An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) to DPW-Admin/Engineering Department (#401) in the amount of $710,000 for design and permitting of Ell Pond Park.

Transcript (~17 min @ 1:04:17)

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

▶ 1:04:04 Speaker 1: Council Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Bremsky? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. That motion passes. ID number 2026-1175, an appropriation from free cash, account 01-324001 to DPW admin/engineering department, number 401 in the amount of 710,000 for design and permitting of L Pond Park.

▶ 1:04:40 Devin Romanul: Mr. President, this appropriation comes to us from the Appropriations and Oversight Committee with a recommendation for passage, and at this time I'll make a motion for passage.

▶ 1:04:48 Bradley Freeman: Second. Motion of passage made by Councilor Romanul, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion, Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 1:04:55 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. When this was discussed, I was chairing, and so I wasn't participating as thoroughly in the discussion. So I just wanted to comment that I appreciated a lot of the points and concerns that people spoke about. And for those reasons, I'd really like to see those things reflected before I vote to support this project. So I won't be supporting it today.

▶ 1:05:15 Speaker 4: Thank you. Anyone else on discussion? Councilor Williams?

▶ 1:05:18 Ryan Williams: I'll just throw out there that I'm in the same boat as Councilor Vandiver. I don't vote on promises, I vote on orders, and the order had elements to it that I think that should have been more carefully considered before we decided to put them into the 25% design. So I'll also not support this, and I hope that the mayor's office and the administration and the parks department... I'm sorry, the Parks Commission, makes good on their promises to do a really thorough public process and explore all possible options for the playing fields.

▶ 1:05:51 Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilor Karamcheti?

▶ 1:05:59 Speaker 2: You're muted maybe. Yeah.

▶ 1:06:02 Speaker 1: She's like two screens.

▶ 1:06:04 Speaker 5: Sorry. A lot going on over here. I apologize.

▶ 1:06:08 Manjula Karamcheti: I voted in support of the L Pond project, and I continue to be in support, but I did want to, for the record, read a letter that I sent to the mayor's office and DPW, because I think it's important, and I'm just gonna read it directly. And I will try to be fast. Since our committee discussion, I have spent considerable time re-reviewing the feasibility study materials, reflecting on the issues raised during deliberations, and speaking with constituents and community members about their hopes and concerns for the project. Those conversations have reinforced my belief that while there is broad support for improving recreational infrastructure and moving this project forward, there remain important questions about the planning process, public engagement, transparency, and equitable access that deserve further discussion. I want to begin by acknowledging that Melrose faces legitimate challenges related to recreational space, field availability, and aging infrastructure. I also recognize that significant time and effort have already been invested in the L Pond Park feasibility study, and that many stakeholders are eager to see progress. I share the desire to move forward with this project. For that reason, I supported advancing the funding request through our appropriations committee. However, I believe it is important to distinguish between supporting the continuation of the planning and design process and concluding that every question surrounding the underlying feasibility study has been fully resolved. In my view, the design phase should be an opportunity to further evaluate assumptions, engage stakeholders, and ensure that the final project reflects the needs of the entire community. It should not be viewed as closing the door on questions about process, representation, or alternative approaches. One of my primary concerns is the extent to which the public engagement process adequately captured the voices of the broader community. The principal public engagement session occurred in November 2020 during one of the most disruptive periods in recent history. While approximately 500 residents participated in the survey, that represents a relatively small percentage of the city of roughly 30,000 residents. Many families were navigating extraordinary challenges at the time, and participation barriers were likely highest for those most affected by the pandemic. As a result, I believe it is reasonable to ask whether the feedback collected during that period remains representative of current community priorities, and whether all affected user groups had meaningful opportunities to participate. I am also concerned by reports that alternative concepts, including a potential track component, were evaluated during the planning process but were never publicly presented for discussion. Whether or not a track is ultimately determined to be feasible or desirable is not the central issue. The concern is that residents were seemingly not given the opportunity to review and comment on the full range of alternatives under consideration. Transparency matters. If certain concepts were evaluated and rejected, the community should understand what those concepts were, why they were dismissed, and what trade-offs informed those decisions. That information is particularly important now as elected officials are being asked to authorize substantial public investment in the next phase of the project. More broadly, I believe the conversation about recreational equity and access should be expanded. Much of the discussion surrounding L Pond was focused on rectangular field sports and the need for additional field capacity. Those needs are real and deserve attention. However, if we are evaluating community recreation needs through an equity lens, a real equity lens, we must also consider sports and activities that may not have the same organizational resources or historical representation in the planning process. Track and field is one example. It is among the largest scholastic sports in both the winter and spring sessions, and remains one of the most accessible and diverse athletic opportunities available to young people. It is a no-cut sport that welcomes broad participation from students of varying backgrounds and ability levels. Yet many Melrose students must find a way to Pine Banks on the Melrose/Malden line to access facilities that support their participation. Families often rely on public transportation, carpools, and significant logistical coordination to access opportunities that are not available at the L Pond facility. These barriers can disproportionately affect students and families with fewer resources. If our goal is truly equitable access to recreation, then we should ensure that these perspectives are represented alongside those of more established field-based organizations. I would also encourage us to examine whether the challenges identified in the feasibility study are exclusively infrastructure related. Before assuming that increased field capacity is the sole solution, we should also evaluate how scheduling practices, field allocation policies, and prioritization decisions impact current utilization. Understanding the root causes of demand may reveal opportunities to improve access that extend beyond capital investment alone, and I encourage you to look at women's softball data as some of that that might inform us. To be clear, I'm not advocating that we halt progress on the project or return to square one. I support moving forward. However, moving forward should not require us to ignore legitimate questions about a planning process that began years ago under extraordinary circumstances. Rather, I believe the design phase presents an opportunity to strengthen the project through additional transparency, broader stakeholder engagement, and a more comprehensive examination of community recreational needs. Addressing these issues now will help ensure that the final plans enjoys greater public confidence and better serves Melrose residents for decades to come. I do appreciate the work that has gone into this, and I will be supporting it. I just hope that the concerns that have been brought up by all city council members and all community members are considered as we move forward. And I thank you for your time. I know that took a lot. But I thought it was important to have it on the record.

