Replace current City Ordinance Section 177-12 Snow and Ice Removal with revised ordinance language to address property owner responsibilities for snow and ice removal

Transcript (~45 min @ 14:55)

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

▶ 14:37 Maya Jamaleddine: Yes. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. Present Elli? Yes. Chair Jamaleddine? Yes. Motion passes. Awesome. Thank you. And next is our ordinances. And, uh, we have only one ordinance. The place current city ordinance, section 1 7 7 dash 12, snow and ice removal with revised ordinance language to address property owner responsibilities for snow and ice removal. We do have a list of letters that we received that were all attached. Um, I just wanna clarify from Madam Clerk that we have attached every single letter that we received from constituents. Yes. Everyone is there. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And, um, I'm gonna give the floor for, um, uh, sponsor and, uh, vice chair, uh, Romanul.

▶ 15:30 Devin Romanul: Thank you very much. I I really appreciate it. And, uh, thank you to my colleagues and, um, uh, and for those constituents who have weighed in, I really value your feedback. It's been incredibly helpful. And, um, hopefully everyone feels comfortable putting their shovels away at this point. So this, uh, this conversation is not stale, but, um, so I, I, I have some language to introduce that is very spartan compared to what we've been discussing. And I just wanted to, as a preamble to that. Um, and then really excited for the ensuing discussion. Um, the, uh, we had almost the full body, uh, present during our last legal and legislative committee meeting. I, there were, um, you know, non-voting members that were present that, that gave really valuable feedback. And the thing that I heard was a, um, a baseline understanding that, uh, that the city ought to, uh, convey to its residents that they're responsible for, uh, maintaining safe sidewalks, um, adjacent to their properties during inclement weather. Um, beyond that, I did not hear, um, you know, frankly, a majority position for a, a number of the, the minutiae in the detail that, um, you know, when I was drafting the bill, I was looking at best practices in surrounding communities and things that I felt like were really applicable here. And what I heard was some, in some subset of, uh, colleagues in, uh, various groups, you know, discomfort on, um, you know, disclosing medical conditions or bandwidth at the Council on Aging, or Code Enforcement or, um, you know, equity and enforcement with, uh, various city departments. And, um, you know, and I think that there are some fixes to it, but I did not hear feedback requisite of, of having eight people be on board with, uh, with moving something forward. So, um, my, um, you know, I would rather start, uh, have a first step forward and reassess as time goes on. Um, and, uh, I, I had a intervening conversation with the Department of Public Works director, uh, pro Ellis and a couple of her colleagues about, um, what it might mean to have a, um, much narrower, narrower bill, um, uh, an amended language, uh, where, uh, which I'm happy to introduce in just a moment. But, um, you know, she said that, that having, uh, a statement of merely, um, at the end of our current existing ordinance, having a one sentence edition of the city expects residences to clear your sidewalks and nothing more, nothing, um, not embedding it into our fine structure or a fee structure or anything like that, and timing. Um, that would at the very least allow the department to, uh, engage with residents in these problem properties that have been mentioned, repeat offenders, people who might have other code violations, um, that they're already working with. And it will allow them to, um, try to ameliorate that, even if there's not a fine structure, um, you know, there's not that disincentive, but at the very least, it will allow them, even with limited code enforcement capacity to, um, you know, to address those, uh, of those individuals and problem properties. So it's not my, it's not my preferred solution, but I think it's a realistic one that we can move forward and, and at least stack hands on some sort of consensus opinion. And then, and then see if this tackles the problem. So, uh, I just wanna underscore that this would be a, um, you know, an initial step forward. So I, I, I want to ask, um, what would be the most facile way to share, it's one sentence. Do I put it in the chat? Do I share a screen? Um, to, uh, this being my first full remote meeting would welcome feedback on how best to share this. Um,

▶ 19:09 Maya Jamaleddine: Uh, vice chairman, would you like to read it out loud and the meantime, if, um, um, clerk, uh, um, Tanj can just, um, give you the permission to share a screen, you can share the screen as well. Yeah.

