Appropriations & Oversight Committee

Agenda

Transcript

▶ 0:01 Devin Romanul: All right. Hey everybody. Good evening. The time is 7:00 PM on Thursday, July 9th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Appropriations and Oversight Committee. My name is Devin Romano. I will be chairing this evening. Also joining us are Vice Chairs Vandiver, Counselors Chen, Finocchiaro, Jamaluddin, Kowal, Park, Williams, and President Freeman, ex officio. For the members of the public, we have two city counselors that will be participating remotely, so we cannot operate by unanimous consent, so we'll be taking roll call votes for all those annoying little procedural items that we have to do. So, thank you for your patience in advance. First order of business, we have the approval of the minutes for our most

▶ 0:42 Devin Romanul: recent Appropriations and Oversight Committee on June 29th, 2026. Make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Motion to approve the minutes made by Counselor Finocchiaro, seconded by- Second ... Counselor Kowal. On discussion. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Counselor Vandiver? Yes. Counselor Chen? Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro? Yes. Counselor Jamaluddin? Yes. Counselor Kowal? Yes. Counselor Park? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. All right. The motion passes. Up next, we have public comment. I'll now entertain a motion to open public comment. Make a motion to open public comment. Second. Motion made by Counselor Finocchiaro, seconded by Counselor Kowal. On discussion.

▶ 1:35 Devin Romanul: Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Yes. Counselor Vandiver? Yes. Counselor Chen? Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro? Yes. Counselor Jamaluddin? Yes. Counselor Kowal? Yes. Counselor Park? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. The motion passes. We are now open for public comment. This is the portion of the meeting where the public may speak on any items on tonight's agenda. Comments expressing any other viewpoints on other matters are also welcome. Do we have anybody here in the audience? No. Do we have anybody online? No. All right. Seeing none. Make a motion to close public comment. Motion made to close public comment made by Counselor Finocchiaro.

▶ 2:16 Devin Romanul: Second. Seconded by Counselor Park. All right. Changing it up a little bit. On discussion. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Yes. Counselor Vandiver? Yes. Counselor Chen? Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro? Yes. Counselor Jamaluddin? Yes. Counselor Kowal? Yes. Counselor Park? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? Yes. That motion passes. All right. Motion passes. Public comments is now closed. First item on tonight's agenda, we have order number 2026-1508, approval of a lease agreement for the Archdiocese of Boston for the lease of a parking lot near St. Mary's Church at 41 Myrtle Street, Melrose, Massachusetts. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you all for having me here tonight.

▶ 3:02 So this first item on the agenda is, as the chair mentioned, is approval of the lease agreement with the archdiocese. Negotiations have been completed, and this order before you tonight is the mayor's request to approve a lease agreement for a term of one year, for an annual rent of $42,000. So as you all may recall, this lease agreement is for 53 parking spaces in the St. Mary's Parish parking lot located at 41 Myrtle Street. It's been used for many years as a municipal and public parking lot through this lease with the archdiocese. This lease has had mainly the same terms and conditions since 2017. The archdiocese has not moved off of those negotiations. This term, I've focused only on the term of the years and annual base rent to

▶ 3:42 be charged to the city. So just a little bit about the background of the negotiations this cycle. So last negotiation cycle in '23, the city agreed to an almost 20% increase in annual rent. So that was from 30 to 35,000. So between fiscal '24 and fiscal '26, it was 35,000 annual rent. This time around, for a three-year lease, the archdiocese wanted it to be adjusted to 54,000. So that was more than a 50% increase. And again, that would be with no change in terms or conditions and no change in the city's maintenance obligations, which during this cycle, we estimate it to be around $16,000 a year. During negotiations, they made it clear they weren't interested in reducing the number of leased parking spaces to the city or separating parking out on the parcel

▶ 4:25 in any way to try to revise the terms, and to possibly minimize disruption to the flow of traffic if we were to end the lease altogether. So that being said, what you have before you is what we were able to come to an agreement on. So it's a one-year $42,000 annual rent paid by the city, and the mayor's requesting your approval of this lease for this current year, and I'm happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions from my colleagues? Counselor Kowal. Thanks for being here. Where are we going to be a year from now? What's your sense? Because I feel like this is a little bit of a kick the can down the road, and so again, 35 is bigger than zero. They were getting 35. I'm sorry if that's what you said.

▶ 5:12 35. Yep. I apologize. And so I'm just curious as to why we ended negotiations in- instead of trying to look for a longer term so we're not back here next year having the same discussion. Well, the answer to that is, I think based on this current negotiation cycle, I think the city's going to have to think very hard of whether this is a relationship it's worthy to continue, given the drastic increases in rent that we've experienced, especially this time around, but also last time around. It doesn't seem like they're willing to back off of that. They've always been very resistant to longer lease terms. They've only ever agreed to three years. Mm-hmm. And this time around, they would not back off of three years at 54,000, which

▶ 5:50 was not appealing in any way to the city with no data to back it up as to why it would increase that much with the same maintenance obligations, et cetera. So I think this year, my understanding is the city through DPW, the mayor's office, we're going to be taking a closer look on what that would look like- If we were not to renew the lease next year. So taking a real serious look on that. Obviously, this time around, there wasn't enough time to do that. We didn't have an indication before we went into negotiations that this would be the situation. But I think we have to take a serious look at that this year and see if it's still an arrangement that works for the city. What is that area zoned as? So, in other words, if we don't renew

▶ 6:25 and they own that property, what can they do with it other than it be a parking lot? So the ownership is separate a little. So we do own a lot of the parking lot. Right. So we would have to actually figure out, in conjunction with ISD, we would have to figure out how this is going to work, because it would disrupt the flow of traffic. We'd likely have to paint over parking spaces. We would still be able to access area businesses. There would be parking spaces, but it would be a lot less parking spaces. So all of those details still kind of have to be discussed and worked out depending on what they're planning to do. Right. But the way it's zoned, could they build something there? Or can it only be parking?

