Legal & Legislative Committee — 2026-01-20
Attendance
Cal Finocchiaro ; Bradley Freeman ; Manjula Karamcheti ; Elizabeth Kowal ; Kimberly Vandiver
Agenda
- CALL TO ORDER
- Attendees
- MINUTES APPROVAL
- PUBLIC COMMENT
- ORDINANCES
- Revise the existing Animal Leash Law to REMOVE this language : The Animal Control Officer may, at his/her discretion, waive the provisions of Subsection A if a determination is made that the owner or keeper has a valid reason to have the dog unleashed or untethered for training, exhibition or show purposes. [Amended 8-21-2017 by Ord. No. 2018-4]
- Amending Chapter A, Article II, Section 210 of the Administrative Code of the City of Melrose to expand the authority of the Historical Commission to include regulatory authority as necessary for demolition review.
- ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Legal & Legislative Committee Tuesday, January 20, 2026, 7:00 PM City Council Chamber, 1st Floor 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Manjula Karamcheti Vice Chair Cal Finocchiaro Elizabeth Kowal Kimberly Vandiver Brad Freeman President, Ex Officio Member Maya Jamaleddine Chair Meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Karamcheti at 7:01 PM Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Manjula Karamcheti Vice Chair Present Cal Finocchiaro Ward 6 Present Elizabeth Kowal At-Large Present Kimberly Vandiver Ward 5 Present William Bradley Freeman President, Ex Present Officio Member Maya Jamaleddine Chair Absent Non-voting members also in attendance: Jason Chen Christopher Park Devin Romanul Ryan Williams II. MINUTES APPROVAL A. Legal & Legislative Meeting November 24, 2025 7:30 PM Motion to Approve the minutes by unanimous consent without reading made by Vice Chair Karamcheti RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Manjula Karamcheti, Bradley Freeman, Cal Finocchiaro, Elizabeth Kowal, Kim Vandiver NAYS: None ABSENT: Maya Jamaleddine 1 III. PUBLIC COMMENT Motion to Open public comment made by Vice Chair Karamcheti at 7:04 PM There were no comments on the floor or via Zoom Motion to Close public comment made by Vice Chair Karamcheti at 7:04 PM When: Jan 20, 2026 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Legal & Legislative Meeting Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://cityofmelrose-org.zoom.us/j/95331852026?pwd=v0tkdTjEGOes0s0AF67eHG0agIs8B4.1 Passcode:828534 Webinar ID: 953 3185 2026 IV. ORDINANCES
A. (ID # 2025-613): Revise the existing Animal Leash Law to REMOVE this language : The Animal Control Officer may, at his/her discretion, waive the provisions of Subsection A if a determination is made that the owner or keeper has a valid reason to have the dog unleashed or untethered for training, exhibition or show purposes. [Amended 8-21-2017 by Ord. No. 2018-4] Motion to Recommend to full council made by Councilor Vandiver Seconded by President Freeman All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Manjula Karamcheti, Bradley Freeman, Cal Finocchiaro, Elizabeth Kowal, Kim Vandiver NAYS: None ABSENT: Maya Jamaleddine Comments on Discussion: -Councilor Finocchiaro stated that this ordinance came about since some residents and some dogs have been attacked by unleashed dogs. It is necessary to remove this wording to allow the police to enforce the leash law. Rob Carrillo from the Parks Department supplied a memo expressing his support of this ordinance change. Councilor FInocchiaro read the memo and it was added to the Item ID as an attachment. Chief Faller recently provided some feedback asking if there could be an exemption for law enforcement canines in training and exhibition. -Councilor Vandiver commented that we have issues generally speaking with enforcing our ordinances and we need to get the language correct. -Councilor Finocchiaro stated there have been incidents where the police and parks department have tried to enforce the current leash law and certain residents are aware of this loophole, which then prevents enforcement. Removing this language will allow them to enforce it. -President Freeman consulted with the Health Department and found that it's not very prevalent to have permission for an unleashed dog. Only 1 resident in 4 years has applied to have an unleashed 2 dog. So it's appropriate to remove this language to remove ambiguity for enforcement and to determine how it's enforced. -Councilor Kowal agrees with updating the language and asked who is responsible for enforcement, expressing concern that the ordinance won't "have teeth" without proper enforcement. Is it the police or the health department? We need to revisit this along with other ordinances that don't have clear paths of enforcement. -Councilor Williams supports cleaning up the ordinance and says there is a need to avoid residents bending the rules, especially on a repeat basis. Currently either the Animal Control Officer or Police Chief are named to get involved when residents are fined for a violation. -Councilor Finocchiaro stated they are considering doing a social media campaign using the Police Department and Administrative Department to remind residents of this law and to educate them on the change in wording. -Councilor Vandiver proposed adding signage to parks. There are currently signs and maybe they can be enlarged and include more language. -Councilor Finocchiaro suggested an amendment to include additional language to Section 93-6D stating that law enforcement canines are exempt. Councilor Williams assisted in stating that language. -Vice Chair Karamcheti suggested bringing it to full council as they could consult with the police department to get the language correct. -Councilor Vandiver suggested keeping it in committee for a few weeks until the language is complete. -President Freeman stated that if kept in committee, it will expire according to the 45 day rule since it was filed in December. -Councilor Williams suggests passing it as is. The language can be changed at the next L&L meeting if necessary. -Council decided to vote on the ordinance in its current wording.
