The council will come to order. I'll rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Please remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our veterans, service members, and those who have given the ultimate sacrifice. >> The clerk will now call the role. >> Council Cologne Hayes >> here. >> Council Condan here. >> Council Crow here.
>> Council Lewang >> here. >> Council McDonald >> here. >> Council Romani here. >> Council Seca here. Council Simmonelli. >> Council Taylor >> here. Council Winslow >> here. >> Council President Lahan >> here. >> Okay. Under the provisions of o the open
meeting law, for those of you in attendance, please be informed that UMA Urban Media Arts will be recording this evening's meeting. We've also been notified that Malden News Network will also be recording this evening. So, just be aware there will be audio and video recordings of tonight's meeting. First
order of business. >> Mayor Gary Christensen will appear before the council to provide an update on the fiscal year 2027 budget. I'll rise to recognize the mayor. Microphone.
>> Mayor, you have the floor. As you know, a week ago tonight, Malden residents voted down an increase in property taxes to help stabilize city finances and maintain city services. Although question 1A was defeated by a
narrow margin of 124 votes, the community has spoken and I respect the outcome. There is no interest in revisiting the past, only a continued commitment to building a stable and
sustainable financial foundation for Malden. I remain hopeful that we can set aside our differences and work together in the best interest of our community. Our [snorts] team is now working on a
proposed fiscal year 2027 budget. There has been some discussion about the need to revise the net school spending number for fiscal year 2025 and I'll comment more on that later. But let me assure you this, any
representation that the budget situation is significantly better than what was presented is simply unsubstantiated by the facts. As I have stated, the greatest challenge in municipal
budgeting, especially ours, is that the most significant line items are moving targets and continue to be even as we undertook extensive efforts to educate the community about the financial
challenges we were facing. For example, our anticipated savings from our transition to the GIC have always been estimates and will not be finalized until enrollment concludes in
early May. We also did not know that Malden would experience a reduction of more than $5 million in state education aid from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2027.
Additionally, our Northeast Vote enrollment increased significantly, requiring a higher contribution than last year. None of these factors were known at the outset, yet each materially
affects the city's financial outlook. This is unfortunately an inherently imprecise process and again one that remains a moving target. Regarding the net school spending
deficit as another one of those many variables, the previously issued fiscal year 2025 endofear report will require an amendment to accurately reflect health care costs for school employees which
were unintentionally understated. This was a regrettable but honest human error and we are reviewing additional internal controls to prevent similar issues in the future. It is also
important to note that the year-end report is a highly detailed document drawing from multiple data sources, much of which is manually compiled into Excel spreadsheets and put together in a
compressed time frame. While I acknowledged it changed one of the many variables discussed in the public meetings, it did not result in new revenue. Rather, it just shifted the expense from the city side to the school
side. But the overall structural deficit remains the same. Let me repeat that. The overall structural deficit remains the same. As I mentioned, our team is working diligently on a proposed budget.