▶ 7:01 Elizabeth Kowal: I would have to check with the building commissioner. That's not my understanding with how- Okay ... it is, but yeah. Okay. I think that's important to know, sort of. Mm-hmm. Obviously not now, but I think going into next year, it's- We'll look into all of that ... going to be important to know- Yeah ... if we're ending this agreement, what they can and cannot do with that property. Mm-hmm. Because that, depending on what it is- Yep ... could increase or decrease our leverage- Yes ... with them. Mm-hmm. Up next, I have Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you. Thank you for being here. So initially when I read the lease, I had some reservations specifically about some of the terms. But then I found out that asking some

▶ 7:42 Cal Finocchiaro: questions previously, that, as you said, that lease has been in effect since 2017. Mm-hmm. It's written more of like a building lease. But I've been sort of ruminating over this, and I don't love it, but at the same time, I think it does give us a year to kind of make some decisions about the path forward and what we're going to do. It is only a $7,000 increase, which is sort of on the same trajectory from the 30 to 35, as far as percentage increase. So, personally, I'm in favor of moving forward with this as is. Up next, I have Councilor Williams. Hi, thank you for being with us. Through the chair, I just happened to look up, it's Zone BA-1, so that's the business district. So presumably, the way that that zone works

▶ 8:42 Ryan Williams: is that it goes over to Myrtle Street, which encompasses the entirety of the property, which is listed as Parcel 41. So you could sell it, and anybody could build basically anything that's allowable within BA-1- Right ... which would be commercial or residential or multifamily or whatever. So I voted present on this last year, and I know it's always like, do you want to stick a wrench in the works of something that's been going on for a couple of years? I wanted to ask follow-up on Councilor Finocchiaro point. So the lease has been around since 2017. Do we know what arrangement or agreement existed prior to that lease? My understanding is there was one that existed in 2012, and then there was a period

▶ 9:33 of time where there was no lease. And in 2017, they entered into a new revised lease. 2017, I believe is the... I'm trying to think. I think 2017 was the first time they increased it from, I believe it was like 18 spaces to 30 to 53, or maybe it was 35 to 53 something. There was an increase in the number of spaces. I think before 2017, there was that lot that's sort of here, so it's sort of a little bit separate, the St. Mary's part of the parking spaces. Those were restricted, so St. Mary's was still able to permit those out, et cetera. And then I believe it was in 2017 that we added those to be unrestricted, so the city and municipal have full use of all of those spaces. So this time around, as part of negotiations, we tried to say, "Let's go back to

▶ 10:21 Ryan Williams: the arrangement where we're not going to use those spaces anymore or call them restricted." Mm-hmm. And they weren't willing to go back to that arrangement. Historically, I don't expect you to have all the answers for this, right? But I wanted to ask, and you're here. So, historically, has this been prior to the current agreements parking for the church? Accessory parking for the church? I mean, who was parking here? Because it's obvious that it makes sense as sort of commercial parking for some of these restaurants. Mm-hmm. But prior to these arrangements, I'm curious about what the intended use of this land was and how it was used. That I don't know. It's dating back a very long time. I know before 2017, and

▶ 11:12 just tracking the communications, I've been able to locate in files on St. Mary's parking lot lease. There was a concern that St. Mary's teachers and things were parking in that lot when it was supposed to be open to municipal use. So that was all clarified in the 2017 lease that those are now unrestricted. Those should be just open municipal parking, that they can't reserve them any longer. But how much of their staff, I wouldn't be able to say that because it's public parking. So I don't know who parks there now, but it is open to any commercial or any resident that wants to park there. Thank you for that information. Do we still feel that the approximate shape of this parcel is similar to what we

▶ 11:53 Ryan Williams: saw the last time we discussed this a few weeks ago, that it essentially is that whole lot, and then it comes through the fence and it's like a big T sort of, an upside-down T? Yeah. That's it? Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. I was looking back at Street View from 2012. It looks to me like it's been exactly the same for at least 24 years because Google captured it in 2012, and it was exactly the same then as it is now. And so I would guess you go back even further, it's probably just always been like that. The thing that is bothering me about this, it bothers me that we lease parking from anybody, or that we lease land and use it for parking from anybody. Because we obviously don't do that in other locations.

▶ 12:40 Ryan Williams: The thing that's really bothering me about this is that there's no resolution to this land use issue. They could, and have, demonstrated a willingness to hold it hostage and just say, "What are you going to do? You're going to kill half the parking for Giacomo's?" Right? And I don't see the resolution to that, right? If they're not going to sell it to us, if we're not going to be able to do something better with it, if there's this risk behind it, it kind of makes me feel like we should just do away with it now and suffer the consequences, and live with those consequences and find the solution now, rather than try to see if maybe next year they'll be amenable to a better deal or maybe in the future something will be different. So I don't know.

▶ 13:29 Ryan Williams: I'm sort of split on this, but I don't like the way that the initial thing rolled out, and I feel like it's risky and I feel like why not just eliminate the risk? And just design it as it needs to be for access without paying somebody for it. So that's where I'm thinking right now, but I want to hear what everybody else has to say. Terrific. Up next I have Councilor Jamaleddine and then Councilor Chen. Thank you, Chair. Do we know until when do we have to sign that lease? When is the timeline? Well, it would be effective dating back to July 1. We've historically signed it a little late because we do need council approval. And like you'll see on the agenda tonight, there's an order later on that once

▶ 14:18 council approves it, we then have to wait 30 days before the mayor signs. So, they have asked me, and I've informed them that this is in front of committee tonight and likely in front of council July 20th. Right. But otherwise, there's no drop dead date. What would happen if we don't sign it? So I don't know what you mean by that. So I think the city council tonight could reject it, and then we've rejected the agreement, and the mayor's not authorized to sign, if there's a vote to either accept or reject. If you reject it, the mayor can't sign it. Okay. If that's what you're asking. I hear you. I meant if we reject it, effective immediately, no one can park there, right? I'm sorry. Can you say that last part one more time?

▶ 15:11 Maya Jamaleddine: I said if we reject it- Yep ... it would be effective immediately once we reject it that no one can park from residence or stuff like commercial or anything. Right. It would be at their will because our current lease expired June 30th. Do we have any penalty, any kind of different clause that we may have to look into? Not to stay over after the end of our lease. We would have to return it. There's certain things when you end the lease, you have to return it to the same condition and make sure things are up, but there wouldn't be any right to stay over for the lease- Yeah ... if that's what we're asking. Yeah. I have two concerns. If this is how much we're going to spend on parking and knowing that we desperately need a social

▶ 16:12 Maya Jamaleddine: worker, I would rather use that money towards the salary for a social worker for this position that we technically eliminated because we could not afford it. That's number one. So if I'm going to list my priority, that would be my top priority. Second, if it was for restaurants and other businesses in Melrose that they are looking to have parking for their customers and this is something that they rely on, I think it would make more sense that they can lease directly from them, and see if this is something that they can have a contract or an agreement between both of them and have five probably parking and share that parking between different businesses in our city, if this is the case that we rely on it.