B. (ID # 2026-10): Amending Chapter A, Article II, Section 210 of the Administrative Code of the City of Melrose to expand the authority of the Historical Commission to include regulatory authority as necessary for demolition review. Motion to Recommend to full council made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Kowal All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Manjula Karamcheti, Bradley Freeman, Cal Finocchiaro, Elizabeth Kowal, Kim Vandiver NAYS: None ABSENT: Maya Jamaleddine V. ADJOURNMENT The City of Melrose does not discriminate based on disability and is committed to hosting accessible meetings and events. Individuals with disabilities who need auxiliary aids and services for effective communication, written materials in alternative formats, or reasonable modifications in policies and procedures, in order to access the programs and activities of the 3 City of Melrose or to attend meetings, should contactthe City’s ADA Coordinator, Polina Latta platta@cityofmelrose.org. Motion to Adjourn by unanimous consent made by Vice Chair Karamcheti at 7:19 PM Meeting was adjourned 4 City of Melrose, MA § 93-6. Leashing requirements. [Amended 5-20-2002 by Ord. No. 02-324] A. No person shall own or keep in the City, outside the confines of the owner's or keeper's property, any dog that is not held firmly on a leash. B. REMOVE this language : The Animal Control Officer may, at his/her discretion, waive the provisions of Subsection A if a determination is made that the owner or keeper has a valid reason to have the dog unleashed or untethered for training, exhibition or show purposes. [Amended 8-21-2017 by Ord. No. 2018-4] C. Violation of this section shall be punishable as follows: (1) First offense, unaltered or altered: fine of $50. (2) Second offense, unaltered or altered: fine of $100. (3) Third offense: $150. 1 (4)Apprehension: $10. (5) Confinement: $10 per day. (6) Kennels: $100. (7) Seeing eye dogs: no fees. D. Exemptions. Dogs will be permitted to go without leashes only within areas designated as "off-leash dog areas" as determined by the Board of Park Commissioners in accordance with § 173-17, provided that: [Added 6-4-2012 by Ord. No. 2012-180] (1) All dogs are leashed prior to entering and upon leaving the off-leash dog area. (2) All dogs must be accompanied by a guardian who must remain with his/her dog(s) at all times while using the off-leash dog area. (3) Guardians are legally responsible for their dog(s) and any injuries caused by their dog(s). (4) Guardians may bring no more than three dogs to the off-leash dog area at one time. (5) Guardians must dispose of their dog's fecal matter in accordance with § 93-8. (6) The following dogs are forbidden from entry into the off-leash dog areas: (a) Dogs in heat. (b) Dogs less than six months of age. (c) Dogs without municipal licenses and up-to-date vaccinations. Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ME1773 on 2025-11-12City of Melrose, MA (d) Aggressive dogs. Any dog that engages in fighting or that does not respond to voice 1. Editor's Note: The line "Adoption: all fees and expenses" which immediately followed this subsection in Ord. No. 02-324 was deleted per instructions from the City as superseded by Ord. No. 02-102. See § 93-11. Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ME1773 on 2025-11-12City of Melrose, MA § 93-6 § 93-6 command. Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ME1773 on 2025-11-12 City of Melrose Parks Department 100 Slayton Rd. Melrose, MA 02176 As Superintendent of Parks and Open Spaces, I support the decision to revise the existing Animal Leash Law by removing the discretionary language that allows the Animal Control Officer to waive leash requirements for training, exhibition, or show purposes. While discretion can be valuable in limited circumstances, this provision creates ambiguity in enforcement and increases the potential for inconsistent application of the law within public parks and open spaces. Our department is not opposed to the presence of dogs in parks; however, our foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety, comfort, and equitable use of public open space for all residents. Unleashed dogs—regardless of training intent—can present safety concerns for children, seniors, wildlife, and other park users, as well as create uncertainty for individuals who may be uncomfortable around dogs. Clear and consistently enforced leash regulations