PUBLIC COMMENT

Transcript (~20 min @ 57:58)

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

▶ 57:45 Bradley Freeman: Thank you. At this time, I will motion by unanimous consent to approve without reading the minutes from June 15th. Seeing no objection, those minutes are now approved. I will now motion by unanimous consent to approve without reading the minutes from June 29th. Seeing no objection, those minutes are now approved. Moving to public comment. I will now motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. Seeing no objection, we are open for public comment. Per Rule 33A of Melrose City Council rules, this is the portion of the meeting where the public may speak on any item on tonight's agenda. Comments expressing any viewpoint on any other matters are also welcome. Seeing that we have a number of people here for public comment, I just want to remind everyone that public comment period is an opportunity for the public to share comments and councilors will not respond. The public has up to five minutes for comments. I will notify you when you have 30 seconds remaining. As you approach the table, please state your name and address for the record. Is there anyone here who would like to offer public comment? Councilor Kowal, we'll start with you. I know you have a constituent comment to read.

▶ 58:46 Elizabeth Kowal: I do. I have a constituent comment to read. So this is from Eugenia Gibbons. She also sent it via email, but she sent it late, so she wanted me to make sure that it got onto the record. So, good evening, council members. My name is Eugenia Gibbons. I reside at 54 Upham Street. I'm unable to offer these comments in person this evening, but I appreciate the opportunity to submit them in writing and would ask that they be read into the public record. The renewal of the parking lot lease creates an opportunity for the city and the chamber of commerce to explore more sustainable long-term revenue strategies to offset the ongoing costs of maintaining the parking lot at the property owned by the archdiocese, a 53-space lot that continues to require public resources to maintain. Rather than rely on ad hoc or short-term fixes, I encourage the city to put in place a funding mechanism that is both durable and equitable. If not already happening, two options that are perhaps worth serious consideration are, one, establishing a business improvement district, BID, in the surrounding area, which would allow nearby businesses and property owners who benefit most directly from the parking capacity to share in the cost of its upkeep. Two, instituting a registration fee for commercial parking permitting, which would ensure that commercial users of the lot who generate ongoing wear and demand contribute proportionally to its maintenance rather than placing that burden solely on the city's general fund. Either approach or some combination of the two would help move the city away from reactive maintenance spending and towards a model that is financially sustainable over time. I ask the council and Mayor Grigoritis to explore the feasibility of these or other options over the next year, report back to the public in that time, and put forth a proposal before the lease renewal is up again. Thank you for your time and consideration. Eugenia Gibbons.

▶ 1:00:31 Bradley Freeman: Thank you, Ms. Gibbons, through Councilor Kowal. Is there anyone else who would like to offer public comment?

▶ 1:00:42 Speaker 8: Good evening.

▶ 1:00:47 Speaker 8: This chair is back. My name is Mike Festa. I live at 127 Boston Rock Road. I have for 63 years. I wanted to speak about the parking issue. I can't recall the last time I spoke publicly on any matter of this nature since I was in office, but this is important enough to me to come and share some thoughts. Let me just start by making this observation, and I think it is important to look at the history very briefly. I have a personal history of being in elected office starting in 1974, on the school committee, and I served on this wonderful group in its previous iteration for eight years. And I appreciate genuinely that sometimes there are tough issues that come before the council, and the initial reactions to some pretty important questions can often be not the best long-term reaction, if you will, or long-term action to be taken. When I read the comments, in the "Melrose Messenger," I believe is where I saw these comments, I was frankly taken aback because of a couple of things. Consider the fact that the parking situation in Melrose has never been an easy issue for previous city councils, boards of aldermen, and mayors. I remember, and I'm going to go way back machine on this one, but I remember when we went to the federal government and said we need support to transform downtown Melrose to what at the time when I was going to high school was not a very attractive place, and it became a Victorian downtown. That happened through leadership. It happened through an intentionality, and I'm going to tell you, there was a time, and again, I saw it personally, where the downtown and the businesses of the downtown and the lack of restaurants and the lack of the vibrancy that we see today, it was a very different world. The struggle to get an adequate parking arrangement has always been here because we're a small city and there are only so many places you can go. And the fact that the archdiocese happens to have ownership of these 53 parking spaces is, to me, a complete irrelevancy. I just want to make that clear. I'm not a member of the parish. I was, I'm no longer. But I realize that, I think you just have to say, what if it were a completely different organization of, say, a private owner? It really doesn't matter. What matters is that the challenge of finding adequate parking in a city that has struggled with it, and now if you look around that downtown, I just came from dinner at Rising Eagle, little plug, but you know what? I looked around that room because I knew I was going to be here. There are a lot of senior citizens with their grandkids, in some