▶ 17:15 Maya Jamaleddine: I've been monitoring this lease since I've been elected, and every year we say, "Next year it's going to be better. Next year we're going to get to a better agreement. Let's renew one more year." And I don't see an end for this. What's bothering me the most is that we could not even negotiate, or they're not even open to having any conversation. It's technically telling us that this is it or end it, and they're not interested in any kind of conversation. So I'm not in favor. Thank you. All right. Up next I have Councilor Chen. Thank you. So we talked about market rate, and I just was doing the math quickly. 42,000 divided by 53 is about $800 per space. Then if we add in the 16,000, that's 58,000 divided by

▶ 18:13 Jason Chen: 53, and then we're at, I think, about $1,100. So Do we know or does any of my colleagues know what the market space is? I don't, around Melrose or... I know it can vary quite a bit. This is part of the negotiations as they were claiming market rate is a certain amount, and I was asking where the data was coming from, and I never received any. And I don't have my own study to give that information, so... Yeah. I agree that this whole negotiation feels uncomfortable, that the city got backed into a wall and then weren't commercially reasonable in both getting back to you, offering options, and then we felt we have an obligation to support our shop owners and not surprise them by ripping parking away from them.

▶ 18:58 Jason Chen: But I feel like we get backed in, and which is why we went back reasonably and none of us are comfortable with paying more because we feel like we're dealing with an unreasonable party. So I totally understand what Councilor Williams is saying, that this doesn't really solve the problem. And maybe what Councilor Williams is advocating is that we send a stronger message and say, "Hey, this is not really the way to partner or deal with the city, and we don't want to have to deal with this in the city." So maybe another option is we a compromise could be if we can't rent a shorter number of spaces or if we don't want to push this onto our businesses, then we could rent this for, have the term be shorter, maybe six months or even three months,

▶ 19:41 Jason Chen: and say, "All right. We'll give our businesses some time to work through this and sort it out, and then we'll revisit it." But it sends a signal that we're not really happy with the way that this has gone through. So I'm not going to motion for that, but I'm interested in how the council can find a balance between solving the long-term problem and sending a message to how we want to work with this landlord in the future. Because it doesn't feel good to get pushed against the wall and have to accept something in the middle. All right. Up next, I have President Freeman. Thank you, Chair Monell. And thank you to all my colleagues for this discussion tonight. I think it's been really valuable to hear what everyone said.

▶ 20:30 Bradley Freeman: And I keep hearkening back to something Councilor Kowal said at the beginning, that, and she references this kicking the can down the road. In a way, I think that's right, but I think that's the responsible thing for us to do right now is to give this another year, to let this play out in the public so that residents and commercial owners are aware that this parking may go away, and allow them to voice their opinion on it, but also to let the church know that we're serious about this, and more importantly, let the parishioners know about it, a- and see if there can be some sort of pressure to put on a nonprofit in our community that doesn't pay taxes to come to the table. So my position on this is to support it for one year, just so it doesn't feel like we're taking

▶ 21:13 Bradley Freeman: something away from residents right away, because I do think if we lose 53 spots, even if those spots aren't full every day, the trickle-down effect of that on all the other parking spaces is gonna be profound in the city. If you go downtown during the day right now, it's very hard to get a spot along Main Street or behind Shaw's, and that's only gonna get worse if we lose those 53 spaces. So again, my position on this, I know Councilor Williams said he wanted to hear what people were saying, were feeling on this. My position is I think we should support it for one year, and then allow this process to play out a little more publicly, and see if we can reach some sort of long-term agreement with the church, or if the sentiment is

▶ 21:49 they're not willing to do that, and we do move on. But that way, people will know what's coming towards them. Thank you. All right. Up next, I have Councilor Park. Thank you. A question. So in the course of the last time that you presented this issue with the parking, and since we've come to this proposal here, how has that communication been carried through? Has it been through open dialogue face to face? Has it been through correspondence via email? I'm- Email communications. I'm sorry? Email communications. Okay, and they did not respond back to you regarding where they came up with the figure of the 55,000. Is that correct? How did they justify that figure? It wasn't justified. Right. So you had asked

▶ 22:41 no response. 54,000. 54,000. So I can tell you they originally said three years, 54,000. After I met with all of you in executive session, I can tell you I did go back to them, and I believe I proposed three years at $65 a space, which would've been 42,000, but we would revise the parking spaces. So in other words, that part, that's the T that we used to not have before 2017 unrestricted. We would take that off. So that would be completely theirs. We would just want this, the longer part. That's where all the businesses are. So that would be the most minimal disruption to any flow or any of the commercial businesses, we thought, in looking at it. And that would give them back a lot of that parking just for their use.

▶ 23:22 They responded that they had no interest in separating out the parcel for parking. And they said their offer was the same at the... But they did acknowledge. They said, "Thank you for coming up to 42. We can do one year at 42." And I said so that's why we ended up doing 42 or agreeing, I guess, we can do one year at 42. But yeah, they would not come off of 42 either. Okay. So there has not been any in-person dialogue with them- Nope ... just strictly email. Correct. I got it. Okay. Thank you. So where I am with this is that, and I thank my fellow city councilors have raised excellent points, and through the chair, to Mr. Williams' point, Councilor Williams' point, I'm not comfortable potentially

▶ 24:11 not putting this forth because the ramifications for what that parking has for our businesses on Main Street would be, I think, would be pretty severe. And we don't know exactly. There haven't been any studies done in terms of who uses that lot at what frequency, and to potentially lose that lot at a moment's notice is not something that I think would be responsible for the businesses that rely on that lot for their patrons to come and use. I did look into parking, to Councilor Chen point about how much it costs for a spot, and the answer I got wasn't very satisfying because there's just simply too many variables. The municipality, the number of residents, the number of businesses, et cetera, and so forth.

▶ 25:09 So, it's not clear as to what would be market, at least to me. So, that might require a little bit more digging. But at this point, I think the rate that we got for this year is reasonable for what we have. It gives us some ample time to convey this and communicate it to the businesses that use that lot, and at that point, we can figure out or determine what the next steps are. All the points that I think all the councilors have made are valid, and I agree with them, but to not utilize this lot or renew this lot for this next incoming year, I think would be really detrimental to Melrose as a community as a whole. We haven't figured out what parking would be like, the restrictions, the redirects, et cetera, and so forth.