▶ 19:24 Devin Romanul: Um, and, and to my colleagues, I, I had intended on sharing this beforehand, but, uh, I, I did not get in on time to, uh, without violating the, um, the public disclosure laws. So, um, the, the intended language mirrors identically our existing code, it would replace all of the bill with, instead of replacing the existing ordinance with simply adding a part f the existing code, which is 1 7 7 dash 12, and it would add beneath all existing language. Part F uh, the owner, tenant or occupant of any estate in residential sections of the city shall cause snow and ice to be removed from sidewalks adjoining such a state. And that that is, that is it. So it's identical language, um, that we have in existing statute. It would sit beneath the existing statute, um, just as an acknowledgement, uh, of the residential obligation. So that is my, that is my amended language, rather than replacing the whole ordinance, scrapping that, and just adding a section F.

▶ 20:29 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Thank you. Uh, by, um, are you able now to share your screen?

▶ 20:36 Speaker 6: Uh, yes. Let me, um, I have, let's see. Um, here we go.

▶ 20:47 Devin Romanul: Open. Okay. Alright. It is not letting me, Hmm.

▶ 20:53 Speaker 6: Um, I apologize. It is not letting me,

▶ 20:59 Speaker 1: I do see that.

▶ 21:07 Speaker 1: Um, Madame Clerk, are you sharing the screen or you are muted? Sorry. Yeah, I was trying to scr I was trying to add him so he could share his screen.

▶ 21:18 Speaker 6: Yeah. For some reason, Some

▶ 21:20 Speaker 1: panelist I thought you could,

▶ 21:23 Devin Romanul: Yeah, for some it's saying that I'm not permitted. Okay. Let's see. Well, Tanja, if I were able to send you the, the link to the code, that would be shareable?

▶ 21:34 Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Would

▶ 21:36 Speaker 6: that be something that you could mm-hmm.

▶ 21:38 Speaker 1: Yep. You can email it to me and then I can pull it up and share it. Yeah, I put

▶ 21:41 Speaker 6: It in the, I put it in the chat. If that is accessible,

▶ 21:53 Speaker 1: You put it in the chat. Okay. Yes. Okay. Hold on.

▶ 21:57 Devin Romanul: And to my colleagues, thank you for bearing with me through this amendment process. I appreciate your patience.

▶ 22:02 Speaker 1: No problem. I think the link that you put in chair, uh, in the chat is, Can you see it? Can you guys see it right now, or no?

▶ 22:14 Speaker 1: Uh, no. Okay. Hold on.

▶ 22:19 Speaker 6: Did it not show up? Hold on.

▶ 22:20 Speaker 1: Let me, uh, hit share first, let me share my screen and then let me go into the chat and go like this.

▶ 22:45 Speaker 1: Can everyone see it? Yes. Okay.

▶ 22:49 Speaker 1: So it's section F, um, vice chair.

▶ 22:57 Devin Romanul: This would be, and I'm putting the intended language in the chat that would constitute a section F.

▶ 23:05 Speaker 1: So, where, okay. Hold on. Am I going up or down right now?

▶ 23:12 Speaker 1: A little bit down. Okay. Here. Okay. I, okay. And now F Okay.

▶ 23:17 Speaker 6: Yeah. So there's currently no section F

▶ 23:19 Speaker 1: Okay. There's no section F, but you're going to wanna put into section F. Okay.

▶ 23:22 Devin Romanul: That's correct. So you can see in the statute here, uh, there's, uh, the sections on, um, throwing snow in the street and a, in, uh, manufacturing, commercial and office space, and b, in, um, in large apartment buildings with overhang, um, in C, um, in the DPW obligations and d and then the enforcement mechanisms. And E, so an F this would just sit beneath this as a, as an amendment.

▶ 23:55 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, it's, um, so just to clarify, it's, uh, contradict, I feel that it's contradicting, and correct me if I'm reading it, uh, incorrectly. Um, with the enforcement, it says the police and the DPW would enforce, uh, this order. And then in, uh, section F it's says the owner tenant or argument of any state, uh, in residential sections of the city shall cause all, uh, snow and ice to be removed. For that it's like suggestion, it's not enforcement.

▶ 24:37 Devin Romanul: Uh, that's correct. Um, just in recognition of my colleagues feedback, um, that there, uh, that that's correct. It, it would, it would obfuscate the enforcement mechanisms that we presently use in commercial and industrial sections of the city. Um, and that, that is, I'm, I'm open to certainly, uh, other feedback from colleagues, um, or other placement. But this particular, um, placement would avoid the enforcement mechanisms to create a consensus, um, you know, a consensus policy that, um, moves the ball a little bit downfield. Um, you know, though my, as you can see, my initial draft had had different aspirations. But, um, anyway, that, that is my, uh, so the, the, uh, my proposal is to eliminate the language in my original bill, um, leave the ordinance untouched, and to add a section F to that ordinance.

