ORDER-2021-104 : Amending Chapter 173 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose

Transcript (~29 min @ 58:47)

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

▶ 58:56 Speaker 1: Order 2021-104, Amending Chapter 173 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose.

▶ 59:07 Christopher Cinella: Okay, this comes from Legal and Ledge, Councilor Giorgiotis.

▶ 59:14 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Mr. President. This order comes from the Legal and Legislative Committee without recommendation, which means that the committee did not take a position one way or another, so I believe at this time it is before the Council.

▶ 59:28 Christopher Cinella: Okay, and I have a, sorry, a few hands go up. I first have Councilor McNaught and then Councilor Jamala Dean. Did I miss anybody else's hands? Councilor Thomas? Anyone else?

▶ 59:46 Christopher Cinella: Councilor Garipay? Councilor McNaught? Thank you, Mr. President.

▶ 1:00:00 Jeff McNaught: I was thinking about how this discussion was going to go tonight. So I think I have some comments I want to make, but for the purpose of our discussion, which I know a lot of us are going to speak, I'm going to make a motion for passage from the very beginning. And so, I guess what I'll say is motion for passage, and then I'd like to speak on this.

▶ 1:00:23 Christopher Cinella: Second. So, we have a motion for passage made by Councilor McNaught, seconded by Councilor They are now on discussion.

▶ 1:00:35 Speaker 5: So go ahead, Councilman McNaught.

▶ 1:00:37 Jeff McNaught: So let me explain why I want to frame it this way. We had a public comment tonight say, essentially that, I mean, I felt as though it was just saying that we weren't doing our job because this is now the fourth time that it's before us. I would actually say it's the exact opposite. I'm proud of the work this council's done on this. I'm proud of the questions that we've asked, the answers that we've gotten. I'm also a little bit disheartened about some of the comments that have been made in public comment and submitted to us because a lot of that information wasn't true. And I'm not gonna call anyone out by name here, but listening to public comment a few minutes ago is tough. I was actually gonna wait to speak tonight. And, um, but again, I, I appreciate the work that the council's done on this because we wanted to get it right and our deliberations were careful and I understand that it came out twice without any recommendation. Um, but that doesn't mean that we weren't asking questions or that we weren't thinking about it. If you think about it, it means the exact opposite. So we didn't take this matter lightly. That's my point. And thinking about that, I especially appreciate the position and the work of Council Grigoraitis and the spot that she's in. Mount Hood remains in Ward 6 more than any of us. I mean, we know we've seen the Correspondents come in and I'm aware that she's probably been in a lot of conversations with constituents. And Mount Hood is one of the potentially affected areas. If this order passes, as I said, it's located in the war that she represents. So, what I would say is in that vein, if this passes, I pledge to work with. Council Grigoraitis, all city councils, the mayor. The park commission, chief Lyle and the Morris police department, the management group at Mount Hood. the residents around Mount Hood who have been dealing with some serious issues raised that have existed for many years without anything in place that this orders amendment is recommending. As I said, Mount Hood is located on Ward 6, but it's one of our city's most beloved resources and we all have a duty to make sure that the rules are followed. I want to emphasize that the vote that will take place here tonight is one step in the process and it does not just pertain to a beverage cart at Mount Hood Golf Course. We have to get off that narrative because it's just not real. Should we pass this amendment, the Melrose Liquor Commission will weigh in. They are the regulatory body for all alcohol sales in Melrose and for many years they've done a fantastic job in the important roles that they volunteer for. We did send this order back to committee to gain more knowledge from the administration and feedback from Melrose residents, and we got just that. And contrary to what some may know or believe, the overwhelming majority of emails and phone calls that I received and emails that the whole council received, because we were all copied on them, were in favor of passing this amendment. Mayor's advisory committee weighed in favorably as well. We received that information. We did receive information from a city solicitor van camping who I've never found to to provide us with anything, but the utmost truth and good counsel.

