← City Council · 2025-06-02 · City Council Regular Meeting
Public Comment
Agenda original PDF
Minutes original PDF
Transcript
▶ 47:31 Leila Migliorelli: At this time, I will motion to approve without reading by unanimous consent. The minutes from City Council's regular meeting on May 19th, 2025. Seeing no objection, those minutes are now approved. Now, um, onto public comments. Uh, at this time I will motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. Seeing no objections, we are now open for public comment. Um, per metal Melrose City Council rules, this is a portion of the meeting where the public may speak on any item on tonight's agenda. Comments expressing any viewpoint on other matter matters are also welcome. Just a reminder that public comment period is an opportunity for the public to share comments. Counselors will not respond public. Has up to five minutes for comments. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to speak in public comment for the city council meeting? Yes, please come up to the table and state your name and address. Okay. For the record, my
▶ 48:27 Speaker 9: Name's Deborah McAllen. I live in Ward seven Penney Road. Do you want my comment now? Yes. Okay. I am commenting on
▶ 48:38 Speaker 9: the override questions. The three of 'em, I don't approve of it. I don't think it gives, I think it's rigged. I'll be quite honest. I think that the three questions rigg it so that it's going to be an easy pass. I think that's what the city council and the mayor and the school committee want is for the override to pass. And I think that they developed three questions that will allow this to happen so that it will be extremely difficult to vote no as, because it was voted down in June, I think you got together and decided what questions will help it so it will pass. And then I'm with that. I just don't think it's fair. And then when we're talking about, um, tears, it seems to me that it is like the ranked choice of what voting that they have in Cambridge. It's sort of like, to me it reminds me of that. And it's so easy with rank choice voting to get something passed or to the incumbents to stay there. And this is what has really struck me is that if
▶ 49:56 Speaker 9: something passes, say the 13 million or the 11 million doesn't pass, but the 9 million does, it says here that it would be the 13 million that went went through. Is that correct? No, it's not because here's what it's saying. If more than one question is approved, the question specifying the highest dollar amount prevails in that I don't think is fair. I think there needs to be a question, yes or no. How much money do you want? Either yes or no, not three options. And especially if, if what you're saying is that a lower amount wins
▶ 50:43 Speaker 9: or whatever, you're gonna go to the higher amount, that's not what people would vote for. I strongly suggest that you take a look at this and you revamp it and we have one question, yes or no and not these ranked choice and especially not fooling the voters or confusing the voters to think, okay, two pass, it's the higher one that wins when maybe people wanted the lower one.
▶ 51:12 Speaker 9: That's all I have to say. I strongly suggest that you take a look at this. I'm not the only one out here that is probably going thinking what is this? There should be one question, one thing.
▶ 51:27 Speaker 9: Thank you for listening to me.
▶ 51:29 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in public comment tonight?
▶ 51:36 Speaker 7: Okay. Seeing no one's? Yes, please. Uh, Can we get to ask, ask questions about genetic's agenda
▶ 51:44 Leila Migliorelli: The, um, this is not a question and answer, so it's just opportunity if you have, if you wanna make a public statement or a public comment, you can approach the microphones and make a public statement, but public comment do that.
▶ 51:56 Speaker 7: Okay, great. Thank you.
▶ 52:00 Speaker 4: Am I supposed to state my name and
▶ 52:02 Speaker 7: Yes. And address? Okay.
▶ 52:03 Speaker 4: Yeah. Uh, my name is Thomas Ard. I live at 5 6 9 Franklin Street, uh, the corner of Franklin and Greenwood. And um, actually I wanted to ask a question about, uh, the second from the bottom item on tonight's agenda. Um, I was wondering if what's proposed here entails cutting down, um, city trees along that stretch.
▶ 52:32 Speaker 4: And, um, it, it doesn't say here whether it does or not, but if it does, I was hoping that you would give consideration to finding a solution that would either minimize or avoid cutting down of the trees because, um, the way I understand this language here, um, removing the utility poles to the western side of Greenwood is because of the new building that's going up.
▶ 53:01 Speaker 4: And, um, there's a lot of buildings that are being approved that are going up that have, that do not have a setback. And so if that means moving utility poles and replacing city trees with utility poles, it's going to um, it's gonna increase, uh, heat and pollution and um, make it a less, a worse neighborhood. And so, um, that's my concern.
▶ 53:36 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you. Alright, is anyone else wishing to speak in public comment? Is there anyone online? Madam Clerk? No. Um, okay.
▶ 53:43 Leila Migliorelli: If seeing no objections, I will motion by unanimous consent to close public comment. Public comment is now closed, um, onto new business, um, appropriations.