▶ 25:42 Maya Jamaleddine: Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Um, I have, uh, president Ley, um, wishing to speak

▶ 25:50 Speaker 3: Chair. Um,

▶ 25:52 Leila Migliorelli: one point of clarification before I make further comments, um, through the chair, uh, Is ha has, sorry, my computer is now just trying to restart. Hold on one second. Okay. Um, how has the city solicitor weighed in on whether this language and section F following the enforcement section is actually clearly stating that this would be, this section F is exempt from enforcement? Um, because I'm noticing that the prior part, the existing part also says, you know, shall use the language shall, so I'm just wondering, um, whether the city solicitor has provided any feedback on this addition.

▶ 26:40 Devin Romanul: Not, not on this sentence, no. Um, but I would be happy to, um, it reflects the, the language already existing in the statute. Um, and, uh, based on the enforcement language, my understanding reading it through would be that, uh, the provisions and subsections A through D or the ones that are, are applicable to the enforcement section. But I would be, um, happy to track that down. I would also be happy to amend Twitter for language. Any colleagues or, or certainly the solicitor have in mind to ensure that the intention of the legislative language, uh, meets what the, you know, what the law prescribes.

▶ 27:12 Leila Migliorelli: Okay. Um, okay. So on just to thank you. Um, just my thoughts on this is that I am, I feel perhaps opposite from my colleagues, that I, I don't know that I would be in favor of an ordinance that doesn't include some type of enforcement. I understand that, uh, we have limited capacity for enforcement in DPW and, um, the police, given the short staffing of both of those, um, organizations, departments, um, I would have, I mean, this, I, so right now, I guess also just to to point of clarification, the order was to replace the prior ordinance with a new ordinance. And then this proposed ordinance is basically the proposed replacement is the exact ordinance plus F. Um, I would, I might have a separate take on this question, but I mean, if this is, I guess we'll see this conversation through, and I, you know, I would be happy to share how I think I would, um, structure the ordinance that would include, um, residential sections within in the finding area. But, um, for me, uh, you know, personally, um, and particularly given the feedback we've received from the community, um, I don't know that I would be in support of, uh, in support of, of amending the ordinance to include residential, um, a suggestion for residential snow shoveling, um, and not with any enforcement. Thank you.

▶ 28:39 Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Any, uh, other colleague wishing to speak? Um, Councillor gpe.

▶ 28:50 Mark Garipay: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I appreciate the, the change of this. Um, I mean, I know we all have, uh, differences of opinions on, um, on the enforcement portion of it. I would, um, I mean, I can, I, I could support this as is. Um, and the way I would understand it as is, is a, through like, like, um, the, um, maker of the order had said A through D would be enforceable with fines. Uh, f would not, um, I could support that if it, uh, if we do find out or it does get changed where we are gonna be finding residents. Um, I've been pretty clear, I think since day one. It's something that I don't, uh, wanna do. I have some, uh, hesitation on that. Uh, but I also have, um, more of a procedural question. Um, and I'm not sure if you had talked to, um, the city solicitor at all is what do we do with the order that's presented to us right now? Do we, do we vote it down and, and, and then, then vote down the amendments that you had in here and then, and then amend, um, amend it to add yours? Um, I'm kind of, I'm kind of just a little confused. I really don't know the answer to that. And I would, um, kind of look for a little advice from, from some people. I just don't know. By adding this amendment, do we still have all the other amendments in there, do you know?

▶ 30:21 Maya Jamaleddine: So we can vote on it as amended? Um, so the, the version that councilor, uh, vice Chair Manano is suggesting for us, um, uh, amended, uh, by amending the, uh, ordinance, we vote on the amendment itself. Um, and that's how it's been, uh, with other, um, you know, votes or, uh, when it comes to voting on amendment or any ordinance. Um, I do have, uh, counselor and counselor William, uh, wishing to speak, but I'm not sure if, uh, president Ali would like to, uh, comment on, uh, councilor Ante's question.

