← City Council · 2026-07-20 · City Council Meeting 7/20/26
Approval of Lease Agreement with the Archdiocese of Boston for the Lease of the Parking Lot near St. Mary’s Church at 41 Myrtle Street, Melrose MA
Agenda original PDF
Minutes original PDF
iii. (ID # 2026-1508): Approval of Lease Agreement with the Archdiocese of Boston for the Lease of the Parking Lot near St. Mary’s Church at 41 Myrtle Street, Melrose MA President Freeman gave a brief update on what has occurred since the Appropriations and Oversight Meeting on July 9th. Following that meeting, the City and Archdiocese agreed on a new, revised, 3-year lease that will be before the Council this evening. This revised lease replaces the one previously submitted by the Mayor with this order. A Yes vote tonight will be to approve the revised lease as submitted by the Mayor on July 14th. Councilor Romanul stated that this order comes to us from the Appropriations and Oversight Committee with a recommendation Not for Passage. As President Freeman stated, there have been some substantial changes since our most recent meeting, including the dollar amount, with an escalator clause, as well as an end date of June 30th, 2029, instead of June 30th, 2027. Councilor Romanul was not happy with the previous one-year timeline since it doesn't give us a lot of time to proactively plan for the future of our downtown. His goal was to force a longer-term discussion and to have these conversations concurrently with the police station surplus building proposal. He is very sensitive to the success of our business owners, wants to make sure that our downtown is thriving, and to make sure that we have adequate mobility to parking spaces, and he understands that Melrose has a parking shortage. Motion to Approve the revised lease statement as submitted on July 14th, 2026 made by Councilor Romanul Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro Motion Passed 9 to 2, with Councilors Vandiver and Williams voting No RESULT: ACCEPTED [9-2) 6 AYES: Jason Chen, Cal Finocchiaro, Bradley Freeman, Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Elizabeth Kowal, John Obremski, Christopher Park, Devin Romanul NAYS: Kim Vandiver, Ryan Williams Councilor Williams shared that based on prior parking studies conducted in 2012 and 2025, roughly 300 parking spaces were open during peak times, with these spaces not all in front of individual businesses, but were collective throughout the area of the city. He does not believe that Melrose has a major shortage of parking. Rather, it's a physics problem, which is that two people can't park in the same parking space, and sometimes one must park further away from the intended stop. He is encouraged to hear some business leaders willing to participate more in this. Residents ask what you can do to increase the commercial property tax base so that residents are not carrying as much of the tax levy. He believes that parcels like this deserve to be buildings instead of just parking, and that we can manage our parking situation better in the city. He hopes that the conversations that we've generated by not just rubber-stamping this, like we have in years past, are going to lead to better decisions, better engagement, and better outcomes for all of us. Councilor Kowal shared that there were a lot of conclusions being drawn, and assumptions being made, about the No vote, and why we took it, particularly on social media. She thanked everyone who reached out to her about this issue. She explained that the one-year deal was not fiscally responsible for the city. By voting No, the city got leverage to negotiate a better deal, and she is happy with the end result, which puts all parties in a better place. Councilor Karamcheti stated that she is happy with this better deal and believes that the property owner (the church) should be responsible for maintaining it, not the city of Melrose. Councilor Vandiver is more comfortable with the new favorable terms and the improved understanding between the parties. She believes spillover happens between the lots, with some lots full but spaces still available elsewhere, and that customers would still frequent the businesses. She suggested that the city look at some paid parking, not for the purpose of generating large amounts of money for the city, but for the purpose of moving people through those most in-demand spaces that are closer to where we want to go. She thinks we're in a better position now than we were and would love to eventually see this space be used for something besides parking, Councilor Jamaleddine shared that this lease is not a new issue and that it has been discussed over many years. The Mayor's office had shared with council that the church would not allow any negotiations and that it was a bad deal for Melrose. She understands that it looked bad when she voted No at the last meeting, but she could not vote Yes without hearing both sides of the story from both parties. After her No vote, the church contacted her directly and stated that they wanted a negotiation when they made their first offer and were waiting for a counteroffer with another number from Melrose, which they say did not occur. The church was too busy with repairs, closing for the summer and short-handed