▶ 1:04:27 Jeff McNaught: I'm confident that the liquor commission. We'll set the appropriate regulations. If this passes, I'm confident that we can work to fix the issues that our neighbors surrounding Mount hood are dealing with. If we all pull together, and it's got to be fixed. I agree with with public comment. I agree with chief Lyle. There's things that have to be fixed. But that doesn't mean that this order shouldn't pass last. I'm confident that may have broader will provide the support necessary for the success of this plan.

▶ 1:05:00 Speaker 4: whatever the Liquor Commission may allow us to move forward.

▶ 1:05:02 Jeff McNaught: Now, we received great recommendations, great suggestions about the types of activities that this order would allow for. The truth is that's up to the Liquor Commission. It's not, again, we're not the regulatory body. We can't promise any type of event or how a beverage cart would operate. But if this is set forth, if regulations are set forth by the Liquor Commission, I know, I'm confident they will be fair, responsible, and they'll benefit the community as a whole. And I think another point that I wanna make, because it's important to note that this amendment doesn't allow for drinking just to happen in public. That's just, that's against the law in the state, not in just the city of Melrose. The only public drinking that would allow, would take place at any event or venue that would be approved by the Morrill's Liquor Commission. And I'll finish there, but I'll also say, I did read the email that Mr. Nevin, the chair of the Liquor Commission submitted to us before this meeting today. And I think it would be important if we could have that read into the record at this time.

▶ 1:06:18 Christopher Cinella: Adam Clark, could you, do you have-

▶ 1:06:21 Speaker 1: Just gonna take me a minute to get it.

▶ 1:06:22 Christopher Cinella: Yeah, okay, dig that up. but actually we'll go to councilor Jamaleddine while you find that.

▶ 1:06:29 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, President Sinaloa. I would like to echo councilor McNaught that we, the city council actually did their job by taking their time and were very careful to make, before they make the decision. So I would like to echo my fellow councilor I would like to say that I'm speaking today to oppose this order before us. I'm in fact concerned of the safety issues that were shared with us from Merrill's residence and as a city councilor, I owe them an apology for not addressing it earlier. I am more concerned that this order is coming before us without even holding it to resolve our constituents concerns, safety concerns. When making my decision, I had to look at it from all angles, residents with and residents against it. And I saw the residents that are with, their benefit is for leisure and for revenue probably. residents against it, their concerns were safety concerns and disrupting their daily life.

▶ 1:07:58 Maya Jamaleddine: For those who want more leisure and fun, you can always find it wherever you go and anywhere you can. You can go and still find it. For those who have safety concern, they only have one house and if they don't find this safety, they're gonna have to relocate and this is not something as city councilors we should accept for these reasons

▶ 1:08:31 Christopher Cinella: i'm gonna have to oppose it thank you thank you uh madam clerk you wanna could you just read that

▶ 1:08:36 Speaker 1: uh mr nevins sure dear president sanella in consideration of the order that the city council is currently reviewing i am providing you with my understanding of the approval process parks commission before an application for a one-day license can be submitted to the llc liquor license commission the parks commission must first determine that the application is for an appropriate event then consider it and then vote on it when approved the applicant will be able to submit for a one-day permit then the next step liquor licensing commission the llc once approved for appropriateness by the parks commission the applicant will submit their application to the llc for a one day liquor license approval please note that non-profit organizations can submit for an all alcohol or a wine and malt beverages license all other applicants are limited to a wine and malt beverages license only the application must be filled out and include the following information location of the event time of the event and the hours for setup and breakdown all liquor or wine and malt beverages must be purchased through a a Commonwealth of Massachusetts ABCC certified wholesaler, which is the alcoholic beverage commission. The applicant is required to show an itemized bill of all liquor and or wine and malt beverages from ABCC certified wholesaler. The applicant is required to identify delivery and pickup times by the wholesale organization. The applicant is required to provide proof of insurance meeting the requirements on the application. And the applicant must identify all personnel That will be handling the sale and service of liquor or wine and malt beverages and provide proof of tips certification coordination the department. I'm sorry in the development and submission of the application will be done with the clerk of the. Once the application is deemed complete a hearing of the morals will be scheduled in accordance with state and open meeting law requirements at the hearing. The applicant will be asked to speak in support of their application and answer questions from the commissioners. Once the application is presented and questions are complete, the meeting is opened for public comment. Once public comment is complete, the commission closes the public. Comment period and considers the application once discussion is complete a motion is requested. Once a motion is made and seconded, the clerk will take a roll call vote, which will conclude the process after the license is approved. The clerk of the works directly with the contact at the certified wholesaler on the order and transportation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Joseph Nevin, Chairman of Melrose Liquor License Commission.