▶ 31:11 Leila Migliorelli: Um, yeah, happy to just weigh in on that. So, um, my understanding from the city solicitor and previous conversations about, um, whether motions to amend or amending the order or, or, or are amending the text within an order, um, and in her advice was that when we're motioning to amend your motioning to amend the language of the order, so right now, as it states, this order is to replace current city ordinance section 1 7 7 dash 12, snow and ice removal with revised ordinance language to address property owner responsibilities for snow and ice removal. I don't believe, but I, I could be stand corrected by anyone who's maybe reading through IQM too faster than I'm, I don't believe we took a vote or made any amendments, um, to what was proposed in our last meeting. Um, I think we just discussed what councilor remodel presented to us. So I think him coming back with basically new proposed language, um, would not mean that we would have to table that, although, let me continue to think on that, because if it's just being made public right now, I mean, maybe we can't take a final vote on it 'cause he's just shared it. But let me, let me think on that. But my understanding, like legal wise is that it's not, it would not be amending the order, it is just the order itself is to replace with a new ordinance. So he had suggested language with that provide, presented that select suggested language last time. This is now new suggested language, and it doesn't, it, it's still within the, the spirit of the original language of the order. So that's my, that's my take is that we could take a vote on what he has presented tonight, which is the original ordinance plus f as being the, the replacement ordinance.

▶ 33:15 Speaker 3: So,

▶ 33:15 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, that's my, that's my understanding as well. Uh, president ly. Um, so the Go ahead counselor.

▶ 33:25 Mark Garipay: Sorry. Sorry, I, I don't mean to be, I just wanna make sure I know what I'm voting on, so sorry about that.

▶ 33:32 Maya Jamaleddine: No, no, no, absolutely. It's, um, it's a very valid question. I appreciate your, uh, asking. And, um, I have next counselor, uh, van,

▶ 33:41 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, thank you, uh, chair Jamine, uh, I, the majority of, of my comment would just be to echo, um, president Meley Riley. And in that, I, I think we've gotten a lot of feedback and it's been pretty clear that people are in favor of vines. People are pretty frustrated with the state of things. And, um, I don't think we would, I, I think we would be unlikely to over enforce and, and more likely to under enforce given, given everything, you know, as far as actual capacity. So I, I do think it would be much more beneficial to have something with, um, with the option to enforce, um, for the, the consistent issues. Um, I also do, you know, I think there is some other valuable language in there, making things more specific, about 36 inches and everything like that. Um, so, you know, I think this could be a small step forward and might be worth doing, um, in order to get something moved forward. But I, um, would probably want us to revisit it, you know, next year if, if that's what we do right now. Thank you.

▶ 34:56 Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilor Vandiver, counselor William.

▶ 35:00 Ryan Williams: Hi, thanks. Um, I just wanted to offer my, um, my support for what President Elli had had said. I looked through, I qm two very carefully. There was no rec recorded amendment in my review was that there was no recorded amendment. So, um, so yes, anything that's amended here is just amending the order. Um, you know, I've certainly, this is something that I have been hearing from constituents for years and before I was on the city council, heard from people for years. It's a perennial problem. It's a serious problem. Um, it is a problem for families with strollers. It's a problem for people with disabilities, mobility issues. It's a problem for people who use public transportation. We just saw in the A DU hearing that almost the entire city of Melrose is within a half mile of a transit stop, a bus stop, something like that. So, um, and I, I appreciate greatly the work of this committee and the council as a whole to work through these tough, thorny issues. And I, I wanted to suggest that, you know, you guys have, you've held this a number of times and there's nothing that says that you can't just keep working on it. Um, we as a council tend to move things really quickly, usually at the same meeting where we just kind of get it and run through it. And some of these harder issues that we've encountered in the last year in legal and legislative in particular, I think they do require a little bit of time, um, and a little bit more conversation. And this, the public meeting is a great way to do that, um, even though it's kind of a pain in the butt for us all to get together all the time for the extra committee meeting. So it sounds like folks are in slightly different places. I personally am very supportive of fines. I'm also, uh, understanding that the, um, we have to make sure they're implemented correctly and that they don't become burdensome, and that the language doesn't, you know, create any kind of, of issue that, that folks have if they're, if they're really struggling in some way, and it's unfair to them. Um, so I encourage the committee to keep working on it. Um, I'm, I'm pleased to co-sponsor this with Councilor Ul, and, um, I'm thankful for all of your time and efforts on this. Thank you.