to initiate more dialog and declined to share a public email with their explanation since they did not have the time or capacity to do so. She is happy that we pushed back, which led to a better discussion and solution, and will vote Yes for the current proposal. Councilor Obremski stated that preserving the 53 spaces makes sense, it supports the downtown, and he thinks they need the parking spaces and always will. He plans to vote Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro cautioned against pointing fingers and said that there were two parties involved in this. St. Mary's has been a great partner of the community for many years. They could have been charging the city a lot of money for many years, and it's been well under market value, what they've charged us. These parking spaces are much needed by our residents and businesses, and she is happy that an agreement will be reached. Councilor Chen stated there are four things to be aware of. We need to continue to be frugal with our taxpayer dollars as we spend our way to another override, and possibly without the confidence of a 7 lot of taxpayers. We can improve parking, as Councilor Vandiver and Councilor Williams suggested, and we can pilot ideas, and this doesn't require paying for a $70,000 study. These negotiations ran off the rails pretty early, and they didn't have to, and they became a crisis, and we got to a good result. But he suspects all parties learn from this and the chances of it happening are hopefully less. He appreciated the civil way this got resolved since so many different parties with varying interests were involved.
Transcript
▶ 1:24:56 Speaker 7: ID number 2026-1508, approval of lease agreement with the Archdiocese of Boston for the lease of the parking lot near St. Mary's Church at 41 Myrtle Street, Melrose, Mass.
▶ 1:25:09 Devin Romanul: Before we move into discussion on this item, I want to provide a brief update on what has occurred since the Appropriations and Oversight meeting met on July 9th. Following that meeting, the city and archdiocese agreed on a new revised three-year lease that'll be before the council this evening. This revised lease replaces the one previously submitted by the mayor with this order. So a yes vote tonight will to be approved the revised lease as submitted by the mayor on July 14th. With that, Councilor Romanul. Thank you, Mr. President. This order comes to us from the Appropriations and Oversight Committee with a recommendation not for passage, as originally scripted or as originally intended. As you alluded to, there have been some substantial changes since our most recent meeting, including the dollar amount with an escalator clause, as well as an end date of June 30th, 2029 instead of June 30th, 2027. So, since I was chairing the meeting, I didn't get an opportunity to opine, so just if you'll indulge me, I'll say that during that discussion, the one-year timeline rubbed me the wrong way. It doesn't give us a lot of time to proactively plan for the future of our downtown. And my goal was really to force a longer-term discussion, and I'm so pleased that the conversation has evolved to the degree that it has. I'll say that my secondary goal here was to have these conversations concurrently with the police station, which the timelines will start to line up more readily given the lease that's before us, and that contiguous space can be of great value to our community and to our businesses. And I'm very sensitive to the success of our business owners, making sure that our downtown is thriving. Making sure that we have adequate mobility to those spaces is paramount. I also want us to be cognizant of the conversation as it evolves to mobility of people and not necessarily vehicles. And I get that we also have a parking shortage for what we have now, and those ideas are intentioned, but I'd like to hold those together as we think about future planning. So, I'd like us to move more towards long-term planning and some thoughtful mobility studies for the future. So this buys us a little more time, and with that, I will motion to approve the revised lease statement as submitted on July 14th, 2026, relative to the parking lot near St. Mary's Church on 41 Myrtle Street in Melrose. Second. There's a motion to approve the revised lease agreement made by Chair Romanul, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. Going to Councilor Williams on discussion. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:27:42 Ryan Williams: I wanted to take a minute to put some of my thoughts out there on the record, especially since we have some of the folks who have reached out to us and emailed us here today, and they've given us some very thoughtful emails and thoughtful comments. And I always appreciate the engagement from the business community in particular, who we don't see much of here in the council chamber, and from residents as well. I want to put some of the reasoning and the data behind my vote out on the record, and continue the conversation that Councilor Romanul just opened up with regards to how we measure parking, how we define success in the city, and where I'm getting some of my ideas from. So we all know that there was a 2012 parking study in the city. It counted