▶ 1:12:34 Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilor. Any other councilors on discussion? Council Chen

▶ 1:12:40 Jason Chen: When we discussed this, I initially had some sticker shock about $710,000, but then I got there because it seemed like there were economies of scale benefits, and it was easier to permit the whole thing. I'm wondering if my colleagues who are concerned about process and outcome of the design would be willing to fund something lower, say about $400,000. And that signals that the council isn't fully in support of this, but wants to make sure that this process goes fairly, gets us what we think the public wants,

▶ 1:13:17 Speaker 1: and

▶ 1:13:19 Jason Chen: I think it also increases the chance that something will get funded and designed, and maybe we could start with the parts of the design that are the least controversial but do add benefit to a lot of people, such as a walking path and maybe one of the fields. And I know that fields are controversial, but I wonder if that would be a way to incrementally do this rather than spend a large amount of money. I'm not going to put a motion forward, but I'm interested in what my colleagues have to say, because I don't want to see this completely go away, because I think there has been some good momentum here.

▶ 1:13:47 Bradley Freeman: Thank you, Councilor Chen. I just want to remind folks there is a motion on the floor. We are discussing the motion, not other proposals at this time. Councilor Finocchiaro.

▶ 1:13:55 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay, just a point of order. So I can't discuss what Councilor Chen just discussed or no?

▶ 1:14:01 Bradley Freeman: Given the motion on the order, the discussion is on the motion to approve- Okay ... the item. Great, thank you. Councilor Jemali and Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 1:14:11 Speaker 3: Thank you.

▶ 1:14:14 Maya Jamaleddine: This is not to discuss Councilor Chen suggestion. However, I just want to remind all of us that because it's a free cash, we are only allowed to approve or reject. We cannot change, increase, or decrease the amount of money that was in the order.

▶ 1:14:32 Bradley Freeman: I believe we are allowed to reduce the amount as well. We can approve, reject, or reduce.

▶ 1:14:39 Maya Jamaleddine: We can reduce? Okay. So I'm mistaken then. Thank you.

▶ 1:14:48 Speaker 4: Councilor Vandiver and Councilor Williams.

▶ 1:14:51 Kimberly Vandiver: I'm not sure what the motion would be that would allow me to discuss Councilor Chen suggestion- ... so I don't have anything else to say.

▶ 1:15:01 Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilor Williams.

▶ 1:15:02 Ryan Williams: We are in a little bit of a procedural pickle because- ... we have a motion on the floor. We can only entertain one motion at a time. And the final vote of the city council is the final disposition per our rules in the charter. So, I've talked to the city attorney about the fact that we need to rethink some of these rules and when it comes to the charter. But as it stands, once a motion is made, which it is often made very quickly in the council meeting to approve or reject, that motion is essentially the last question that we're going to answer about the order. So, as much as I would like to continue debating this-

▶ 1:15:43 Kimberly Vandiver: Point of order. The person who made the motion could withdraw it if they would like to do that. That would be the only way to discuss something else, right?