▶ 1:04:05 Speaker 8: cases. All of us want to encourage the livability that comes with walking down Main Street and going to shops and just getting on a bike or doing whatever you can do for alternate transportation. But the fact of the matter is, and I'm speaking as former director of AARP in Massachusetts for over 12 years, seniors can't just say, "You know what? I think we'll go downtown and we'll walk from wherever we are in Melrose and have dinner and walk home." That's not real. You know what is real? Is the struggle to figure out where do we park because we want to go not just to Giacomo's or that section where this parking is serving, but any other part of the city where you might want to go to a restaurant, and there are a lot of them now. Right? So, the good news is we have created through your vision and for the vision of, frankly, others before you, of a community that is extremely desirable at pretty much every level of analysis. But when it comes to the downtown, I urge you to take what you see before you, which is you've got a chance to renew the lease and you need to do it, and I say that with all due respect. I don't think you're going to do it with a shotgun to your head. I think you're doing it because you know that, on balance, it's a very sensible thing to do as opposed to creating the uncertainty-

▶ 1:05:32 Bradley Freeman: 30 seconds left, Mr. Festa ... of pulling out

▶ 1:05:33 Speaker 8: 53 spaces in a place where every space is at a premium. So, I'm going to make that suggestion that you take that initiative and go forward with that proposal that's before you. And then to the extent that there are genuine questions, and there are, about long-term viability of this, then maybe you should revise the parking study, and maybe that should be part of the analysis, too. So, those are my thoughts. I apologize. I'm a recovering politician, so- ... I can take too long. Well noted.

▶ 1:06:07 Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Festa. Okay.

▶ 1:06:11 Bradley Freeman: Would anyone else like to offer public comment this evening?

▶ 1:06:21 Speaker 8: Oh, go for it. Sorry.

▶ 1:06:26 Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Richard Solari. I live at 109 Altamont Ave, and I'm the owner of Giacomo's Restaurant. I believe everybody got a letter that I sent. And in addition to that, as I know some people still might be leaning no, I think that we should have the opportunity to sign the lease now ... and figure out how we're going to go forward in the next year, whatever the lease is, two years or three years. Because this was really just, I didn't even know about it until two weeks ago. And I think as I've talked to a bunch of other business owners, my neighbors, that we're all in it to find solutions. But with such a short window to do it, it's nearly impossible. I did not even know that there was a lease back there until two weeks ago. So, I'm pleading with you to sign the lease today, and we are open to help financially, to do other things, but to be part of the solution in the year that we can talk about it down the road. But it is vital to our businesses. Please. Thank you.

▶ 1:07:27 Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Cleary.

▶ 1:07:31 Speaker 8: Thanks. Well, okay. Yeah.

▶ 1:07:35 Speaker 6: Okay.

▶ 1:07:37 Speaker 2: So actually, let me just ask if anybody else has a comment on the parking lease, if you guys want to talk about- We can take anyone out of order. It's fine if you just want to come up and just so we can go back to the parking. Okay. So I'm not here to talk about the parking. My name's Andrew Barson, I'm at 39 East Foster Street. And honestly, I'm not sure if this is even the appropriate forum to raise this, but I thought I would because, I haven't had any luck in the almost four years now that we've lived at that address getting some resolution to this issue, which is the two, and for lack of a better word, hoarder houses that are on East Foster at 32 and 42. Both of which I believe now at least one of them has the red X hazard for emergency personnel to enter. So those homes have been like that since I moved in. My next door neighbors and across the street say they've been like that for as long as they can remember. As far as I know, the owner lives out of state, comes by every once in a while to drop off more junk that is spilling into the parking lots, has filled up both of those houses, the garage, vehicles there. About 18 months ago, over the holidays, fire department was called three times, I want to say, to one of those houses, I think it was the one at 42 East Foster, because of smoke that was maybe coming out of the basement. So these are two homes that are in a fairly dense neighborhood, separated by just a driveway from neighboring houses. They're right across the street from us. They are completely full of fuel. They are abandoned. There is no one who lives there. They are attended, when it snows, somebody will come down and shovel so they don't get a fine, I guess. And then every once in a while, somebody will come and do a really slapdash job trimming the hedges in front and just leaving the trimmings there. I'm concerned that this is a hazard to the entire neighborhood, and I'm concerned that 18 months after emergency personnel went there multiple times, put up a red X on the home, there doesn't seem to have been any movement forward in terms of those properties. No for sale sign, nothing. So anyway, I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the council that this is a problem and honestly, if I lived in one of the houses right next to it instead of across the street, I'd be extremely concerned that I was living next to just a pyre. So, I don't know what you guys can do in terms of city council about that, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thank you. Thank you very much.