▶ 37:11 Speaker 1: Thank you. Counselor Williams, uh, president.

▶ 37:16 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you again, Madam Chair. Um, and thank you to, uh, my other counselors, uh, for their comments too. I think, um, I guess, uh, just a point of clarification to my earlier comments, and I think Councillor Vandiver, um, sort of spoke to this, is that it's unlikely that this ordinance, given our current staffing levels would be over enforced. I mean, so I think, I guess I'm just, I'm, I'm not, I wouldn't be, um, in favor of any type adding anything to, um, our code and ordinances that, that, that is asking someone to do something without any enforcement mechanism. So I would almost rather just not add in anything. Um, I wouldn't, I would rather not just even add in a suggestion of doing something. 'cause then I feel like that just doesn't, seems like sort of shirking our responsibility. So it's not that I'm to say like, I'm in favor of, you know, residential snow fines, um, snow shoveling fines. It's just more that, you know, philosophically, uh, in my position as a legislator would not be to add something as a suggestion without enforcement. Um, that being said, just to kind of point about if I were to amend this further, and, you know, I'm, I'm not, I I'm also not opposed to holding this in committee to for further conversation, but, um, just looking at the existing ordinance, I, I would be, um, versus council remodels proposed, I would be, um, in favor of removing section C, the existing c uh, that's removal required on certain buildings. Um, and just adding into b um, uh, a section that would just say the owner tenant occupant or agent thereof, any land or building abutting a sidewalk shall remove the snow from the sidewalk abutting the property on all sides. So it's just more, just any building that has a sidewalk access, not just within a commercial zone, not just residential commercial, just that your responsibility is to clear the, the snow around your structure on the sidewalks. And I think, as was pointed out at the last meeting, that if something should happen to somebody on the sidewalk abutting your property, I believe the property owner is liable for, for that injury. Um, if I'm misspeaking, please someone correct me on that. Um, so I just feel like it's just all the way around would be, uh, just responsibility. If you have a structure, you own a structure, and there is snow on all sides of it on the sidewalk, you should be responsible for clearing it. Um, and not excessively too quickly, just, I think what I was looking at was in the city of Medford and it's like eight hours, eight daylight hours after snow has ceased to fall. So that would be where, where I would stand on on that. Thank you.

▶ 40:14 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Madam President. Um, I would like to add also my comment, um, in terms of this, um, uh, ordinance, but I would like to give the, um, uh, turn for Vice Chair Romanul. Uh, please go ahead.

▶ 40:32 Speaker 8: Oh, no, you're, you're more than welcome to go. I, I just, it's okay.

▶ 40:36 Speaker 1: I'll, I'll, I'll do the closure. Go ahead.

▶ 40:37 Devin Romanul: Yeah, I, I totally, um, I, I concur with a lot of what's been said. I think my, you know, my original aspirations are, are well, well documented, um, in, in terms of, uh, being, uh, tending towards a more prescriptive solution for sure. Um, uh, that's just where my, my natural, um, habitat. But, um, I think that, uh, my, my gut is that, uh, DPW conveying that even a enforcement list, um, provision gives them some tool, uh, to initiate a conversation in problem properties. And i, i, in recognition of where, uh, where the, like the, the threshold of, of the passages and, and acknowledging that, like, I would tend towards having some tools rather than no tools, um, at this stage and having an opportunity to build and revisit. Uh, but I, I totally respect if, if other folks are not there, I would not begrudge you for, um, uh, for having a different perspective. And, and I'll share that. Um, you know, I know my, my previous draft was also quite prescriptive and, and, um, tried to rewrite pieces of that statute to the, um, to the point that, uh, president Mickley made, um, of having a more elegant, um, uh, you know, um, pulled together ordinance. That's why I rewrote it in my first draft, uh, which the city solicitor did, um, have, uh, a line editing on and, and the ability to, to look over to make sure that all the i's were done and ts crossed. But, um, so anyway, um, totally agree, um, but would rather see some, some for progress, um, and, uh, and some signaling from the city rather than none. But, but that's just, just my perspective, so I'll leave it there.

▶ 42:21 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Vice Chair Romanul, um, councilor Van, you, thank you.