about 400 plus open spaces downtown at peak. These spaces are not in front of individual businesses. They're collective throughout the area of the city. So while some smaller lots can become overwhelmed and you can give the perception of a parking crisis, other lots nearby will have spaces available. What people haven't commented on is that that study was redone. Another study was redone in August of 2025 for the building that's right across the street from us as part of their application to the city planning website. They found roughly the same usage of the parking lots. It was a little bit lower, so instead of 400 plus spaces at peak, it was 300 spaces open. This further cements my understanding of the city's parking situation and how dynamic it is. I do not believe that we have a parking crisis. I don't believe that we have a major shortage of parking. I believe we have sort of a physics problem, which is that two people can't park in the same parking space. I acknowledge that some of the business owners in the room disagree with that logic, and I'm not dismissing the experience that people have when they say they can't find a place to park. That's exactly what the parking studies predict and what psychological studies predict, that people, when they go to park in front of a business and they can't park right in front of it or nearby it, their perception is that there's nowhere to park, and sometimes they leave, and we don't want people to leave Melrose. I think that there's opportunities that we have to think more critically and carefully about how we manage this parking, especially in the Larrabee lot. All 53 spaces in this lot are part of the merchant business and employee permit program, and the charge for that program is $0, despite, for instance, charging $600 annually for the floating permit where a person can park at any lot. The 2012 study had a great series of recommendations about how to manage employee parking. I'm not convinced that it's being rolled out effectively. The land itself, whether you've got parking spaces or people living there, you're still bringing people around to utilize businesses downtown. I'm glad to hear some of the business leaders tonight talking about being willing to participate a little bit more in this. I think it really speaks to the problem that we have, that mostly nobody knew that this was leased property. I'm sure that people also don't know that the church has a 30-day exit clause, which means that if they decide that they don't like something the city's doing, they can just back out with 30 days notice. So anyway, the point I want to make, the line I want to close with is that residents ask us all the time, "What can you do to increase the commercial property tax base? What can you do to help put more property on the rolls so that residents aren't stuck carrying so much of the levy?" And the honest answer is that I believe that parcels like this deserve to be buildings instead of just parking, and I believe that we can manage our parking situation better in the city. And I hope that the conversations that we've generated, by not just rubber-stamping this like we have in years past, are going to lead to better decisions, and better engagement, and better
▶ 1:31:26 Bradley Freeman: outcomes for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Williams. I next have Councilor Kowal, followed by Councilors Karamcheti, Van De Berg, Jamaleddin.
▶ 1:31:35 Speaker 3: Thank you.
▶ 1:31:37 Elizabeth Kowal: I actually wrote down what I wanted to say because I wanted to make sure that I got out what I wanted to get out. I thought hard, actually, about what I wanted to say tonight and how I wanted to say it. As it has for many, this issue consumed a lot of my time this past week, and it didn't need to. There were a lot of conclusions being drawn, and assumptions being made about the no vote and why we took it, particularly on social media. I'm not someone who uses social media in that way, so this is why I'm speaking tonight. And I don't use it for a variety of reasons, some personal and some professional. But first, I do want to say this, and I mean it sincerely, I want to thank everyone who reached out to me, whether it was by the phone or by email. And to everyone who spoke tonight, your voices are valuable and it really means a lot for people to take their time, and to come and speak to us, and I know it's not easy. What this came down to for me on my initial vote was, am I being a good caretaker of taxpayer dollars if I am not putting this city in a position to negotiate the best possible deal for the city and for the taxpayer dollars? And that answer for me, in the initial vote and the initial lease, was no, and that's why I voted the way I did. The one-year deal that was put in front of us was not a fiscally responsible deal for the city. It just wasn't. A one-year deal with a 20% increase was not the best that we could do. And as we've now learned, there was in fact a better deal to be had for everyone, but the city needed the leverage to get to that better deal. As elected officials, we need to be careful with our words and our actions. We're elected to be analytical, to act with judgment, with diligence, with patience, and strategically.
