Legal & Legislative Committee — 2021-05-10
Attendance
Christopher Cinella ; Jack Eccles ; Jen Grigoraitis ; Shawn M. MacMaster ; Leila Migliorelli ; John N. Tramontozzi
Agenda
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE LEGAL & LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE CALENDAR● MAY 10, 2021 Web-based remote meeting Committee Meeting 7:15 PM , Melrose, MA 02176 The public should take notice that the Melrose City Council may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the City Council consisting of both voting and non-voting members. Members attending this duly posted meeting are participating and deliberating only in conjunction with the business of the standing committee. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Jen Grigoraitis Chair Present Leila Migliorelli Vice Chair Present John N. Tramontozzi Voting Present Shawn M. MacMaster Voting Present Jack Eccles Voting Present Christopher Cinella President, ex oficio Present
ORDER-2021-104 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Chapter 173 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose Without Recommendation City Council City of Melrose Page 1 5/10/2021 9:25 PM
Transcript
▶ 9:07 Jen Grigoraitis: Councilor Cinella. Sorry, I thought I was looking for Councilor Eccles, but I don't see him. And then we are joined tonight by non-voting members, Councilor McNaught. I'm only going to read out non-voting members who have their camera on, just because it's unclear if you're participating or not, and Councilor Stewart and Councilor Thomas. And I'll say Councilor Garipay and Councillor Jamaleddine as well, though they don't yet have their cameras on. Pursuant to the Governor's executive order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law and the Governor's order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, the seating of the City Council of the Legal and Legislative Committee
▶ 9:48 Jen Grigoraitis: will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. We will post a comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Melrose website and on mmtv3.org the public can find online access instructions to view this meeting at the city of melrose.org backslash remote meeting and at this time councillor President and all councillor Eccles I think is having some issue I think he seems to be in the participant or not oh there he is thank you and now we have councillor voting member councillor Eccles. And then without objection, I will open the floor to public comment. This is the period of time where any member of the public can speak to any item on our agenda. Madam Clerk, do we have
▶ 10:41 anyone wishing to speak? Yes, Mr. Dittmar. Can you hear us? Mr. Dittmar, can you hear us? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you, Kristen. Hi, Hi, councillors. My name is Myron Dittmer. I live at 93 Altamont Avenue in Melrose and I've been a homeowner in the city for four and a half decades and my wife and I raised three children here. They all went through our city school system. And I might add, they thoroughly enjoyed the many parks and recreational opportunities that our city had to offer. First, I have read the recent letter from our city solicitor, Mr. Van Campen, which is in the packet for tonight's meeting. In response to a question by counselor in an earlier meeting,
▶ 11:44 Mr. Van Campen stated that in the preceding 15 years, in no instance has a liquor license holder has had their liquor license suspended or revoked by the Liquor Commission in Melrose. All I want to say there is, although this may be true, he neglected to convey to the council that the clubhouse at Mount Hood Golf Course was caught twice serving underage people as a result of a sting operations authorized by the Melrose Liquor Commission back in 2009 and again in 2012. I'm sorry, 2009 and 2012, right. I just wanted to put that out there and make you aware of that. Also attached to this meeting's packet is a letter from Mayor Broder in which he believes that allowing the sale and consumption of alcohol on the fairways at Mount Hood would help
▶ 12:33 enhance the local Melrose economy during a time of global crisis. I doubt that many of you would agree that selling more alcohol would truly be worth the extra money given the fact that with the negative social impact we have all seen with excessive drinking during the pandemic. We now see the economy bursting out of its malaise where we just learned the GDP was 6.4% annually adjusted for the first quarter of this year. even the golf course management people have recently acknowledged that the golf course revenues have been in their words gangbusters while memberships have significantly increased this does not sound like an organization in need of a few thousand dollars more as you know i am against the order 2021-104 which among other things deletes the prohibition of
