount Hood have been paying for all major developments in the park. So since 1970, the city of Melrose has not put any money through their budget into fields, major improvements. It is important to remember that the vote before you tonight is not the final decision on the number of fields, the type of product that the fields are going to be, the paths, the parking configuration. This vote is simply for advancing this project into the next phase. That's all it is. Into the design and permitting phase, where those important discussions can take place. I'm sure the presenters tonight, I'm sure there'll be a presentation, but they will not have any of those answers because we haven't done the design. That will be up to the Park Commission. And I'm sure they will give you all ample time, all the councils, the public, the user groups time to come and give their opinions. But they're the ones that have the ultimate authority to make that decision. You guys have the ultimate authority if it comes before you, whether you agree with it or not. But tonight, we're only voting, or I'm sorry, you're only voting to advance this forward to the next phase. So, Melrose has accomplished a great deal in recent years. We've made investments in public safety, infrastructure, critical equipment. Tonight we have the opportunity to continue moving this community forward, and this is one step of doing it. Like I said, I understand everyone's concerns. At the end of the day, we need a recreational facility that will work for everyone. This is just the next phase to get there. There are no final decisions on what it's going to be. But we can't even decide on what we want the turf or grass, whatever it be, unless we get this passed tonight. So, I ask for your support on this and there'll be plenty of time, I'm assuming, through the Park Commission, who has the ultimate authority on what they want to do. And there'll be plenty of chance for comment on that. So, I appreciate your time, appreciate all you do, and good luck. Hope you guys don't have a long night.

▶ 20:45 Speaker 2: Sounds like it's going to be.

▶ 20:47 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 20:51 Speaker 4: Would anyone else like to speak at public comment tonight?

▶ 20:56 Kimberly Vandiver: Don't see anyone standing up in the chamber. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online?

▶ 21:02 Speaker 3: No one online.

▶ 21:03 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. In that case, I would look for a motion to close public comment.

▶ 21:07 Speaker 6: Motion to close public comment. Second.

▶ 21:09 Kimberly Vandiver: A motion to close public comment by Councilor Finocchiaro and seconded by Councilor Karim Cheedy. And Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

▶ 21:18 Speaker 3: Vice Chair Van Devin? Yes. Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karim Cheedy? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Abremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes.

▶ 21:36 Speaker 4: Okay, and public comment is now closed.

▶ 21:41 Speaker 4: So we'll move on to

▶ 21:45 Kimberly Vandiver: our meeting tonight. I'll note we also will have two public hearings, one at 7:45 and one at, I believe, 8:00, that we'll get to. So tonight, we'll be hearing the department budget presentations for the Department of Public Works, as well as for information technology, planning and community development, and inspection services, as well as some related orders. So we'll start with some DPW related topics, I believe,