▶ 1:33:41 Speaker 3: The no vote was that,
▶ 1:33:44 Elizabeth Kowal: and it allowed the parties to get together and work out a better deal. I'm really thrilled to see the new deal that came forward a mere three days after the initial vote, and I'm glad that the city and the church were able to understand that the no vote was in fact that. It was a chance to give them the opportunity to come to a place that benefits everybody, all parties, the city, the church, the local businesses, and the residents. And for that reason, I will be voting yes tonight.
▶ 1:34:19 Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilor Kowal. Councilor Karamcheti.
▶ 1:34:21 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you so much. My comment will be brief. As I wasn't at the meeting in Appropriations where the conversation and everything took place. And a lot has transpired since I watched the video, like many others, on MMTV. I think the only thing on my mind, this is a better deal on the table to us now, and things needed to happen in the way that they did to get here, and I'm definitely appreciating that. It's something that one of our public comment folks shared about the condition of the lot that we're leasing, and that it is full of potholes, and that it is not in good condition. And so I was looking through the lease, and I know from the conversation last week that Melrose, the City of Melrose, is responsible for the plowing, is responsible for all of the different upkeep. And I guess I'm just wanting to name that the owners of this property should be taking care of it. I don't feel like it's the City of Melrose's responsibility to put more money into not only leasing, but also taking care of it. And is it then up to the City of Melrose to replace those potholes? And so I just want to name it as something that I'm wondering about as we think about deals and being stewards of our city's finances and resources. I'm just curious about that piece, so I just wanted to name it here.
▶ 1:36:12 Speaker 2: That's it. Thank you. Councilor Van De Berg.
▶ 1:36:16 Speaker 10: Thank you.
▶ 1:36:20 Kimberly Vandiver: I also took some notes about what I wanted to say tonight. I'll try to speak to them in a brief fashion. So I really appreciate everyone's immense amount of work over the past weeks, my fellow councilors, the mayor's office, the archdiocese, people who've come and commented. And I think if this passes today, I think it's likely to pass today. It's under more favorable terms and with an improved understanding between the parties, and that's a wonderful outcome. And I feel more comfortable with it after all this has transpired.
▶ 1:36:58 Kimberly Vandiver: I also feel like despite all of the furor around this, that both the city and the community and the archdiocese would come through this okay if we did not approve it. I haven't heard anything that I haven't heard an answer for or found an answer for. And at this point, there have been pre-discussions, I'm sure, on all sides about what do we do if, that have outlined some contingencies.
▶ 1:37:24 Speaker 10: I
▶ 1:37:26 Kimberly Vandiver: know it's a tough issue. About parking, I think it is the case. Spillover happens between the lots. A lot gets full, but the parking as a whole is not full. We have quite a number of spaces. I think I want to be sensitive to the business owners who spoke tonight, and I mean this in the best way. I think you're selling yourself a little bit short if you think people would leave if the parking was slightly less convenient. I think there's a lot more value that the businesses in Melrose add that would keep people coming here for the businesses, and not going to a mall and not going somewhere else.