▶ 26:03 Kimberly Vandiver: So, that is my stance. Thank you. All right. Up next, I have Vice Chair VanDe Barr. Thank you. So, I wanted to come back to something you said earlier about if the council were to accept or reject this tonight. I wanted to clarify. I believe regardless of whether we recommend for or against tonight, it would not be decided, right? Because it would have to go before the full council- That's correct ... on the 20th. Yes. So- I was referring to final vote, sorry. Okay. Yes. Great. So, yeah. So, in that case, I guess my other questions have been answered. I also am in favor of public engagement, but I wonder if it could be accomplished in the space of the next 11 days. And so, my thought on it is to vote present tonight,

▶ 26:54 Kimberly Vandiver: if we're putting this up for recommendation, because I would like to see if there are people who really believe they would be affected, who regularly park there, or if the businesses want to ask their customers, or if people see this and say, "Oh, this isn't getting renewed unless we speak up," then I'd like to see them speak up and see what anyone is saying about that before I would vote on accepting the increase. Thank you. All right. Up next, I have Councilor Pernell-Garo a second time. Thank you so much. So, I guess the conversation's been about concerns about our backs up against the wall, and I feel like I would feel more like that if it was that $19,000 increase, right? Mm-hmm. 54,000.

▶ 27:40 Cal Finocchiaro: It's a $7,000 increase. Mm-hmm. We just passed a big override. We're asking people to spend a lot more money on their taxes. I would feel horrible, this is my ward, so I'm extra protective, if our residents now are going downtown and there's blocked off parking- Mm-hmm ... that they can't access. And the businesses downtown now all of a sudden have to deal with a lack of spaces that are going to affect their businesses. I'm a small business owner, that would not be great. So, I know we are between a rock and a hard place. Is that the saying? But I think that ultimately, however the council feels tonight, that's my main concern. It is a one-year lease. I feel more comfortable actually than doing a three-year

▶ 28:26 Cal Finocchiaro: lease, so we do have time to have discussions and the community to get involved, and yeah. This lease predates us by how many years? I think it was Mayor Lyons then, right? Yeah. I don't know. It's been an- It was prior to 2012. Yeah. The agreement was so long ago, and unfortunately, we're finding ourselves in this position now. But I actually feel more comfortable with the one year at this amount. So anyways, that's just my two cents. All right. Up next I have Councilor Williams again, and then Councilor Jamaleddine. Yeah. Through the Chair, I'm sensitive to the concern that a sudden change in the arrangement could be detrimental. I don't know. I think the statement that Councilor Park made is

▶ 29:20 Ryan Williams: true, but I think it cuts both ways. I don't know if this is parking that's being heavily used by patrons, or if it's parking that's being heavily used by people who either work in the locations, or if it's being used by people who are going off to other points and doing other things. I've no idea what's happening with this lot. I go through there somewhat frequently, and it's not always oversubscribed any more than any of the parking in Melrose is oversubscribed at peak hours. And removing 53 spaces from this location, I don't think would change the oversubscription issue at peak hours any more than it would change the under-subscription issue at below peak hours. I think for market rate, it's about what the local establishments are charging for

▶ 30:09 Ryan Williams: monthly parking, and that's the City of Melrose, which charges $120 a year for an overnight parking pass. So, you could call that like a half-day pass for $12 a month. And I found some other examples of off-street parking for rent, where it's something like $100 or $200 a month. But generally speaking, anywhere between $100 and $200 a month, which if you're contracted, and at $60 a month seems sort of favorable, so I give them that. I'm stuck a little bit on the discussion of outreach, right? Because we could have done outreach on this- Mm-hmm ... three months ago, or four months ago, or five months ago. And it's not anybody's fault, it's just the nature of municipal government that unless we push

▶ 30:59 Ryan Williams: back in some way or someone pushes back, people are prone to want to just resolve issues and move forward with things. And so my thinking is that unless we have a really demonstrated effort to move us off of this lease and get some of the businesses sharing some of this cost, that it's just not going to happen, and that when we come back to this in a year, like to Councilor Jamaleddine point, we've come back to it year after year after year after year, that we'll just be having the same conversation. The rent went up a little bit, it's not too bad. We don't want to harm the parking. But the church has got it, so what can we do? And my strong belief is that a lot of the action that this council takes has to create a reaction, because if it doesn't

▶ 31:40 Ryan Williams: create a reaction, then we don't see any actual forward progress and resolution to issues. So I don't love being treated with a sort of all or nothing choice on it. I think I need to think a little bit more about it. Right now I'm in the sort of present place, which as a reminder is a no vote, but it's sort of like a softer no vote. It's like a kinder no vote. I need to know that if we vote yes on this tonight, that in eight months time, there's going to be a meeting and a discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and the business owners about moving this off of the city's rolls so that we're having some contingency plan for providing egress and access through private property, stuff like that. I just, I don't know.

▶ 32:44 Solicitor Phillips? Yeah. And just if I can add, so I just want to make a distinction. I know you said this has come before council, different councils, year after year, every three years. This is the first time that I know of that it's been a one year. So this is a very big difference. This is sort of a signal either from their side or maybe they see it from us that maybe we both need to reevaluate whether this is still working. So my understanding is there is a serious interest in looking into that. It's up to the mayor's office, Chamber of Commerce, DPW. It's going to be conjunction with a lot of folks, but I think we have to seriously look into it, and I think the mayor's office realizes that, as does the

▶ 33:17 Department of Public Works and Engineering, so. Okay. Because there would be issues if, for example, if the building commissioner did approve, not saying he would, but if he approved fencing, there would be issues with how cars drive through that lot, et cetera, not even involving the parking spaces. So there's lots of different things we need to figure out and moving pieces, which is why at least having a year would allow us to do that, even if at the end of that we say, "We're not looking to renegotiate." Maybe at the end of the year we are, but maybe at the end of the year, after looking at everything, we decide or the mayor decides it's better not to. So I think those are serious conversations and things we're

▶ 33:53 planning on looking into this coming year. Thank you very much. Up next I have Councilor Jamaleddine again. Thank you. When was the last time we had any kind of negotiation? Do you mean with the archdiocese? Mm-hmm. I have not had an in-person conversation with them. No, I meant the last time, not during this renewal. Last year, the year before, the year before. I believe in 2017 when they actually sat down, I think the city had to approach them about having- Mm ... a written lease agreement because there was nothing in writing at the time. And because there was nothing in writing that they had, they sat down and did have discussions. My understanding is this lease agreement is a very standard lease agreement they use for most of their properties, which is why

▶ 34:46 they're unwilling to move off of it. So there's really not much to discuss in person. If there's an interest in meeting in person, we're always available to do that. The discussions have been very quick and short, and there hasn't been very much, and there hasn't been any real ask to meet in person on these ones. Since I've been here, and I believe even before me, it's always been about the term and the rent. That's really the term, meaning the number of years and their annual rent. So there hasn't been any serious sit down discussions. That's obviously something maybe that needs to happen this year once we start to look into things to see if it's actually an agreement we want to continue with.