▶ 42:27 Kimberly Vandiver: Yeah. If I could, I, I just wanted to ask through the chair, um, about the philosophical, uh, point that President me made. Um, and I was, I, I kind, I appreciate what councilor, um, Romanul was saying about, you know, there was a consultation with DPW and that this would be helpful despite a lack of official mechanism through fines. Um, and so I, I, I, that seems potentially potentially helpful. I don't know. Um, so I, I was wondering if I could ask, um, president Mei to clarify what type of, what would, what would be the issue of having a suggestion in the code? What would that lead to, um, if that was the case,

▶ 43:17 Kimberly Vandiver: is that, is would it, uh, is that something, uh, that you could respond to?

▶ 43:25 Speaker 3: Um, Madam Chair, is that, Yeah, um, I, go ahead.

▶ 43:30 Leila Migliorelli: Okay. Um, I guess if I'm looking at this,

▶ 43:39 Leila Migliorelli: I mean, If you look in the enforcement section, I mean, I guess it's not even so much that it's fines, but like what I, I, I don't, I don't know, just as a language person, I just see it as like, this shall happen, but what shall happen if it doesn't happen? Like, it doesn't seem like, I guess I would want to hear, or maybe I should reach out to DPW myself to find out I, I, and or the city solicitor by just saying something shall happen without saying what happens if it doesn't happen. I just wonder what the point of that is philoso, like, and that to me is a philosophical thing. Like, if you put something shall happen, but there's no enforcement, um, I don't really know what the point is then. So like, I don't, I guess like you could, maybe another, a middle ground there is that, you know, you have section E enforcement point, you know, part one, the director of public works and his or her designee shall have the authority to enforce all provisions of this section. And maybe that is inclusive of residential. So they can enforce that meaning that they can go out and ask about it, and then we just withhold the fineing part of it. I don't know, I don't know if that's something that any other community does, but I just, it, to me, it just seems like you have all these sections and it's like, this group will enforce it. This will, and this will happen, fines will happen, blah, you know, et cetera. And then to then just say like, whoa. And then we shall, people shall also, you know, shovel their sidewalks. I mean, they, they shall also. And right now, I just don't see the point of documenting that without having anything of what would happen if they don't. So it, right. If you put F down there, it doesn't look like to me the way I read it, that anything would happen. Like, so I don't, I don't think putting F down there would, that section would even make it something that DPW would be actionable on, unless I'm reading. And again, I'm just trying to like go back and forth on two screens here, which is a little, I haven't done this, like,

▶ 45:31 Speaker 3: it's like our 50th anniversary of having gone virtual. So it's just part of my trying to do two things at once.

▶ 45:37 Speaker 1: Thank you. Um, president Ley, um, I share,

▶ 45:44 Devin Romanul: Yes, certainly, um, uh, president mre, uh, to your comment, certainly appreciate that. And I'm, I'm open to if there's, I, I think my overriding policy goal at this stage is to create some tool that in recognition that as a council, I don't think we are, even though I'm, I'm comfortable with the fine structure. I think as a council, we, we don't have a majority that's fine with the, um, uh, fine structure. And so if there's a way to have that applicability, um, that you are, uh, you're alluding to that still maintains that for policy prescription, I'm, I'm open to withdrawing my language and replacing it with language that, that makes more sensed in, in that regard, if that is a, uh, is, if that's, um, you know, a priority. But I'm, again, I'm, um, open to creative solutions, but, but just have that overriding policy. Um, north Star.

▶ 46:38 Speaker 1: Thank you, vice Chair Romanul, uh, counselor, you're muted.