▶ 1:15:50 Ryan Williams: That's true. If you close the initial motion, then there could be a second, a new motion made. But we have a motion and a

▶ 1:15:57 Speaker 2: second.

▶ 1:16:00 Bradley Freeman: Any other further discussion on the motion on the floor? Councilor Rovski.

▶ 1:16:03 Speaker 1: I would say I'm in favor of the motion as it is, and I did get some feedback as well revolving around a street hockey rink being included in the project. So there are a lot of opinions on the matter of what to do with that area. But I would say I am prepared to vote in favor of the motion that is on the floor.

▶ 1:16:28 Devin Romanul: Councilor Romanul. Thank you, Mr. President. I would have to look at our rules, but I think that ideally our comments are germane to the motion on the floor, but I think we can kind of say our piece and speak in some hypotheticals. But I'm in support of the project. Obviously I, through the chair with some of my colleagues, vociferously opposed some of the more artificial services in hopes of decreasing runoff and decreasing injury and all that. In my perfect world, that's what I would like, but I still approve this even without that. But I think that there's still design opportunities for us to have input through the chair. I agree with Councilor Williams, I would love to have more input of this, and I great trust that it'll be done the way that I would like it to be done, but that's just my personal opinion. So, anyway, I want to stand by my motion to approve.

▶ 1:17:31 Bradley Freeman: Thank you. I now accept Councilor Finocchiaro, and then Councilor Karamcheti.

▶ 1:17:34 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. I'm also going to be supporting this this evening, but I do share a lot of similar concerns that many of the councilors have discussed. And my only concern about potentially reducing is that we wouldn't be able to actually move forward, and we would be relying on free cash, possibly this time next year to move forward. So, that is a concern of mine, and I don't know logistically the answers to reducing. So without talking about it too much, I'm going to just say I support it as is right now, and I'm putting faith into the process.

▶ 1:18:13 Speaker 4: Councilor Karamcheti.

▶ 1:18:16 Manjula Karamcheti: I was just going to say through the chair that I didn't think that Councilor Chen made a motion. And so in terms of discussion, any discussion would still be related to the motion on the floor. So people could be able to say what they wanted to say.

▶ 1:18:35 Bradley Freeman: I believe the discussion is on the question of passage at this time.

▶ 1:18:43 Speaker 4: Seeing Councilor Vandiver

▶ 1:18:44 Kimberly Vandiver: Well, I think I can frame this in a way that it's about the correct topic, but- I think it was presented as a package. There are some pieces that all go together to a certain extent, and one piece of it affects another piece of it. So, I think it makes sense that if it's going to pass, that I would want it to pass as a whole, or I would want to know for sure from the people who presented that they could do a smaller version or a partial version. We have, in the past, done things like cut the amount of money we were spending on tree planting, but you can just plant half as many trees. That's a little more straightforward. And, yeah. I am also supportive of developing this park, and I am hopeful that if this project moves forward, as it seems that it will, that we'll get something great out of it. And I think what would make me feel comfortable voting for the future stages of this appropriation would be real consideration for the very specific concerns that were raised by people in public comment and at the council, and as well as the info sessions that were discussed. So, I hope that happens, and I look forward to supporting round two and round three, hopefully, but not round one.

▶ 1:20:00 Speaker 4: Thank you, Council Vandiver. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk.

▶ 1:20:05 Speaker 1: Councilor Chen.

▶ 1:20:06 Speaker 2: Present.

▶ 1:20:10 Speaker 1: Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Kowal. Yes. Councilor Obremski. Yes. Councilor Park.

▶ 1:20:26 Speaker 4: Yes.

▶ 1:20:28 Speaker 1: Councilor Vandiver. No. Oh, sorry. I apologize. Councilor Romanul.

▶ 1:20:32 Speaker 2: Yes.

▶ 1:20:34 Speaker 1: Councilor Vandiver. No. Councilor Williams. No. President Freeman. Yes.

▶ 1:20:44 Speaker 1: So that's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. That passes.

▶ 1:20:53 Speaker 1: That's eight yeses.

▶ 1:20:57 Speaker 1: Motion passes. Yes. ID number 2026-1176, an appropriation for free cash, account 01-324001 to DPW Highway Department 422 in the amount of 400,000 for Lebanon Street TIP project design.