▶ 35:23 Maya Jamaleddine: Yeah. And do you remember, and I may be 100% wrong, but what I remember is during the deficits, we had to cut on a lot and it was a conversation about whether or not continuing with them. Is that correct? Yes. Before the override? Yes. And they were not open for any discussion? Correct. We did contact them and let them know that it's a possibility, given the financial situation of the city, that council might say no and might reject the agreement and not appropriate the funds. And we wanted to give them advance notice, so that they could maybe make arrangements with area businesses or contact them and figure out other arrangements. My understanding is they didn't take it that way. They thought we were trying to cancel their lease.

▶ 36:14 Maya Jamaleddine: They haven't said that to me directly, but that's my understanding of what happened, and I think that sort of set the tone for these negotiations, in my opinion. Yeah. Thank you. So here's my issue, is that this is not since 2017. Yes, it's since 2017, but it did not stop at 2017. Last year we did have this conversation, so we did give them a heads up That this is too much money for us, and that we would like to bring the price down. So it's been a year since we've been trying to negotiate in a different way how to bring this price down, and instead of bringing it down, they actually raised it. So, through the chair, I'm asking my colleagues, if this is the case, we're going to give them another

▶ 37:09 Maya Jamaleddine: year. I'm not being optimistic that they're going to consider that in one year. That's number one. And if for the businesses and for those that use the parking lot to park, we've been having this conversation since last year, whether or not we can make those changes, whether or not we can prepare to stop using this parking lot or actually decrease it or make any kind of changes to be able to afford it. And instead of finding a solution of how to afford it, they increased the price. So I am trying to see a way to accept this offer to be able to renew it, and I'm not finding one reason that's telling me there is a chance, there is a hope that this is going to be better next year. Thank you. Can I just want to make one point of clarity?

▶ 38:13 Of course, yeah. Yes. Last year there was discussions, but I just want to clarify. There was still one year left on the lease, so there was no discussions about lowering their rent payments, anything along those lines. There was still another year that we were scheduled to be set at 35. So last year was just letting them know, because it is subject every year to council appropriation like any other thing in municipal finance. So we have a contract, says 35,000 annual rent. We still need council to appropriate the money. We were letting them know, given the deficit, it's possible council doesn't appropriate the money. There was no negotiations or discussion about an amount. Whereas this year it was a brand new lease agreement.

▶ 38:45 Maya Jamaleddine: So our lease agreement was set to expire July 1, and it's a brand new lease agreement, so both sides can come with brand new amounts. I just wanted to make that clarification. Mm-hmm. Thanks so much. Yeah. Thank you so much. I 100% agree. It's just that it shocked me that, yes, we told them that 35, there is a possibility that we may accept it or may not accept it, and yet they increased it. That's my concern. So thank you for the clarification. Thank you so much. Up next, I have Vice Chair Vandiver and then Councilor Williams. Thank you. I have kind of an unusual question that I thought of. If we sign this one-year lease right now, or on July 20th, if we approve signing it and the mayor signs it, do we have to use it for parking?

▶ 39:32 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. We can't do anything else with the space? No. Because the reason I ask is- It's very restricted. It's for parking and municipal purposes only, no other purpose. So, okay. So we can't set up anything. So for example, we don't need to use it for public parking, right? So for example, could we park all of the council aging vehicles and the health inspector vehicles and some police cars or whatever? Could we use it for a different purpose to kind of get away from it and like soft trial, not having that parking lot, and see how much really the business is pushed back? If not even some completely other thing, like if we could use it for a pop-up store, like at the Y, but maybe that's off the table.

▶ 40:12 Kimberly Vandiver: But could we park other stuff there or just not fence off half of it and see how much people complain? So good. The intention of the lease is for public and municipal parking for free parking for residents. So I think we'd have a hard argument unless we're going to renegotiate the terms of the intention to do that. We definitely have to use it for parking. Can't use it for any other purpose. Okay, parking. So we could not set something up in the lot, for example. But we're- For parking spaces ... so we're required to make it open public parking as part of that lease? But municipal parking lot, yes. Okay. But could we limit-- A municipal parking lot, for example, we have some spaces that are only for parking

▶ 40:51 Kimberly Vandiver: by the fire department in this lot over here and- Mm-hmm ... we can limit spaces, right? I don't think that's addressed in the lease. I don't think there was any intention or discussion of that at any point, as far as putting parking meters in or restricting it in any way. It's always been open public- Okay ... municipal lot. Yeah, I'm curious because we were all having this discussion about how bad would it be if we didn't have that parking lot, and so if that were something that could get adjusted in the lease or that they would, in written form express that that was okay with them and we were all okay with that. If the city had some intention to do that before July 20th, that would also make me more favorable towards it

▶ 41:32 Kimberly Vandiver: because it would be like, okay, we are taking some steps to see what it would look like without that lot or something like that. So it might be something, if there's anything in the interim that could be further checked into about that, I think that would be interesting to me. Sorry. That's all I have. Okay. I didn't know if there was a response. I didn't want to interrupt you. No, like I said, the intention is for public and municipal parking lot, so it's going to go back to what the negotiations were initially when those terms were agreed upon. I think the understanding has always been free parking. Mm-hmm. I think they also do get a benefit from the parking spaces as well, so if we started to just park our municipal vehicles there, I can't imagine that they would