help reduce conflicts and promote a predictable, safe environment for everyone. Thank you, Rob Carrillo Superintendent of Parks and Open Spaces CITY OF MELROSE Legal Department City Hall, 562 Main Street Shannon T. Phillips City Solicitor Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone (781) 979-4184 sphillips@cityofmelrose.org To: Mayor Jennifer Grigoraitis From: Shannon T. Phillips Subject: Amending Chapter A, Article II, Section 210 of the Administrative Code (Historical Commission) Date: January 6, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________ Amending Chapter A, Article II, Section 210 of the Administrative Code of the City of Melrose as follows: § A-210. Historical Commission State law reference: MGL c. 40, § 8D. A. Established. There shall be a Historical Commission consisting of seven members. B. Authorities and responsibilities. The Historical Commission preserves, protects, and develops the historical and archaeological assets of the City. The Commission may conduct research for places of historic and archaeological value. The Commission may, subject to appropriation and approval by the Mayor, advertise, prepare, print and distribute books, maps, charts, plans and pamphlets which it deems necessary for its work. The Commission, for the purpose of protecting and preserving such places, may make such recommendations as it deems necessary to the Mayor and, subject to the approval of the City Council, to the Massachusetts Historical Commission that any such place be certified as a historical or archaeological landmark. The Commission surveys and compiles a listing of all historical sites and buildings within the City, public and private; determines the functions and structures of all historical organizations within the City; and holds correlative seminars with historical organizations. It further determines the requirements for repair, reconstruction, and protection of historical landmarks, is responsible for conducting demolition review as set forth by City ordinance, and assists and cooperates with public commissions in the conduct of public historical events. The Commission has all of the other powers, duties and responsibilities that are given to historical commissions by the General Laws. Page 1 of 2 C. The Historical Commission is an advisory multiple-member body of the City, and a regulatory multiple-member body only insofar as is necessary to conduct demolition review per City ordinance. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF MELROSE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 JENNIFER GRIGORAITIS Telephone - (781) 979-4440 Mayor To: Melrose City Council From: Mayor Jen Grigoraitis Re: Amending Chapter A, Article II, Section 210 of the City’s Administrative Code Date: January 7, 2026 Please accept this memo in line with Section 5-11 of the City Charter regarding Order 2026-10 Amending Chapter A, Article II, Section 210 of the City’s Administrative Code As a result of the recent passage of a Demolition Review Ordinance (Order 2025-571) as adopted by a vote of the City Council on December 1, 2025 an amendment to the City’s Administrative Code needs to be made, allowing the Historical Commission to have the regulatory authority over the demolition delay process as contemplated by the ordinance. The changes to the administrative code are outlined via the memo from the City Solicitor attached to Order 2026-10. Please note as part of the process outlined in Section 5-1 of the City Charter, the City Council shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposal and does not have the authority to Amend this Order. Thank you for your consideration. 1 https://ecode360.com/35250804#35250805
Transcript
▶ 21:33 Manjula Karamcheti: and Counselor Freeman, president Exofficio, and also joining us as non-voting members, or Counselor Williams, counselor Chen, counselor Park, and Councilor Romanul. This also provides our attendance and provides a notice of a quorum for the record in accordance with the open meeting law. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast on local cable access channel TV as well as livestream through the t v.org. This meeting will be available for future viewing through the City of Melrose website meeting portal as well. Um, first we'd like to approve the minutes of our legal and legislative meeting. That was on November 24th, 2005 at seven 30. All motion by unanimous consent to approve the minutes.