▶ 1:11:12 Christopher Cinella: Thank you, Madam Clerk, for reading onto the record on the spot. Appreciate that. Next up with Councilor Thomas. Thank you, Mr. President.

▶ 1:11:20 Cory Thomas: I feel that any relaxing of or changes to our local liquor laws must be accompanied by additional education and awareness to the dangers of alcohol abuse.

▶ 1:11:36 Cory Thomas: 1st, and foremost in our community, but also in our high school and middle school. In fact, I'd like to ask our liquor selling businesses. Ones with current licenses, or those that may benefit from any changes to the liquor laws. To donate money annually to the substance abuse prevention council. That can be used for additional substance abuse, trainings, seminars and workshops. At our high school and middle school, our high schools in our middle school.

▶ 1:12:06 Speaker 5: Thank you very much.

▶ 1:12:09 Mark Garipay: Thank you Mr. President. Councilman McNaught had brought up a couple of the issues that I was going to discuss, but I know Councilor Grigoraitis has been working with the residents up there with Chief Lyle regarding some of the neighborhood concerns. Concerns that go back years, 20 years, I bet, with the speeding up there on Slayton Road. Some of these issues are the same ones that I have I have heard from neighbors, um, residents in my board, and I think there are some concerns across the city. So I just want to say that I'm committing publicly to work with console, and all the other word counselors. Um, to address this problem, it's it's a city wide problem. Um, I know, um, especially around speeding. Um, and I know it's, it's come to light because of because of the, uh. The order in front of us, but I think it's a, it's a concern that we all need to take seriously and work with the chief Lyle as a group and resolve this across across the city. Thank you. Thank you.