▶ 42:28 Ryan Williams: agree to that. Yes. Or if we block things off, I don't think that would be a very minimal adjustment to the lease. I think that would be something that would definitely require a negotiation of the lease terms. But yeah. Okay. All right. That's just off the top of my head. Thanks. All right. Up next I have Councilor Williams, then President Freeman, and then Councilor Finocchiaro. This is exactly the question that I was going to ask. Not about parking municipal cars there. Through the chair. Mm-hmm. Through the chair. I was going to ask about using it for permit parking, overnight parking. So I read the lease, section seven, permitted uses, "Tenant shall use the premises solely for the purpose of public and municipal parking

▶ 43:04 Ryan Williams: in accordance with terms and conditions of section 11 four of this lease." Mm-hmm. Section 11 four, blah, blah, blah. Just says, "Keep it clean, keep it free of ice and snow, don't let trash accumulate, don't commit or suffer to be committed any waste, or act or thing which may disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other tenant or occupant of the premises." It's a parking lot. Or cause discomfort or annoyance to the landlord. No, there's a clause in there that says yeah. It depends on what they're... Yeah. So no- So ... so no religious displays please. It's hard for me to say. Yeah. Okay. So here's the thing. I actually think we can use this for permit parking or for some other reason. I think we do have a little bit of control over this

▶ 43:54 Ryan Williams: according to the lease. That would be a discussion for the executive branch, right? We could not direct them to park garbage trucks there, although that's a really funny idea. I'm sorry. It would be amazing. Sorry. I'm sorry. Ugh, gosh. Yes, I had something else in my head, and this idea just really derailed it for me. I struggle a little bit with the idea that the archdiocese is coming to us with a declaration of market rate like they're a property developer looking for the highest and best cost that they can get for a property. I worked for the archdiocese in a past life, so I understand that they are a large landowner and that they leverage that to the best of their ability. And ultimately, I don't know what

▶ 44:50 Ryan Williams: this $40,000 funds, whether it goes to the arch, whether it goes to St. Mary's, what it funds at St. Mary's. Again, I think that in the council, my approach has always been that you generate a reaction, and that the reaction is what causes the discussion to accelerate and is what causes the solution to be found, and that if you say okay, that that is your final disposition. And when you say okay, the negotiating party on the other side of the table says, "Oh, yeah. They're good. Forget it. We're not going to have any problems with them." And I just don't like that. I don't like that. And I think we probably could figure out a way to design these lots that was minimally disruptive. There's an ingress and an egress at the...

▶ 45:36 Ryan Williams: There's an in and out, an exit and an entrance at the TD Bank. You come in, you go around the loop, you go back out. Same thing coming up from the park on Grove Street. Yeah, you come up and you can park there, and then you can go back out. So I don't really think that this is something that would cause a dramatic upending. I think what it would upend the most is people that use it to cut through and beat the lights from Foster Street down to Grove Street, which is not how it should be used, and is also very dangerous for people that are in the parking lot trying to walk to businesses. So I think that whole area needs to be revisited, and I think that voting no on this might be the way to kick that conversation off.

▶ 46:22 Ryan Williams: And by the way, I mean no disrespect to yourself, the mayor, and I know you know this, but just to say it out loud. The people who have been back and forth on this and worked hard on this, and then felt like, "Okay, we've got something. Let's take it forward." And then to hear me and some other people say, "I don't like this," is sort of not the best. So it has nothing to do... I think you guys did great work. I think that you pushed them hard, and I think that they just don't have any interest in working with us. All right. Up next I have President Freeman. Thank you, Chair Lonel. And through the Chair, I just want to address something that Councilor Williams said earlier, and I think he's right in that we don't

▶ 47:06 Bradley Freeman: know who's parking in these lots, whether they are customers, whether they're business owners, whether they're folks with other interests in Melrose. But the reality is, they're going to park in Melrose. So if we do away with those spots, they're going to park somewhere else downtown, which is going to create more parking challenges. Which again, is why I support this proposal. And I also just want to remind my colleagues that downtown continues to evolve. We're going to get a study in two weeks at our next A&O meeting on a planning session that was held about the future use of the current police station, as well as the Ripley School. And I attended that planning session along with two other councilors, and the

▶ 47:46 Bradley Freeman: number one thing we heard from folks at that meeting was, "Downtown needs more parking." So again, I think if we were to unilaterally take these 53 spots away without any public dialogue, without any public notice, I do think it would cause a reaction. And I understand what Councilor Williams is saying about that reaction helps guide decision-making, but I really think in situations like this, that the public is speaking to us. They are speaking to city officials about challenges parking downtown. And I feel it would be irresponsible of us to take these spots away without any enhanced dialogue, particularly given what we heard around the future of the police station site, and just the general need for more parking

▶ 48:29 Cal Finocchiaro: downtown. So with that, I'm going to make a motion to recommend. Second. Motion to recommend made by President Freeman, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion, I have Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you. I don't know if you could answer this, Ms. Phillips, but I have a question about if we did move forward with this, whether it's now or obviously after the 20th Could we invite the administration back in a few months just to kind of get an update or kind of give us an idea of what they're thinking, what the space, if they've done any kind of extra homework or sort of come up with a plan? So we're not finding ourselves back here in the spring trying to figure out where we're... But maybe give us an update with some kind of

▶ 49:17 Kimberly Vandiver: preliminary plan of what they're thinking. Mm-hmm. I'm not saying that's a motion or anything, but I'm just thinking if there's a way that we could plan something like that, I feel like that would be helpful. Up next, I have Vice President Verderber. Thank you. As I said on an earlier comment, I do think, and along the lines of Councilor Williams' comment, that I'd like to see public engagement that might come from us indicating that we may not approve the lease tonight. I also, through the chair to President Freeman's discussion about the need for more parking downtown that some people have expressed. I'd also like us to think creatively as well about what other ways are to solve that problem if people are having that problem.