▶ 13:24 selling or consuming alcohol on land managed by the park commission as noted in section 173-2 the city ordinance doing so will create a slippery slope which will open the possibility to the city to allow the sale and consumption of alcohol on any parkland including the fairways of mount hood golf course i've recently sent you an updated list of 32 melrose residents against this order and i have to apologize the original list had 34. i realized there was a problem with two two people one on that list so I had to remove them. As you can see, many of the residents live in Ward 6, and who would be more negatively impacted by beverage carts, selling alcohol on fairways than these people? Actually, if you look at the list,
▶ 14:13 some of you may actually recognize a prominent name on that list. His name is James Lane. For some of you may recognize that name. He's a park commissioner, current park commissioner in Melrose. He's an avid golfer as are the other four members of the park commission. But Jim was a golf pro in the Winchester Country Club, which is a private golf course, for 32 years. He told me that he would never have allowed beverage carts to roam the fairways in Winchester Country Club, and he and he fought that every time it came up and was successful he just doesn't believe it's it's a good mix to have alcohol with playing golf and uh i think so you don't have to take my word for it you take a golf pro who's spent his whole life on the golf course certainly the current
▶ 15:08 concerns of these melrose residents deserve your support since many of them are butters or live near the golf course and they would be negatively impacted by any potential safety issues such as is speeding down local neighborhoods while leaving the clubhouse. Also, the mayor has noted that he would consider allowing the sale and consumption of alcohol in some of the other parks in Melrose such as Bowdoin Park, maybe even Melrose Common. I find such potential use of parks for this purpose unacceptable for many families and children using these parks. Such a use of parks seems antithetical to what we all look forward to when we move to Melrose. It's a community blessed with so many parks, playgrounds, and fields for the enjoyment of our families and children.
▶ 15:54 Please ask yourself this one question. Since many of you have young children, would you really like to see organization renting space at some of our local parks and have them sell and consume alcohol while your child or children play nearby? Or even worse, deny the children use of the park because of these parties. Concerning Mount Hood, city officials have not yet put forth a comprehensive program to mitigate the many safety and infrastructure improvements that would be needed if the city decides to move ahead with allowing beverage carts to sell alcohol beverages on fairways at Mount Hood, as well as other parks throughout the city. Some of these improvements include the installation of speed bumps and sidewalks on Slayton Road, the hiring of older staff to operate the beverage
▶ 16:39 guards the addition of more professional golf rangers uh in addition of security staff patrol mount hood on evenings to threaten to prevent vandalism to the park as well as to local neighborhoods therefore for the many reasons outlined above i recommend that the subcommittee not recommend the passage of order 2021-104 to the full council and i thank you for your your time and attention thank you mr ditmer ms foote do we have anyone else in queue to speak There's 1 of the gentlemen, if you'd like to speak, you could raise your hand. They're on a phone. I'm not sure. Would you like to speak a public comment? Nope. All right without objection, I will close public comment and then we can move on to the business before us.
▶ 17:34 Leila Migliorelli: Tonight, we have 1 order before the committee. It is order 2021 dash 104, amending chapter 173 of the revised ordinances of the city of Melrose. And Councilor Migliorelli, and Vice Chair Migliorelli, forgive me. You're forgiven. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to share my thoughts and I am a little disappointed that this order was sent back to committee tonight without there being anyone from the administration or commissions here to answer our questions. I feel like that puts us in kind of a tough spot. I still think there's some missing details about the impact of this change. And with the lack of information, I think there have been a lot of assumptions about what may or may not happen as a result of deleting this ordinance.
▶ 18:24 Leila Migliorelli: According to the administration, it was the mayor's advisory task force that identified this ordinance was a blanket prohibition that impeded certain economic development activities across the city. The mayor's office went on to share 2 examples of this mountain hood in the farmer's market. And at the last meeting, we heard from Mount hood and they shared that the pros of the beverage cart there would improve the experience for golfers. And may determine may deter people from bringing their own alcohol into the course. To date. We haven't heard from the farmer's market. So we're sort of. In the not in the know about how it would improve their business. Also, I don't know that we ever received a good answer about the specific economic development, development activities that are supposed to supposedly being stifled by this ordinance. We've heard from residents who suggest that this change would be great for people.