▶ 46:46 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you, chair Jamal. And, um, please do let me know if, if you don't want, you know, extensive debate on this, but I, I, I'm really excited to see us, um, uh, sort of exploring, doing a little bit more legislation than we, than we have historically and kind of working through how to, to get there. Um, so I, I just was looking at, um, on that question of, you know, what is the point of putting something into an ordinance if there's not a a, so what if it doesn't get done? Um, so for comparison, I, I was just looking in the, the code at the section on curbside recycling. It's 1 98 dash four, um, just to kind of see, like, do we have fines attached to everything that we say should happen? Um, and we don't. So in that section, you know, it says residents shall use plastic or metal barrels and bins under 50 gallons and 45 pounds for their single stream. Recycling should be labeled, clearly labeled as recycling, but I don't, I'm just skimming through it, but I don't see any fines, you know, in that section where we're kind of like, specifying it should be done exactly this way. Um, so I, I think they're, I mean, I, I would love to see it be even more specific like it, like I said before, as far as like 36 inches wide and you know, this, and, you know, getting the, the curb cuts and, and everything else. But, um, I do think it, it might be helpful to, to say what we expect to happen, even if we don't have a fine attached. I do, I support a fine too, but, um, but I do think it, it's something that isn't without precedent. Yeah. Um, and, and so I, I would support going that direction. I would also support, um, to, um, uh, to the previous point that, that we could continue to hold this, you know, we're mostly outta snow season. We can talk about this for the next several months if we want to, um, to get it there. So, and, you know, be able to consult with DPW or anyone else. So I, I would support the direction that, um, councilor Romanul brought today, or, or holding and continuing to make sure that we're comfortable before we get it through and, and have something we feel good about. Thank you.

▶ 49:02 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, thank, thank you, uh, councilor Vandiver, to your point on the trash and recycling pickup, if it's not following the, the description or the criteria that it was proposed by DPW, their trash and recycle will not be picked. So right there, there is a consequences, uh, for not following those rules. Uh, in terms of snow, it's, the consequences will be on the people, on, on pedestrians and the people that are, you know, walking. Um, you know, as we heard from, um, Mr. Cote and, and, um, and other constituents that, you know, they, uh, calling and all the other, uh, harm and incidents that happened. I do wanted to, um, share my opinion and, and comment on this, uh, uh, ordinance. I wanted to start by thinking, uh, uh, vice chair, uh, Romanul on truly the very thorough and hard work, uh, uh, that he put forward for many weeks right now, uh, to see this, um, ordinance, uh, passing. Um, I do know, and, um, you know, you put from your personal time to meet with, um, counselors, um, myself and other constituents, um, did so many, uh, extra work just to be able to get to the language where you, you get, um, uh, support and, uh, this, so that this ordinance would pass. I do find it very, uh, difficult for me to understand what is it that, uh, it's not, um, if I may say accepting, acceptable or, um, uh, in this ordinance. You know, this is a history. We have a history, uh, of, um, discussion in terms of snow removal in, uh, Melrose, and hearing from constituents how hard it is for them to get, um, uh, to their work or to their, um, uh, to, you know, different places around the city, uh, during the snow season, uh, because of this specific issue. Uh, how, why is it difficult to hold accountable? Um, uh, you know, the individuals that are not doing their due diligence and, um, uh, doing the snow shoveling, uh, so that their neighbors are able to walk around in the city. Uh, I do think that with this history, um, discussing this specific issue, uh, those that, um, are open for discussion, uh, we did see the change and they started doing the snow shoveling, but whoever is left, um, the, uh,

▶ 52:04 Maya Jamaleddine: the language that, uh, vice Chair Romanul is, uh, proposing with no consequences, um, is not going to make a difference for them, unfortunately. And I'm saying that with full transparency and full, um, uh, you know, honesty, uh, that unfortunately, whoever is not doing their, uh, snow shoveling right now, this ordinance is not going to make any difference for them. So we are not going to see any changes unless there is consequences for that. Um, I do, uh, I do appreciate that this discussion, discussion started, and we, we, we started this discussion because we, it had, you know, I was hoping that we put it, uh, forward long time ago, and now I appreciate you taking that step. So, uh, whatever is the outcome, uh, the fact that we, whether with consequences or without consequences, you know, whether with the amendment that you're suggesting or not, um, I do appreciate that we open that discussion and I will be in, uh, favor of it. And hopefully, uh, this will be the start of, um, uh, further, uh, discussion so that, uh, moving forward whenever we feel that we are able to, uh, add some amendments or make changes to this ordinance, uh, if we get more support from my colleagues will be able to revisit it, uh, moving forward, or after we pass, um, uh, you know, uh, the amendment, uh, that you proposed right now, uh,

▶ 53:54 Maya Jamaleddine: with that, what is the will of the committee

▶ 54:02 Maya Jamaleddine: councilor, vice chair Armano?