▶ 50:09 Kimberly Vandiver: And obviously, Melrose is very walkable. I usually walk downtown. But even beyond that, there are several events per year where we do shuttles. And people love the shuttles. People take them all over town, right? If 10% of the people who park right now would take a shuttle, we could have a shuttle running from further reaches of Melrose or something like that. So I don't know that parking is the only solution, and that may not be what people see, especially with what their experience is, is, "I want a place to park." But, yeah, I'd like to challenge that slightly and also see what people say in the intervening week and a half. Thank you. Councilor Williams. Thank you. Through the chair, we're always welcome to file an information

▶ 50:55 Ryan Williams: order, and they've been viewed as hostile in the past sometimes, but they don't have to be, right? They can just be a request for information. "Hey, come before us and tell us what's been going on with this." So any of us can do this, and I'd be happy to co-sponsor something like that down the road to hear more. The second thing that I wanted to discuss in relationship to the parking conversation is that we have not, as a body, really tackled this question of parking as land use, and the dynamics of who attends public meetings and what their concerns are and whether they're representative and how many people you hear from versus the other 30,000 people in the city. I think that it's clear that Melrose, like every other

▶ 51:34 Ryan Williams: city, has a peak demand parking crunch. If you're trying to get dinner at 7:30 or 6:30 or something, or if you're trying to go grocery shopping before a holiday or whatever, we've all had the experience where we have to circle around a little bit and look for a place to park. Off-peak, not as much of a problem, and I generally find that I can, with a little bit of creativity, find a place to park. I think it's when we rejected the parking study, one of the things I suggested to the planning director was that we look at a more holistic transportation plan rather than a parking plan to talk about how the city takes people in, and how that includes storing their personal vehicles. It also includes getting them in in ways that are outside of cars.

▶ 52:16 Ryan Williams: It includes ancillary parking lots, et cetera. So I think we have a lot to discuss, and we should discuss it, about parking in the city and parking demand and transportation. Mm-hmm. But I don't foresee the tragedy. I don't have the same fear about what will happen if we knock these spots down. Councilor Finocchiaro. Thank you. Sorry, one more comment. I just wanted to say, I agree with a lot of the statements that we're talking about, about feeling like we shouldn't go forward with something when we feel like we're being pressed. I find myself to be a principled person, and I feel like this kind of goes against how I would normally function. But at the same time, we are elected by the residents of this community,

▶ 53:04 Cal Finocchiaro: and I feel like it would be detrimental to them to pull away 53 parking spaces without giving time to discuss and maybe bring it in the forefront and let them see what's happening. And if this was a three-year lease, I'd say no. I'd have more reservations, but this is a one-year lease. It's for $7,000 more. And I just feel like, like I said, we're here to represent the residents, and it's going to directly impact them. Obviously, it's very important to me because it is my ward, and also the business owners that are here. So, that's just my two cents for that. Up next, Councilor Park. Thank you. I echo a lot of what Councilor Finocchiaro has said. I really want to stress to this council that we should

▶ 54:02 really focus on what we are going to be voting on at hand and not the context or the history of how we got here. So all the points that I've heard are valid in terms that we've been backed into the corner, but at face value, at what we are looking to vote for, which is a $7,000 increase to the current parking, would this be an issue? Would this come up if it was 35? Would it come up if the rate was increased by 4,000 or 5,000? If you do the math, the $7,000 increase comes out to $19.17 a day. Is it worth potentially really affecting businesses that utilize that lot and to, through the chair, we've heard councilors say It could be used by the businesses. It may not. We don't know. And I think that's precisely our point.

▶ 55:03 We don't know, and I don't want to take the chance on removing a lot that may potentially have big repercussions to those businesses when we're struggling to have local businesses here in Melrose. The other point that I would like to raise is that we have to actually vote for this on the 20th, I believe, the city council is. So how much public discourse can we have between now and then in terms of communicating what's at hand and what's at stake? The weekend's here, we're going to lose three or four days already. Is that really fair to the constituents or the people who are going to be affected by this decision? We talk about making sure that people have ample time to communicate their views.

▶ 55:50 Elizabeth Kowal: I don't think that falls in line with what we're potentially suggesting. So, I urge you to think about what we are actually voting on, which is $7,000 increase for this year, and then we can have the luxury of that year to figure out all these wonderful ideas and put them in place. But the ramifications of not passing this, at least through the A&O Committee, would be detrimental. Thank you. All right. Last in queue at this point. I have Councilor Kowal. So it's not $7,000, it's $42,000 that we're looking to put forward. So I go back to what Councilor Williams has said, Councilor Chen has said. So, sure, but it's not, it's $42,000. And so one of the things that I'm thinking about is that we did get an override this year, and we're putting a lot of

▶ 56:52 Elizabeth Kowal: money out there, right? But there's still a lot of people who are very concerned about their money, and that was a lot of discussion during free cash about was this money well spent? Was it worth being spent? Just because we have it, do we need to spend it? And so I'm mindful of that, is that it's not $7,000, it is $42,000. And that might not seem like a lot. In a town like Melrose, it is a lot. Think back to the hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of conversations we had about free cash. There were some that were less than this that had more conversation. So I appreciate what everybody is saying, but I just, again, I don't want to get lost in this. It's only seven. It's not only seven.

▶ 57:33 Elizabeth Kowal: There was a lot of conversation for those of us who ran and for those of us who continue to talk to people about how money is being spent. And just because we have it now does not mean that we need to go and spend it unless it is for a very valid reason. And I go back to something else that Councilor Williams said, which is, there was time to talk about this. There has been time to talk about this. And again, this is not on you at all, right? This is how life goes, and I get that. But I also go back to Councilor Williams' point, which is we kick a lot of stuff down the road, and we say we're going to bring people back in to talk. So far, we're bringing back the fire chief, we're bringing back the

▶ 58:14 Elizabeth Kowal: veterans, which is great, that's our job. But at some point, we have to take a stand on things that aren't right. And I think a lot of us sitting around here know in our gut, this is not right what happened. So I'm a no on this, if it's not clear. And, again, I take everybody's point, and I understand all of that, but I think there are bigger picture things that we have to look at here, and we do a lot of kicking the can down the road on this council. And I think there are times when we have to stand up and say, "This isn't right, and how this has gone about is not right." And I think this is one of them. Councilor Nogueira. Sorry. Through the chair, I appreciate everything that you just spoke about.

▶ 59:00 Cal Finocchiaro: I think it's really important to focus on the fact that it is a three-year lease each time. Pretty sure that they had it at a very low rate for a long time, then they bumped it up from 30 to 35. Mm-hmm. So we were at 35 for the last three years. So that's where the $7,000 increase is coming from. We've been paying $35,000. Prior to that, we were paying $30,000. So it's a $7,000 increase to what we were paying. Like you, I'm concerned about the residents that I speak to, and a lot of the times they bring up parking issues. And like I said, if we think about the grand picture, we are asking people to spend a lot more money in taxes to live here. So a $7,000 increase per year is not a lot for us to pay to give them a

▶ 59:52 Cal Finocchiaro: quality and the ability to park downtown. That's kind of how I see it, right? I agree. I think that we should slow down to look at issues and not rush them through. I agree with you on that. My biggest concern is not approving this and parking goes away, and it's a major issue. And I said this before, if it was a three-year lease, I'd be voting very differently. This is a one-year lease. It's not the $19,000 increase that they were originally asking for. It's $7,000, which tracks from the increase from the prior year. If you're playing devil's advocate, if I am the archdiocese and I have these parking spaces and I know that I can make a little bit more money off of them, you can understand why they're looking for an increase.