▶ 22:24 Manjula Karamcheti: Seeing no objections, the minutes are approved. Now we'll move on to public comment. In public comment. This is the time where any members of the public may speak on any items on our agenda. The committee does not engage in any back and forth dialogue, but we'll listen to what each individual has to say. I'll motion by unanimous consent to open public comment. Seeing no objections, public comment is now open. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in public comment? Ms. Clerk? Do we have anyone online? No one online. Okay. I'll motion by unanimous consent to close public comment. Seeing no objections, public comment is now closed. So, moving on to ordinances, we have two that we're looking at this evening.
▶ 23:21 Manjula Karamcheti: The first is ordinance ID number 2025 dash 6 1 3, which is the revision of the existing animal leash law. To remove this language, the animal control officer may, at his her discretion, waive the provisions of subsection A, if a determination is made that the owner or keeper has a valid reason to have the dog unleashed or untethered for training exhibition or show purposes. So just to summarize, this is to take out this language from the current, um, ordinance that we have in place. What is, oh, go ahead, counselor for nario. Yes, thank you. Um, I am the maker of this revision, so I just wanted to give some context. Um, and I actually have a statement from the Parks Commission, um, department Park Department, uh, Rob Carillo.
▶ 24:16 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. Um, that I'll read in a second. But, um, basically this came about, uh, we had a few incidences in the city where, um, residents were attacked by unleashed dogs, as well as other dogs were attacked by unleashed dogs. Um, a few that we're aware of anyways that were reported. Um, and so this little clause allows people to have unleashed dogs for training or show purposes. It was added, I think, in 2017. And so in order for the police and for the parks department to enforce the, uh, the leash law, um, it just seems appropriate to remove this language because we actually don't want unleashed dogs anywhere, but to be trained anywhere inside, like anywhere other than a person's enclosed yard or like the dog park.
▶ 25:05 Cal Finocchiaro: And we have two of those dog parks in the city. So, um, that's the purpose and kind of the background why we're looking to remove this language. And I'll read Rob Carlo's statement, if that's okay. That Would be great. And then if we could add that to the record. Yep. Um, sorry. He emailed this to me. So I, uh, as superintendent of Parks and Open Spaces to support this decision to revise existing Animal leash law by removing the discretionary language that allows the animal control officer to waive leash requirements for training, exhibition, or show purposes. While discretion can be valuable in limited circumstances, this provision creates ambi ambiguity and enforcement and increases the potential for inconsistent application
▶ 25:46 Cal Finocchiaro: of the law within public parks and open spaces. Our department is not opposed to the presence of dogs and parks, however, our foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety, comfort, and equitable use of public space for all residents. Unleashed dogs regardless of training intent, can present safety concerns for children, seniors, wildlife, and other park users, as well as create uncertainty, uncertainty for individuals who may be uncomfortable around dogs, clear and consistently. And Forest leash regulations help reduce conflicts and promote a predictable, safe environment for everyone. Thank you. Rob Carillo, superintendent of Parks and Open Spaces. Um, I did, um, receive, uh, some feedback from the chief of police as well.