▶ 1:38:07 Speaker 10: But
▶ 1:38:11 Kimberly Vandiver: I do think the parking studies that we've had, I voted to refresh it. I was in the minority, but the ones that we have, I believe, speak to the fact that we could manage through this. And there were a lot of other good ideas that came up in the past week as well. We have a variety of solutions, commentary about elderly, and transportation. We have various public and private ways that people can get around. I also wanted to invite people to just consider for a moment a crazy idea. If we really think we need more parking. What if we tore down Giacomo's to make more parking? That would be crazy. Because we love it. It's a good business. What if we tore down Mary Foley Park to make more parking so we'd have more convenient parking for everything else? That would be crazy because it's a nice park that people enjoy. And I really think that maybe not this year, but maybe in 10 years, but I think at some point that space could be better used than parking. And we need to do the appropriate planning around that, but I think that we could have a better amenity there for everyone. And the last thing I just wanted to highlight is that somebody had brought up to me this idea related to, regardless of whether it was parking lot or not, how we manage demand for parking. That if people are concerned about freeing up the prime parking spaces, that we really should be looking at some paid parking, not for the purpose of generating large amounts of money for the city, but for the purpose of moving people through those most in-demand spaces that are closer to where we want to go. And that there are technologies out there now that can even let you do this in a very automated way, license plate readers, you can sense utilization and update the prices. It's like a little too parked up, you would raise the price a little. If not parked up, drop the price, whatever it is. But all that said, I think we're in a better position now than we were. I would love to eventually see this space be used for something besides parking. But I appreciate that there would be concerns with that as well as I do think we'd muddle through them. So, that's what I've got. Thank you.
▶ 1:40:29 Bradley Freeman: Thank you, Councillor Vander Zalm. Councillor Gelormini.
▶ 1:40:32 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, President. I wanted to share some of the thoughts. I didn't write anything, but I would like to share my observation for tonight and from the past weekend. So, for the past seven years of my service, I've never been that happy and pleased discussing an order, seeing the engagement, and also getting to this result. It's really rewarding. I'm going to give some of the details that we went through. This is not a new issue. This lease has been discussed for so many years, and every year we push it for the next year. So just for the record, what we've been hearing was only from the mayor's office. We've never heard from the church what's going on. After all what we heard from the mayor's office, that they weren't able to have any kind of negotiation. And that made me personally feel, I'm not going to speak for my fellow councilors, but it's not a healthy relationship between the both of them. And we felt that it has to be a very constructive communication and discussion between both of them so that we can advocate for a better lease and a better agreement for both the city and our constituents and the businesses as well. Did we look bad when we voted no? Absolutely. I can say if I'm not on this horseshoe, I'm not sitting here and I'm looking at my vote, I would say this councilor is horrible. But knowing what we know from listening to only from one side of the story and not understanding what's going on, I can't vote yes and say, "Yeah, we're going to carry on with those lease," not having a tangible lease and good lease for all of us and especially for the businesses. So, last week after we vote no, I heard personally from the church, and they were able to explain their stories and they said, and I'm going to repeat what I heard from them, that they were hoping for negotiation, so they throw a number ... hoping that the city would give them another number, and the city just said no. They didn't give them a number. So they stopped, and they did not do any kind of negotiation after that. When I asked, "Why you didn't reach back since you didn't hear back from the city?" They said they were busy with a leak in their roof and a window that was broken. So they didn't have the time and the capacity to do this negotiation. And this is not our problem, with all due respect. And I did share my thought that they do need more support if they don't have the capacity to negotiate a contract. That's one. Second, when I asked to share their thoughts in an email for public record, so the public will have their side of the story and they would understand it and would go on record, they said they don't have the time and the capacity. They're going on vacation. So I wanted to share that to also be very transparent with all of you. I'm a new business owner, and a new restaurant owner, and I know exactly how important and crucial is to provide parking for our customers, but I also wanted to make sure that this is sustainable and that we're not going to wake up one day and say, "This is not going to work. We have potholes. We have no maintenance." Some kind of incidents happen, and we don't have any tangible lease and any strong lease that can make us feel comfortable to provide that parking for our customers on a long term. So my conclusion is that I am happy that we were able to push back, so that both sides are able to negotiate and be able to have really mature conversation and a better conversation and discussion. So, I do hope on a long run, we will be able to learn from that lesson and be able to have a better conversation for the next lease if we're going to renew it, and be able to think for a better solution for our customers and be able to provide a better solution for them. And for that, for now, I will vote yes because I will never want to hurt any kind of businesses in our community. But I also urge every single person who spoke today, and that I heard from them over the past week, to continue this conversation and try to push the city and the church to have a better agreement that will not hurt you on the long run. Thank you so much.