▶ 1:13:20 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you Mr. president and I want to thank my colleagues who have all spoken about the uniqueness of this situation and how it impacts board 6, which I am so proud to represent. As many folks have referenced, we've heard a lot from the public about this order. I have heard from over 80 constituents between emails calls. Conversations at the soccer field, and. It's something I've thought a lot about my vote tonight, and I recognize that I have residents who are for it and residents who are against this. And no matter what I do. I'm going to end up with a constituent who feels like they weren't heard and that I don't take that lightly. That sits with me really heavily. I know that since many of us. As well, and when I've been thinking about tonight, I've been thinking a lot about the concept of process versus progress and I think we have kind of 2 distinct issues here. I will be the 1st to admit that I am not happy with the process for this order. I know. We were references having played a game of hot potato with it by a member of the local media. And I really think that that's because this body has been trying to figure out what was the purpose of this order. What was the narrative? What's the problem we're trying to solve? What's the benefit that we're trying to gain and for whom? And I don't think that the administration. Really provided us with a lot of information and I think that was why, as some of you have already mentioned, we sent it back. To committee, many of us have asked questions. I think it's certainly been a learning experience for me about. If we need answers and want answers, sometimes we can't just be. Asking the mayor for them and hoping that he or a member of his team will come before us. In a meeting, and I want to thank Councilor McMaster and others who I know have really dug in and continued. To ask questions and try to see clarity. I know I received some of that clarity this weekend. And that the mayor did commit that the. His administration would prioritize the use of the parks for the community and not for profit, not for any type of private entity or private party as we've been hearing about from some members of the public. So, I certainly appreciate that clarity given up. This order came down before us almost 6 weeks ago. I wish we had received that. Sooner, I really believe that an effective process is 1 that where we attempt to mitigate as many reasonable concerns. as we can so we can try to arrive at consensus i'm not naive enough to think that we're gonna solve everyone's problems but i think we could have tried a little bit harder and i was also concerned as councilman not referenced that there were emails from constituents who seem to think that this order means they can crack a beer in the park while they watch their kid play softball and that we have uh emails from constituents who seem to think that this means that it's going to be open season on alcohol in parks and playgrounds and neither of those are true um so i really hope going forward that we can all do better um and that brings me to process i mean to progress excuse me when you peel it back what's being asked of this body which is the legislative body for the city is to approve an ordinance change that would allow for two regulatory bodies the parks commission and the liquor licensing commission to consider applications for the sale and consumption of alcohol in public parks in accordance with the regulations set by those two bodies and by state law so we would be giving we would be legislating to allow two regulatory bodies to do what they're supposed to do which is to regulate um and i believe that those two bodies have a lot of work to do around this as it relates to this ordinance we've talked about mount hood we've talked about the um suggested beverage cart and what i think is clear in my neighborhood is that there are problems that exist right now um that mount hood is not always a great neighbor to the abutters and those problems exist without a beverage cart they are going to continue exist with a beverage cart whatever happens tonight we have those problems this body needs to address them the city needs to address them um i appreciate the commitment to do that i know i've had several conversations with chief lyle he is committed to doing that and i think really proposed some innovative ways to try to do that i also had an opportunity today to speak with the ceo of golf management which oversees mount hood he was comfortable with me stating in this meeting that they are committed to working with residents they acknowledge the increase in trash that the park has seen recently i think there's a lot of reasons why that is including increased use in the pandemic and a lack of regulation they can't prepare for how much trash is going to happen when they have no idea how much drinking is going to incur because none of it is happening on their watch they're committed to no glass bottles i really think that there is a desire on their part to be a good neighbor and i appreciate that they were willing to have that conversation with me um so i put all that before you because i am very much thinking about the fact that i don't want process to impede progress and i believe if we need to see a change in behavior in our community we have to allow for there to be an opportunity for change thank you thank you

▶ 1:18:41 Shawn M. MacMaster: counselor counselor mcmaster thank you mr president i i did want to draw attention to the letter that i submitted to the administration which is part of the agenda packet dated May 12th, 2021. Hopefully, my colleagues have had an opportunity to review it prior to tonight. The letter that I sent raises a number of the concerns that I've raised over the last few meetings that we've had, and I understand the public's frustration about this getting multiple dates, but I would suggest the reason for getting multiple dates, as my colleague Councillor LaGrigoritis referenced is the process issues that we've confronted that stem from the administration. And what I mean by that is this is a public policy issue and from the start there hasn't been proper context attached to the order, which leaves many of us, and I think this goes back to what Councilor McNaught said very early on, having to really dig in and be deliberative. And I would also suggest that that is the reason this is also received multiple dates so that we could continue to search for the information that we need prior to making an ultimate decision on this. And the problem, when you send down an order without context, and you've heard me reference this in the past as lack of vision. Without a vision statement, without a policy statement, you create a vacuum situation. And the problem with that is when you have regulatory bodies at the local level of unelected volunteers, you create a situation where they set policy as opposed to an apt policy. And that is problematic. If the administration from the start had provided us with the recommendations from the ad hoc committee, which we have since received based on my inquiry dated September 20th of 2020. We had that from the start. If we had the answers to the questions that we've been seeking earlier rather than later, I think this matter would have been disposed much earlier than now. So I do understand the public's frustration. Like I said, at the last meeting, I think Councilor Grigoraitis has been put in a very unfair and unenviable position. That being said, I did receive a response from the administration relative to my letter. And although I had requested a policy statement or vision statement about ultimately where we are looking to go as a community, what the administration is looking to set in terms of the direction that was not provided however what was provided was an answer to specific question that I asked and that question is on page two of my letter and that question as written in the letter is would the administration support public parks being used as venues for private parties functions or events where alcohol will be sold, served, and or consumed. The response that I received from the administration from Mr. Van Campen answered that question. And I just want to provide the council and the public with just a bit of what that response was. The response is that the administration's position is protective of our parks and open spaces as community resources. It goes on to say, Mayor Broder takes the view that any use of parks and open space for such purposes should only be available for community sponsored events, community organizations, and or nonprofits and other events and uses that provide a true community benefit to our residents. I think that's a good thing. I think that that creates social vibrancy. And again, had we known that early on, we wouldn't be playing that game of hot potato. But we have an answer now, or at least I have an answer that makes me somewhat satisfied. Like my colleagues, I'm willing to work with Councillor Grigoraitis to the extent that she would like any assistance. I do think Ward 6 has a strong advocate in Councillor Grigoraitis, and I think she will do everything that she can to mitigate any adverse impacts from this order should, as some of my colleagues said, the Liquor Licensing Commission make any changes relative to beverage carts at Mount Hood. So I think there's some work ahead and I think that can be done and I think all of us are willing to assist as needed and I think we're committed to this. I don't think this has been an easy process, but we are where we are, and based on the response that I received from the administration, I'm inclined to support this order tonight. Thank you. Mr. President.