▶ 26:35 Cal Finocchiaro: Um, he was actually asking if we could in addition, sorry, this just kind of came in today, so I didn't get a chance to send it, um, request a law enforcement exemption or something of that nature. Uh, for canines that are training, uh, doing an exhibition. So technically like they're able to have off, off leash dogs, you know, law enforcement, but not like the typical resident. So I don't know if we wanna incorporate that tonight or everybody thinks about that. So with that, I'll throw it back to you. Do any counselors have any questions regarding the removal of the language that's proposed tonight? Councilor Vanderberg. Thank you. Um, I guess, uh, my main ma misgiving about it is just, as you know, uh,
▶ 27:29 Kimberly Vandiver: through the chair, as you know, we have issues with enforcement generally speaking mm-hmm. Um, of all of our ordinances. And so, uh, I'm not sure, I, I think we should get the ordinances right. So I think if if there's a need to make the ordinance fit better, we should do that. I think we should just acknowledge that we have an ongoing issue with enforcement of our ordinances that, um, that this will not, and, and so this will not get us all the way necessarily to where we want to be with these issues that have been coming up with off-leash dogs. Thank you, Counselor. Oh, would you like to respond through the chair, If that's okay? I respond. Um, so I guess there have been instances where the parks department or the police have tried to enforce the
▶ 28:15 Bradley Freeman: Unleashed dog ordinance, and there are some residents that are aware of this sort of loophole. Um, and so we kind of are stuck, so it will help them enforce it if it's not there. I'm gonna call on counselor President Freeman as a voting member. Councilor Kowal as a voting member, and then Councilor Williams as a non-voting member. Thank you. Chair. The floor is Yours. I drew you to, to Council Ncu. I wanna thank you for filing this ordinance. And I think that, you know, one conversation I did have with the health department is I wanted to get a sense from them how prevalent the application to have an unleashed dog is. And health director shared in his four years, he's had one application for this.
▶ 28:58 Bradley Freeman: So I do think in that this will remove any ambiguity for law enforcement, code enforcement for many residents saying they have this permission, which is permission structure that has not been utilized by residents. I, I, I think is appropriate at this time. And then to councilor Van de Be's Point would love to talk about code enforcement and how we help mitigate this problem, you know? Mm-hmm. While enforcing the ordinance. Thank you Councilor Kowal. So I have similar, um, backing up what Councillor Vandiver and Councillor Freeman said about the enforcement of this. Um, I don't have objection to the language as written, but, um, it's, I feel like it's a little bit toothless right now if we don't have enforcement.
▶ 29:34 Elizabeth Kowal: So I guess one of my questions is who ultimately we don't, and we also don't have an animal control officer, so who ultimately is responsible for enforcing this? And I think, so that's one question. Um, what is it the police? And do they know that? Is it the health? You know, who, who is it? Um, so I think that needs to be clear. And then again, I do think we need to somehow take this further and really put teeth into this because it's, right now, it's, it's not, you know, there's nothing to prevent people from doing this if people aren't enforcing it and there's no follow up to it. So we do need to revisit this along with many other ordinances that we have that don't have enforcement behind them.
▶ 30:18 Ryan Williams: Thank you Councilor Williams. Good, Thanks. Um, reviewing the current or current ordinance, I see schedule of fees. It is supposedly the animal control officer that establishes, but it is later, uh, said in registration and licensing and other sections that the chief of police is sort of the defacto person that somebody would contact mm-hmm. If they have a problem with dogs. And, um, having dog myself, um, I, although not a voting member, I'm very supportive of the cleanup. I think it's super important because people do know when there's a loophole and if you have a person who's, uh, you know, having frequent problem with having their dog off leash, um, it's, you know, it's very hard for us to prevent
▶ 31:05 Cal Finocchiaro: the first time something happens, but a person who knows that it's not required will do it again and again and again and again. And that's when you can see the benefit of this. So I'm very supportive. Uh, I appreciate the effort to streamline and make small changes. They make a big difference. So, thank you. And Go ahead, councilor. I wanna add something else that, um, I think with this revision, we were hoping to maybe do, uh, well the Millers Police and possibly administration, we spoke about doing sort of like a social media, um, campaign or, or whatnot to, uh, kind of refresh, refresh everybody's mind that, that this is off awfully dogs and not, you know, allowed and kind of put it out there.