▶ 19:15 Leila Migliorelli: Who want to have weddings or birthday parties, but we have no information from the city about what the anticipated increase in revenue from these events would be, or whether this revenue would balance out or exceed the cost of these events, which would presumably take involvement. You know, potentially additional police detail. So, overall, we don't really have the data to definitively say that this change would absolutely bring greater revenue or economic opportunity for the city. I also think we're forgetting that Melrose is a densely populated city, and that most of our parks wouldn't really accommodate wedding receptions. I think some people have talked about getting married at El Pond under the gazebo, but you can't really have a whole full blown party after. That's just not a lot of space there.
▶ 19:58 Leila Migliorelli: With the exception of Mount Hood and Pine Banks, there's no sports spot to really host a large party that isn't smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Also, many of our parks are frequently used for use in adult sports, and I think anyone can see on any given weekend, you'll see our fields filled with soccer, baseball, softball, and we haven't heard from the city about how they plan to balance this. Which sort of brings us back to Mount hood. Well, I don't know that a beverage cart on Mount hood would exacerbate the issues in the neighborhood. I still believe there are issues that need to be addressed. We've heard from a lot of residents who said this speeding littering or just to name a few.
▶ 20:35 Leila Migliorelli: I think it'd be a good idea for the city to approach. This change is an opportunity for a mutual gain for the residents of around Mount hood. It's just good governance and frankly, a missed opportunity on the behalf of the administration and negotiating with Matt hood. but perhaps that's yet to come. Overall, my hesitations have nothing to do about being conservative with our drinking laws. In fact, I'm very much supportive of updating our liquor laws and I'm pleased with the progress we've made to date. I disagree with the notion that allowing a beverage cart on Mount Hood or alcohol to be sold at events in our parks would increase irresponsible drinking or will poorly affect our youth. I actually don't think a beverage cart
▶ 21:11 Leila Migliorelli: would have any impact whatsoever, positive or negative, on drinking on the course. I just don't understand what the problem we're trying to solve here is. Are we worried about people not being able to drink while golfing? People drinking too much while golfing? Is there a huge demand for people asking to have events in our parks that serve alcohol? It's just not clear at all. We need to really know the problem in order to come up with the best solution. So if the city also was really trying to make a meaningful step in updating our liquor laws, why not target one of the most outdated regulations we have, which is not allowing more than one drink with a purchase of food. By updating that regulation, which is not under the purview of the council, we would
▶ 21:53 Leila Migliorelli: actually see a positive impact on our economy. I think some of the people who wrote to us talked about beer and wine gardens. And wouldn't it be great if we could attract entrepreneurs to open up a brewery or a wine bar in Melrose? With our current regulations, that's just not going to happen and by updating this ordinance we don't get any closer to that either i think it will not have the impact as far as i can see and i'm concerned that that's what people think are going to happen now i'd be interested to hear what my fellow counselors have to say about their thoughts and concerns about this ordinance and perhaps the impact of changing this ordinance is better to be hashed out by the commissions versus the council um you know maybe it's more of a regular
▶ 22:32 Christopher Cinella: regulatory thing um but just right now i just i guess it's sort of unclear so what we're trying to do here and um whether we're really actually trying to make a difference in um you know stimulating our economy thank you madam chair thank you vice chairman is there any other member of the committee wishing to speak president sanella thank you madam chair um i've gone back and forth you know in this order when it was first introduced there was a fair amount of opposition from constituents um but you know we had chief lyle who lives very close to mount hood he's been a member for many years in support of it um it's been brought up a few times that this order is not just about mount hood which is true it's about all of our parks you know
▶ 23:33 Christopher Cinella: and the problem is um the community is just kind of left to its own imagination as to what could occur in our parks constituents with questions as to you know the different types of activities so in the meantime we've sent this back to committee which is looking at tonight done some due diligence over the last couple weeks and in that time we've now received a significant amount of support for this order um one constituent in support was on a list that was in opposition and wasn't even made aware of this which was just brought up comment so and at this point with the amount of support that we've received now from the community and the administration's willingness to address some of the concerns
▶ 24:27 that i've been i've learned about through chair rigoritis who is the ward council up in that area Yeah, I would, I would be in support moving this back to full council with a recommendation passage and allow the council to to make that motion at this time. I know that there's probably other consoles that want to. So, we have a motion from President to for recommendation for passage. Do we have a 2nd for that motion? Sorry, I can't cancel records. I can't hear you. I'd like to participate in the discussion. I'll second it, but for the purpose of just keeping discussion moving. Okay, so once we have a second, we need to then, we can discuss the motion. Okay, so we have a motion made by President Cinella, seconded by Councilor Eccles with the recommendation for passage. So, on discussion from anyone on the committee, if there's anyone.