▶ 1:10:31 Speaker 2: Thank you so much for letting me speak to you tonight. I'm Alex Rodriguez. I live at 45 Appleton Street. I just want to take a few minutes to thank Councilors Chen, Kowal, Vanderburg, Ramalho, Jamalooddin, and Williams because of their positions on the vote last time about renewing the lease. That is fundamentally a bad lease at one year with a 20% increase. I used to teach strategy and economics for a living. If you look at this through the lens of an economist, fundamentally, the church does not have any negotiating power as it relates to the leasing of this lot. I agree with the previous speakers. We need the parking. We absolutely need to have the parking. But there is a better deal to be had, and that deal is here with a multi-year lease. Right? And I think when we think about this in the context of what it means, especially at the local level, to be a councilor or to be an elected official of any kind, is to be the ultimate steward of the taxpayer dollar. And if we cannot recognize the negotiating leverage that the city, who is fundamentally the only customer of the church, any agreement that is not within the city's favor is money left on the table for the city. That's just the economic reality. Now, we all want to be good neighbors with our community partners. I don't think anyone would disagree with that statement. But I do think that the current alternative is something that is agreeable, that is a win-win, that is something that incentivizes the relationship to continue. I think a one-year lease with a 20% increase in the rent is not ideal in any way, shape, or form for the city. I realize we're negotiating with the church at that risk. I hope I'm not struck by lightning on the way out of here. But I think to a certain extent, we need to be responsible, or you all are being responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollar ... in previously voting no to this and going back to the negotiating table. You do not have to take the first offer. You never have to take the first offer, and I really want to tip my hat, that I'm not wearing, to those who voted no or present the last time, who are trying to force a better negotiation here that is beneficial for small businesses, beneficial for taxpayers, and at the end of the day, it is a victory for Melrose. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

▶ 1:13:29 Bradley Freeman: Yeah. Is there anyone else who'd like to offer public comment tonight? Please.

▶ 1:13:37 Speaker 6: Hello.

▶ 1:13:39 Speaker 3: Do I have to speak into this?

▶ 1:13:41 Speaker 7: Yes, please.

▶ 1:13:41 Speaker 3: Yes. My name's Patricia Boni, and I own Cuts & Such Hair Salon, 456 Main Street, Melrose. I've owned it for 44 years, so I have seen Melrose Square for 44 years. And I know how the parking and how the businesses have come and gone, and pretty much what my neighbors and I find is important for our clients, and to be able to keep them happy and continuing to come to the downtown, to eat, to get their hair done, to get their nails done, whatever services. And part of that that has helped me be successful for 44 years has been the parking has been business friendly. Not only for the clients that come down, but when I'm hiring people, one of the first things they ask me is about the parking. I came to the meetings a few years back when they were doing the studies about the parking and what the businesses needed. We were all told way ahead of time about these meetings. It was a big turnout, and we told the council what we needed. The people that did the study did a great job, in my opinion. I don't want to waste my five minutes on all that, but we are very pleased with the way the parking's set up, with the permits for the workers and the merchants. And that lot is not only utilized by the immediate businesses, but all the lots in Melrose overflow from other businesses. If there's a funeral service at Gately, everything fills up, and people spill over into all the lots. And I think it's important, the Larrabee lot, it's been a very busy lot. It's not well-maintained, as far as there's more potholes in that lot than I've ever seen anywhere. I don't know whose responsibility that is, but I just learned that it was leased and only in three-year terms. But if we didn't have access to that in the winter, like Michael was saying, the elderly clients, they're going to go to malls. They're not going to come downtown. And a lot of people, if they can't find a place to park and they're driving around for a long period of time, we lose business to the malls because they just park there and they can stay there all day. So, I think it's really important to keep the feel of the community that we have in Melrose. It's always been like a small town in a way. 44 years, I have clients that I'm doing their grandchildren's hair now. It's a repetition of people, and it's a nice feel. And I don't think it's a good idea to let that lot go over some money. Which, I think Melrose gets a lot of tax money, and I don't think that the lease is an extravagant amount. I think it will really hurt the downtown businesses if we don't continue to have access to that. And it will hurt the elderly, because it's not summer all year long, and when the winter comes, we lose quite a few parking spots due to snow banks. And it's really hard for people to get around that aren't young and healthy. Not everybody can walk two blocks. And, I just think it's really important for the businesses to attract good employees and to keep steady business coming through. So, I hope that you will vote to help us out on this. And that's it. Thanks for your time. Thank you very much.

▶ 1:17:28 Speaker 2: Is there anyone else here who'd like to offer public comment? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, is there anyone online?

▶ 1:17:37 Speaker 7: No one online.

▶ 1:17:38 Bradley Freeman: Okay. With that, if there's no objection, I seek unanimous consent to close public comment. Seeing none, we are now closed for public comment. There's no communications from the honorable mayor, so moving on to new business. Filings by the honorable mayor. Appointments and reappointments.