▶ 54:04 Devin Romanul: Yeah, so I, I, I made a motion. I, I don't think anyone seconded. Um, but, uh, but I'll, I'll say I'm, I'm happy to continue the discussion and committee and withdraw. We

▶ 54:15 Maya Jamaleddine: Have a second. We have a second from, uh, Councillor gpe. Um, did you wanna keep your motion? Yeah. Okay. So we have a motion made by counselor by Vice Chair Romanul, seconded by Counselor Repe on discussion

▶ 54:36 Speaker 7: Counselor Repe.

▶ 54:37 Mark Garipay: Yeah. So we're just voting on adding his section F, right? Section FI,

▶ 54:46 Devin Romanul: I believe the motion was to, uh, delete the initially introduced language and replace it with section F that would serve as a Got Final section of the current ordinance.

▶ 55:02 Speaker 7: Great. I got it. Thank you. Um,

▶ 55:03 Maya Jamaleddine: I have president materially and next, um, uh, counselor,

▶ 55:10 Leila Migliorelli: Um, through, through the chair, um, to Councillor model. Uh, did DPW indicate what would happen if, so if there's no enforcement, no, fine. Like, what, what would, what would happen in practice to somebody who did not follow section F of this proposed ordinance?

▶ 55:31 Devin Romanul: Yeah. Um, we didn't, we didn't go into, uh, granular detail, but, um, my best recollection of that conversation was that they, uh, they said it would allow them to, uh, you know, knock on their door to have a discussion with them to say, Hey, this is your, your obligation, um, to, you know, remove snow for a whole variety of reasons. They also indicated that typically where they see folks, um, owning, uh, properties where they're not, um, taking care of it, there are typically more than one code violations. And so they said there was, uh, in their opinion, a certain degree of, um, you know, uh, coinciding of, of, uh, code enforcement issues. And so it would be, uh, in addition, uh, additional conversation to other things like, you know, uh, uh, we've seen several instances over the winter of people having their sun pumps pumped directly into the sidewalk and freezing over, and like, that's an obvious code enforcement violation. So there's some, uh, correlation here. Um, but, uh, but certainly if we're looking for a written statement or something about what that procedure is, I, I'd be happy to, to work further and, and have that conversation more explicitly.

▶ 56:41 Speaker 1: Thank you. Vice chair, uh, Romanul, uh, counselor Van.

▶ 56:47 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, thank you. Um, I had a question through the chair about this proposed language for f um, so it says the owner, tenant or occupant. Um, so in a case where we have a rental property, does that, I mean, I know there's, you know, no enforcement, but, but is, is that saying any of those people, you know, the owner or the occupant could do it? Um, or is that saying, is that like a press's order? Like if there's an occupant, it's the occupant, but if there's not, it's the owner. Like, I just curious if for clarification that

▶ 57:19 Maya Jamaleddine: My understanding is depends on what is the lease or contract between the tenants and the occupants, uh, the tenants and the owner, whether if they, if they agreed in the lease or in the rent contract, that, uh, it's the owner responsibility to do the small shoveling, that would be, uh, their responsibility and they will be responsible for that, or vice versa.

▶ 57:47 Devin Romanul: Okay. And my, um, to, uh, through the charity counselor Vanderberg, uh, related to your question, I'll, I'll say that the, the language, um, was meant to, um, mirror the language in the existing statute for consistency's sake. Um, but yes, um, that is also my, my understanding. Um,

▶ 58:08 Maya Jamaleddine: Perfect. Do we have anyone else? Um, discussion?

▶ 58:17 Speaker 1: Seeing none, Madam Clerk.

▶ 58:25 Speaker 1: Okay. How's there Remodel? Yes. Council Oppe? Yes. Council Vanderberg?

▶ 58:32 Speaker 1: Yes. Sorry. President Elli? No.

▶ 58:38 Speaker 1: Chair. Jamal Ledine? Yes. Motion passes.

▶ 58:47 Maya Jamaleddine: Perfect. We have, um, uh, we have congratulations, uh, vice chair model, and, uh, hopefully this will, um, you know, this is, uh, not the end of this discussion. I would like to say, uh, we still have to take another vote for the full council. Uh, so we welcome any input or, um, uh, opinion from, uh, colleagues and from constituents, uh, um, until we take the full vote and the final votes, uh, with the full council. Uh, thank you for all the constituents who shared their, um, experiences during, uh, on this ordinance specifically. And with that, um, that concludes our, um, um, items, uh, for on, uh, our agenda for tonight.