▶ 25:39 Jack Eccles: Thank you, Madam Chair. Like many others, I've gone back and forth. This is our fourth or fifth City Council meeting with this order on the agenda. I agree with some of the concerns and then also I think that one thing that was brought up tonight is just this isn't our only bite at the apple of modernizing anything. I think it was There could be some benefit from gathering more information that being said. After 1 or 2 meetings with the administration present, having heard some of the concerns and then having. Some overwhelming information come in today. I'd be fine moving this forward to full council. Thanks Thank you. Councilor Eccles. Anyone else on the committee wishing to. Councilor McMaster. Thank you. Madam chair. I ended up.
▶ 26:43 Shawn M. MacMaster: um losing connection while uh my colleague councillor Margolis was speaking so i didn't catch the end of what she said so i'm not sure exactly how um where she went with the remarks but i was um you know very um sympathetic to some of the concerns that she raised relative to uncertainty and lack of information and i i do recognize that we did receive some information from the administration in the form of correspondence from the city solicitor dated May 5th. I do appreciate that when Mayor Broder was before us originally in committee he attempted to answer some of the questions that I had relative to his vision for what this actually means for the city. I'm also sympathetic to the neighborhood concerns but I realize that this
▶ 27:37 Shawn M. MacMaster: is larger than a Mount Hood issue. It could certainly have significant impacts on that neighborhood, but this relates to all of our parks in Melrose. Consulate McLairelli mentioned the work that has been done to date based on the administration's ad hoc committee, but we haven't seen that report from the ad hoc committee. We haven't seen any findings or recommendations, so it's unclear exactly what that larger vision is. And when Mr. Van Campen was before us the last time, he essentially said that any changes to our liquor laws and Melrose would be regulatory. And that would certainly be the case unless there was a special act that were to come before us in the form of an order that we would have to vote on that would go before the legislature.
▶ 28:35 Shawn M. MacMaster: And I don't know, not knowing what that report says, if that's even a possibility. So, so my concern is, again, being sensitive to the neighborhood concerns that understanding that this is a larger community issue, not being in a place to vote favorably to move this on without some more information from the administration, particularly what the findings and recommendations were from the ad hoc committee. Now, that's not to say that if that information is provided in the future, and it addresses my concerns, and it helps me understand the vision of where the administration is looking to go that, that I wouldn't vote to support this. It's that I just don't think there's enough information right now for me to vote to recommend this for passage and going back to being sympathetic to the neighborhood concerns.
▶ 29:32 Shawn M. MacMaster: I also think that you, Madam Chair, have been put in a very difficult position because I think the way to file an order like this is to reach out to you and be more collaborative and to perhaps have a neighborhood meeting upfront. And I think you're in a very precarious position right now of having to respond to your constituents. And I think if anyone can try to mitigate those concerns moving forward, regardless of what happens that I'm confident you will do. So, but I just thought it was important to publicly say that I don't like the way this order came down. And I think prior to coming down, you know, there should have been more collaboration with you and opportunity for you as the word counselor to address some of these concerns upfront rather than on the back end.