▶ 31:49 Kimberly Vandiver: So, uh, just to reiterate it. So hoping if we can get this done, we can do that. So yeah. Thanks. Uh, Councillor Vandiver. Thank you. Uh, and I just wanted to add to that, um, thinking about how we might take this further, uh, I don't know if we currently have any signage at our parks to this effect, um, where we could list out what is isn't allowed, what are the fines. That might also be helpful if, if you're, um, through the chair, if you're in contact with the parks department, might be something to also discuss. Yeah, there are, there are signs. I know that they just might need to be larger, more information maybe. That's definitely, um, I agree with everything you're saying. I think we need to enforce
▶ 32:30 Cal Finocchiaro: and also have additional signage, so. Great. So at this time I'll ask what is the will of the committee being that there is one moving forward on this, but also would you be proposing an amendment of any kind at this time? Yes. I was going to propose the amendment to add additional language. Um, if I could open my phone here, um, and I'd have to figure out where to put it. Um, Section D exemptions is A good, okay, there we go. Um, But it has to be sort of in the main line and not in the following, because the following are reasons why it's about the off-leash dog area. Okay. So I propose to amend along, um, with approving the removal of this language in section, um, well, nine three dash six D in that first line adding,
▶ 33:35 Cal Finocchiaro: um, law enforcement, oh, I don't know how to phrase this here. Um, lemme think about this. Hold on one second. Uh, canine law enforcement canines are exempt from, well, I, I have to, I read, I I don't have the language here. Yeah. And to think about how to write it. Um, so I dunno if we guys should think about this and add it later, or we could do it in full counsel. Okay. Councilor Williams. Well, yeah, actually you just said you could do it in full counsel, which is right. I was gonna make a suggestion, but we could, um, if, I mean, if you have a language suggestion after, well, My suggestion would be, um, police dogs, unofficial business or police dogs, uh, and unofficial police business are exempt.
▶ 34:20 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. That would include all operations with police dogs, whether it's actual Okay. You know, dogs being, If I may suggest bringing it to full counsel as we could consult with the police department to make sure that we get the language specifically that will allow them to do the training and to utilize the dogs in a way that is in service of the public. Uh, I would hate to rush it and then not have it what we need it to be agreed to be utilized. Okay. Councilor Vandiver, I think the other alternative would be to keep it in committee and bring it back in two weeks here, where we could also wordsmith here. Um, I, I just worry a little bit about bringing it to full council without being fully 100% there.
▶ 35:05 Kimberly Vandiver: Just in case we in the moment also can't figure out exactly the right thing. It might be assure that if, if it's okay timeline wise, to keep it in committee a couple weeks and come back to it, get the words right and send it to council, that, that would be my preference. But I'll go with what the will of the committee is on it. I think I saw President Freeman. Thank you. Um, the one concern I would have with keeping it in council is I believe we are bumping up against the 45 days right now because this was filed and sent to committee on December 5th, or the last meeting of the council, I believe. Mm-hmm. So we are pushing it there. Okay. So can We, council Williams, did you have your hand up?
▶ 35:43 Manjula Karamcheti: Sure. Just I say just pass it as is then. 'cause you can immediately go back and re re amend it very next l and l meeting. You can just put the new language in. We'll Do that. All right. Then I will ask, what is the will of the committee motion? Motion To recommend. Second. Okay. We have a motion to recommend by Councilor Vandiver as Amended motion to recommend as amended Motion to recommend as amended by Councillor Van Devin. Seconded by President Freeman. All in favor? Aye. Council can at you. 'cause we didn't Make Oh, you're right. We didn't amend. This itself is an amendment. Yeah. Just a motion to recommend. That's all I was making. Second. All Right. We are all on the same page, though.
▶ 36:20 Manjula Karamcheti: The amended is what we're voting on. Excellent. Um, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. This motion passes and we'll move to our full council meeting. Next we have, uh, ordinance ID number 2026 dash 10, the amending chapter, a Article two, section two 10 of the administrative code of the City of Melrose to expand the authority of the historical commission to include regulatory authority as necessary for demolition review. Um, everyone should have seen the amendment from the city solicitor as well, which describes the changes. And then also a letter of support from the Mayor Councillor for Nario. Yep. Thank you so much. Uh, I think this was the last, um, step in the demo review ordinance that we had put together.
▶ 37:12 Manjula Karamcheti: So I like to make a motion to recommend We have a motion to recommend by Councillor Finn Carrio. Do I have, I have a second. From Councillor Kowal. Uh, anyone on discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. This motion passes and we'll go to our full council meeting as well. Um, and now it is time to adjourn. Um, I'll motion by Union Missent to adjourn the meeting. Seeing no objections. Our meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much everybody. Good evening. The time is 7 21 on Tuesday, January 20th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Appropriations and Oversight Committee. My name is Devin Romano. I'm the chair of the committee. Joining me this evening are Vice Chair Vandiver, as well