▶ 1:46:13 Bradley Freeman: Thank you, Councillor Jamaleddine. I now have Councillor Abramsky, followed by Councillor Finocchiaro.
▶ 1:46:18 Speaker 2: Thank you. I, too, was absent from the appropriations meeting the other night. My apologies. My kid had a baseball game. I'm missing the baseball game tonight. They won 15 to two. For me, preserving the 53 spaces makes sense, and it supports the downtown. I think they need the parking spaces. I think they're always going to need the parking spaces. I park there a couple of times a week. And for those reasons, I'll be voting in favor of the lease. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Abramsky. Councillor Finocchiaro.
▶ 1:46:50 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. I just think, without sort of pointing fingers, I think it's important to remember that there were two parties in this agreement and these negotiations. And so yes, maybe the church sent a number out to the city, but I don't think we should sit here pointing fingers at who should've responded and who shouldn't have. They didn't come to agreement together. But I do know that I'm not a member of St. Mary's, but they've been great partners of the community for many years. They could've been charging the city a lot of money for many years. It's been well under market, what they've charged us. And frankly, these parking spaces are much needed by our businesses and our residents. So, I am also happy with the new lease. Obviously, it's something that I think the church wants and that also the city wants. Financially, it makes the most sense. I was, and still am, supportive of the one-year lease, just because I wasn't willing to play Russian roulette and have a fence put up . Whether that was going to happen or not, it was just important to me to get a lease on the books. So I just want to just reiterate that I think the church has been a good community partner to us, and I think we just need to have a little bit more communication going forward, both parties. And now that this is sort of in the forefront more, we can all be integral partners as well and kind of ask more questions about the leases going forward.
▶ 1:48:31 Bradley Freeman: Thank you, Councillor Finocchiaro. Any further discussion on the motion at hand? Councillor Shen.
▶ 1:48:36 Speaker 2: Thank you.
▶ 1:48:38 Jason Chen: I think four things can be true about this. I will support the three-year lease. The four things are, we need to continue to be frugal with our taxpayer dollars as we spend our way to another override, and possibly without the confidence of a lot of taxpayers. Second, we can improve parking, as Councillor Vandiver and Councillor Williams suggests, and we can pilot ideas, and this doesn't require paying for a $70,000 study. There's plenty of studies in towns that have already been done, and there's a lot of great solutions out there that we can pilot. And many towns are dealing with this and at different stages in dealing with it, and we can learn from them. The third is these negotiations ran off the rails pretty early, and they didn't have to, and they became a crisis, and we got to good results But I suspect all parties learn from this, and the chances of it happening are hopefully less. The last truth here is that I realize we represent business owners. Some of us represent St. Mary's in our roles as councilors as well, and we also represent people with limited mobility and the elderly, sometimes not the most vocal, or it's not the easiest to advocate for themselves. But I appreciated the conversations and the people that came up to me. I know that those weren't always easy things to admit. I generally appreciate the civil way that this went about, and I think this helps us deal with a lot more issues of those four categories.
▶ 1:50:11 Speaker 2: We're better for it. Thank you, Councilor Chen. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk.
▶ 1:50:17 Speaker 7: Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Vandiver?
▶ 1:50:33 Speaker 9: No.
▶ 1:50:36 Speaker 7: Councilor Williams? No. President Freeman? Yes. Yes, have it. It passed.
▶ 1:50:42 Bradley Freeman: Thank you. That revised lease passes as submitted on the 14th.