▶ 30:21 Shawn M. MacMaster: So, I'm sorry that that didn't happen. That's essentially my, my feelings on the order is it's not that I see myself voting. No, if this moves forward, it's voting. No, tonight for they're not being enough information as to what the actual vision is relative to alcohol. And I think. I think it was mentioned, weddings, parties, whatnot, I think there's a very clear difference between maybe having a movie night in the park where somebody can purchase a glass of wine or renting out a public space for some sort of an event that would potentially deprive other members of the public an opportunity to really use that park in a way where that Uh, function not happening and again, that comes down to what the larger vision is and I'm just not clear on that right now. It's not to say that there's not an opportunity for the administration to provide that information and have a better understanding what the vision is.
▶ 31:25 Jen Grigoraitis: But I'm not there yet. Thank you. Madam chair. Thank you Councilor McMaster and just to kind of tie the comments of my colleagues together. I do see this very much as a ward issue. One of the two designated areas given as an example is Mount Hood, which is in Ward 6. We've heard from many residents about ongoing concerns at Mount Hood and I think the debate about whether or not those concerns are going to be exacerbated by a beverage cart Is really irrelevant because I think we, as counselors, and as a city have an obligation to address quality of life concerns for our residents. And so that is 1 of the things I've been speaking with the administration about is, how are we addressing the very real concerns about trash, speeding, lack of current enforcement of our rules that they stand so that those residents can enjoy the same quality of life.
▶ 32:12 Jen Grigoraitis: everyone i echo the concerns about the idea of private events taking up public space and also what would be the impact on a very densely populated area i can't imagine some of the residents around the common or cedar park wanting somebody's wedding reception happening um in that area so i i also wish this had been rolled out differently i do think it's an incredibly important question and it clearly has generated both a lot of engagement of residents and of my our colleagues on the council we have many of you here tonight and i am very mindful that if this doesn't move forward for the committee that we then deprive the rest of our colleagues of the ability to take a position on this which i think there is an appetite to do so i would be
▶ 32:55 Jack Eccles: comfortable with moving forward at this time as well but have some real hesitations about what is before us um is there anyone else who's a voting member wishing to speak before we call the role counselor yeah sorry for the just for the second time um i just think you know talking about thinking um thinking about the the mayor's task force um this is an ordinance change that we as city councilors are empowered to to make um so so i mean this could this could have come forward from anyone and i think that any member of this body and i think that um you know separate and and apart from hearing from the administration, I think that we can all take a position on this based on hearing the concerns and analyzing
▶ 33:45 John N. Tramontozzi: is there precedent for something like this? It seems like yes, looking at the mayor's letter in Wakefield. So I would be fine having several more meetings about this, but I think that this is something that I would feel empowered taking a position one way or the other. Thank you. Councilor Eccles, Councilor Tramontozzi. Yes, thank you Madam Chair. I am not in favor of this proposed ordinance change for the same reasons that my fellow councillors, some have expressed. However, I understand that and I'm inclined to vote no on any motion to send this to recommend. But I think it's important that this council, all members of this council have a say in this important issue. I think it'd be more appropriate to send this to the full board without recommendation and the full board have the opportunity to vote on this measure.
▶ 34:54 Jen Grigoraitis: As the chair has suggested, this is more of a city-wide issue and I think that's one way of doing it. But I'd leave it to the makers of the current motion as to what they intend to do going forward. That's just my comment. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Tramontozzi. Councillor, President Sinell. I'll be happy to withdraw my motion and take motion to um to send without recommendation back to full council i'll withdraw my second second so we now so the excuse me the original motion has been withdrawn so we now have a new motion by president sanella seconded by councillor eccles to uh move forward to the full council without recommendation which just because i think that language can be confusing is just a neutral
▶ 35:50 Shawn M. MacMaster: this body is not taking a position on it. So that is the motion before us now. Is there any discussion on that motion? Councilor McMaster. I'm not opposed to that, except it does feel a little bit like cut potato here. I think if we're doing that because the committee is satisfied with some of the information received in the form of the letter that we received, I think it's important to note that, that that would be a change in circumstance. What it doesn't change is there's still some outstanding information that I'll be looking to request in writing. I understand council echoes point. I just think a decision. Like, this speaks to. Larger impacts as a community, which relates to where we are, where we are eventually going and.