▶ 1:24:02 Christopher Cinella: Thank you. Councilor Tramontozzi, I had you next. Did you? Are you raising your hand? Did I miss anybody? Councilor Migliorelli?

▶ 1:24:14 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I am not going to repeat all the great comments that my fellow counselors have made before me. Um, and, you know, excellent points on this whole process. I just want to explain a little bit quickly about why I'm voting to support this order. I think, you know, as we've all noted, the rollout, the process. Um, has been very bumpy and it's very apparent that tonight we're hearing lots of new information from the liquor licensing commission, counselor, McMaster just shared some information from a city solicitor about what will be what will actually be taking place in our parks. If this order were to pass, and they, you know, command counselor Grigoraitis for working very hard and reaching out to golf management company directly and have that conversation. I think all of this had it happened, you know, 4 meetings ago would have would have made a difference and how this conversation and perhaps we would have gotten to a better place faster. So, all this is to say that I think the information that we've received within the last 48 hours has helped me make my decision that even though this was a, maybe not executed in the best way. um we've had enough residents speak up in favor of this um and i you know trust in the parks commission and the liquor commission to assert their regulatory authority correctly and feel comfortable supporting order given all of that thank you thank you councillor eccles

▶ 1:25:47 Jack Eccles: thank you mr president um yeah without repeating everything that's already been said i also plan on supporting this order um i really do trust that you know this is not creating a free-for-all in every park within melrose i trust the parks commission the liquor commission to do the job that they are statutorily tasked with by granting licenses and um if if at some point in the future we need to to revisit this as an issue or reason this is part of our other liquor ordinances i'm I'm happy to do that as well, but it seems like making a decision at this time and knowing that without action of some of the regulatory bodies in Melrose, there will be no immediate change and there will be a careful process and a public process subject to the open meeting line. I'm in favor of supporting this order.

▶ 1:26:37 Speaker 5: Thank you. Anybody else?

▶ 1:26:40 Christopher Cinella: Seeing none, again, we have a motion before us for passage made by Councilor McNaught, seconded by Councilor Garipay. Madam Clark, please call the roll.

▶ 1:26:49 Speaker 1: Councillor Eccles. Yes. Councillor Garipay. Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis.

▶ 1:26:58 Speaker 6: Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine.

▶ 1:27:02 Speaker 1: No. Councillor McMaster. Yes. Councillor McNaught. Yes. Councillor Migliorelli. Yes. Councillor Stewart.

▶ 1:27:15 Speaker 9: No.

▶ 1:27:16 Speaker 1: Councilor Thomas. Yes. Councilor Tramon Tosi. No.

▶ 1:27:26 Speaker 1: Councilor, I'm sorry. President.