▶ 1:00:49 Ryan Williams: But besides that, put it on the record, I would ask for an informational session a few months from now, whether it's six months from now December, whatever, and ask for an update on where we were at with this. I'm supportive of moving this forward this evening. Councilor Williams? Sorry. Everybody's making really good points. Honestly, everybody's making really fantastic points. And I want to be clear that for the folks who I think are considering not doing this, it's not out of an intention to try and take something away, through the Chair, from the residents of the city of Melrose. I think there's an honest disagreement about what impact something like that would have, or actually, what would happen immediately

▶ 1:01:45 Ryan Williams: thereafter. Mm-hmm. Right? Would this generate an immediate conversation with business owners to try and find a way to fulfill this parking, or would they just put a fence up the next day and say, "No one can park here anymore." Right? That's the question we all have, and we don't actually know the answer to that question. We don't know if we approve $42,000 for the next year, and we go to the businesses and say, "Hey, guys, we paid for this this year, but we don't want to pay for it anymore. Will you pay for it?" They might just say, "No. Good luck." And I'll say, personally, when I voted present on this the last time it came around, was because I'm not comfortable with the city being in the business of paying for parking, right?

▶ 1:02:35 Ryan Williams: We don't charge residents for parking. We don't have meters on Main Street or any streets. We only charge for the overnight parking permits. And so the idea that we're open to buying or renting land for the purposes of parking, for me, it feels like this would be a non-issue if it wasn't a continuous strip that went from Foster to Grove. If it was just that little lot in the back, I think the city would've ditched this a long time ago. I think it's the fact that we feel that we can't not buy it from them. And Councilor Park is right, it is $7,000. Right? We've approved small things. We've approved that kind of money for something. So I feel like it would be minimally disruptive to pass this tonight.

▶ 1:03:26 Ryan Williams: My concern would be that we'll be here on July 15th of 2027 asking these exact same questions again. And in my experience, when that happens, people sort of forget the past, and they forget the statements they made, and they move forward. So I'm still not sure - All right ... where I'm at. But I do very much appreciate the conversation, and I do take very seriously the feedback that folks have offered and the points that they've made. Appreciate the vibrant conversation, everybody. And seeing no others, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Vice Chair Vandiver? Present. Councilor Chen? Present. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? No. Councilor Kowal? No. Councilor Park? Yes.

▶ 1:04:38 Devin Romanul: Councilor Williams? No. President Freeman? Yes. Chair Romanul? No. One, two, three, four. So we have four no's and two presents, and presents are no's. Correct. So it doesn't pass. The motion does not carry. Mm-hmm. That will go back to full council with a recommendation not to pass. All right. Yes, all right. Is that how that works? Yeah, recommendation. I believe so. All right. Up next, ID number 2026-1509, appropriation in the amount of $7,000 from the Contract Stabilization Fund to account one, excuse me, 012962527950 for rental expenses for the St. Mary's parking lot lease. Councilor Williams. Through the Chair, if we rejected the lease, I think we can have a vote on it. We can discuss it, but it's sort of a moot point.

▶ 1:05:48 Ryan Williams: I will say that we have occasionally seen movement between the committee and the council meetings where some new information has come to light. And so for the public's awareness, this information that we are voting on tonight goes back to council, and it could pass in full council if new information becomes available, even if we vote it down here in the committee. Councilor Chen. Motion recommend. Motion recommend made by Councilor Chen. Second. Second by Councilor Finocchiaro, on discussion. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Vice Chair Vandiver? No. Councilor Chen? Present. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. No. Councilor Kowal. No. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams.

▶ 1:06:51 Devin Romanul: No. President Freeman. Yes. Chair Romanul. No. The noes have it. All right. That will go back to full council with a recommendation not for passage. Finally, ID number 2026-1507, request that the city council approve the written determination that the lease transaction of the St. Mary's Parish parking lot is a unique acquisition of property pursuant to Mass General Laws 30B. Solicitor Phillips, any commentary? This is only necessary if council ends up recommending the lease. So, it's up to the committee how you'd like to- Motion to recommend ... discuss this next. Motion to recommend made by Councilor Finocchiaro. Second. Seconded by Councilor Park. On discussion, I have Vice Chair Vanderberg.

▶ 1:07:41 Since you're here with us in committee, can you give a brief overview of, in the event that we decide to pass this, what this portion of it would do? Yes. So 30B, which is the procurement law in Massachusetts, there's a Section 16E2 that says the city may enter into a lease for real properties, that includes parking lots, without issuing an RFP if council determines in writing that there's a unique piece of land, such as this. So, in the past, this has always been determined to be because of location. So, this one is because of the location of the property, is how we've determined in the past, because it's right near downtown, it gives access to area businesses. What would happen is council would vote,

▶ 1:08:20 they would draft a written determination that this is a unique property, which is what we've done in the past. And I have drafted one that council would look at, council could edit before we approve it, and then if it's approved by council, it then goes to the central register out in the state. It gets published for everyone to see for 30 days, and then after that, the mayor can sign. But you have that waiting period between when council votes and then when the mayor can actually sign. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Any other questions? Councilor Chen. For the record, for any parking lot landlords out there, if the rent was kept at $35,000 for this, I would vote yes. Duly noted. Any other councilors? Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

▶ 1:09:07 Vice Chair Vanderberg. Parking lot. No. Councilor Chen. Present. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. No. Councilor Kowal. No. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. No. President Freeman. Yes. Chair Romanul. No. Noes have it. All right. The noes have it, and that will go forward to the next city council with a recommendation not for passage. That being our last agenda item, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Williams, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro, on discussion. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilor Vanderberg. Yes. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Kowal.

▶ 1:10:17 Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Chair Romanul. Yes. That motion passes. Motion passes. We are now adjourned.

Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2026-07-09

Agenda

Transcript

Original documents