▶ 36:45 Shawn M. MacMaster: Loosening regulations to me doesn't tell us where we're going. It's a, it's a step and I'm not opposed to that, but I'd like to know more of what the ultimate vision of the, of the administration is. I feel like we're starting to get that somewhat, but based on some of what council Megler Elliot also raised, I'm still curious about that. I'm fine voting to get this back in front of the full council. If my colleagues are comfortable with what information we have received over the last couple of weeks, that would be seen as a change in circumstance, but I would be requesting in writing. I don't think I need to do it in the form of a motion. I would hope that the administration would be responsive to what else I'm looking for again, which is the findings from the ad hoc committee commissioned by the mayor. Thank you.
▶ 37:42 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Councillor McMaster, Vice Chair Migliorelli. Thank you, Madam chair. Um, I, I guess I have a different taken that. I don't know that. We're going to get any more information from the administration, so I would be likely supportive of this motion to recommend without, um, or motion motion to send back to the council without recommendation. Um. Because I, I don't think we're going to get any more information. I don't think based on that. I think that the information that we have is sort of, it's still unclear as to what we're trying to do here. What the problem, as I said before, what, what is the problem we're trying to solve and whether this is a solution to that problem. I also don't know that having more information from the advisory task force is going to help me personally as, you know, I imagine that perhaps what I suggested there about loosening our regulations around the restrictions of how many drinks you can purchase without purchasing food.
▶ 38:43 Leila Migliorelli: It might be part of that plan. I think that's irrelevant to this ordinance too, that you can do one and not do this. Um, I guess I just don't, I just haven't had a compelling reason as to why to do this. And I think, uh, counselor McMaster brought up a good point about, you know, there's, there could have been maybe some guidance about. Whether this would be for private parties, whether this would be for a city wide event, and which would sell alcohol. There's just, it's just a very, like, there's just not a lot of information here. So, rather than holding it here, and I think we should send it forward. I don't think we should send it back again, because I just don't think we're going to get any more information.
▶ 39:18 So, let's just move it on and let the whole council weigh in. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the committee. Okay, seeing none, Madam clerk, can you please call the role? Oh, I'm sorry, my apologies. Did consular echoes withdraw a 2nd, and if I missed that, my apologies. So, the motion is and did it was there a 2nd to consulate chairman motion? I think president and then reintroduce most recommend without recommendation to move forward with that recommendation. Thank you. Madam clerk. Chair Grigoraitis, right? Yes. Vice Chair Migliorelli? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councilor McMaster? Yes. Councilor Eccles? Yes. President Cinella? Yes. Six yes. Six yes, so this will go before the full council without recommendation.
▶ 40:39 Jen Grigoraitis: So at this time I will, that is, that concludes our agenda for this evening. Councilor McMaster? Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just make a motion to attach the letter from Mr. Van Kampen, the City Solicitor, dated May 5th, 2021 to the order. Was that it? No, something's glitching on your end. I thought it was attached to the order, but I think it's already attached. I'll second it, just to make certain that it is. So, sorry, we have a motion. Oh, this foot. Are you. Okay, to attach the letter from Mr. van camp into the record made by council McMaster seconded by counselor. Madam clerk, can you please call the role chair? Grigoraitis. Vice chair, yes. Counselor yes. Counselor McMaster. Yes, counselor Eccles.
▶ 41:54 yes president sanella yes six yes access to the motion carries motion to adjourn made by councilor chairman seconded by president sanella madam clerk can you please call the role chair Grigoraitis vice chair Migliorelli yes Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi. Yes. Councilor McMaster. Yes. Councilor Eccles. Yes. President Cinella. Yes. Six yes. Six yes, and we are adjourned. Thank you all, have a good evening.