Eliminating the structural deficit was the purpose of the proposed override and it remains the challenge before us now. We are working with department heads to address the cuts that will need to be made. Ultimately, the extent of those
cuts will depend largely on how much the city utilizes in reserves. in unsustainable practice we must move away from in this budget. It is my goal to
submit a proposed budget earlier than past years to allow for meaningful collaboration and input. I look forward to working together to strike the right balance for Malden. Make no mistake about it, there are no
easy answers this year or in the years ahead. with less state aid and reduced federal support in action is not an option. I am committed to addressing these challenges head on and to make decisions that
strengthen this city for the long term rather than deferring them to the future. Thank you. Well, I want to thank the mayor for joining us. Um, it's been my understanding that while the mayor is
not able to join us to answer questions from the council, of course, we will have an opportunity to do that as our budget gets started in the next couple of weeks. And of course, that doesn't mean that we can't have a discussion amongst ourselves. And I do have some lights on. I'm gonna take councelor
Winslow first. >> Yeah, I appreciate the mayor coming. I mean, I think certainly we all want to know a bit more about how the um you know, the one.6 million related to school department healthcare um that
that mistake was made um you know, what staff was involved and what steps are going to be done to make sure that does not happen. I mean, that's a pretty significant mistake and uh you know, and I I can understand it can be hard to work with um Excel spreadsheets and and I don't know if someone was relying on a
past year or whatever, but you know, really to get to the bottom of it and so that we have, you know, multiple, you know, key people um double-checking the numbers is really important. Um, you know, it just really does make it hard and um you know, I do too will respect
the will of the voters as we go forward and consider the the budget. I mean, one of the things we all have to realize is that um there's not not any true winners. Um there's going to be people who survive and there's going to be people whose lives are significantly ch
changed. Uh I had um was laid off from the redevelopment authority back after the dotcom bust. So, um, certainly know that, uh, my career took a little bit of a while to get back on track, but, um, certainly it changes the course of people's lives and, uh, that's what
we're all will weigh on us and, um, that's that's what we have to deal with the next few months, but, um, the voters have spoken and, uh, that's up to us now and the mayor to, um, deal with that. So, thank you. Great. >> Thank you, councelor Winsow. Councelor Ali.
>> Uh, thank you. So, yeah, my my question to the mayor and the administration would be um when was the miscalculation first known? I think that's a really important number. Um based on what I guess was talked about last night at the school committee, um it sounds like it
was in March. So, just finding out when that happened would be helpful. And I can understand how finding out something like that would be concerning about how do you like how do you reveal that information? But I think that, you know, I think we all as as a council as well
as a community deserve to know that information at least to understand it better. Um I think the optics are challenging. Um and and the other question I would ask is um I'm having a hard time understanding how insurance
rates would impact this number because I would just assume it would be how much did you spend in total or in part on insurance last year. So, like I just don't understand how the rates come into play. Um, but I am also looking forward to learning more about this issue and
others. Thanks. >> Thank you, Councelor Ali. Councelor McDonald. >> Yeah, I also want to thank the mayor for coming in and and giving us some basic information here. Um, there has been obviously uh a memo that folks have seen that we've all received that outlines
the specifics here. You know, when I received this, my two questions were, so what is what is the impact on the choices before us? Um, I'm glad that at least this is an error that works in our favor as opposed to against it. Um, but what I heard from the the comments at
the school committee and what I understand about all of the structural um the structural problems that have created our budget deficit is that all those things continue. Uh we don't have this catch-up payment. all those things continue and and they are greater than even had the voters chosen to pass the
1B we still would have been facing cuts and that's all it doesn't change that reality either so uh I think the big picture from my perspective remains the same and certainly this council has a role in financial oversight that's a big part of what we're here to do not just
to approve the budget and I am glad that the mayor took responsibility for the team uh however that error was made. Um, and I'm glad to hear there's a plan to make sure that doesn't happen again. And I just will want to know what that is. I will want to make sure that we have some
real clarity about how that we're going to avoid that in the future because this is, you know, an honest mistake that is not about money moving in places or not being found. It's not an accounting issue. It's a reporting issue. But reporting issues are still important.
So, I just want to let folks know we will be meeting in the finance committee next week to scope out the many different conversations we need to have now that we've heard um some setup from the mayor. Uh that's going to be a great time for folks to also bring the what are the questions that you want to make
sure we spend time talking about. Um no one of us at the council table makes decisions. We're all responsible for doing that together. So, uh we want I want to make sure that we are scoping out those conversations early so that we have time. I'm glad to hear we'll have a little bit more time than the typical miday
um uh presentation of the budget. Um and I would uh I would just echo my colleagues uh reflections that it's it is going to be a tough budget. People are going to lose their jobs. This is the why it was so important for the
voters to weigh in and now we know uh what the challenges ahead of us. So, um, we'll have to have a lot more conversations like this, uh, and do what we can to mitigate those losses without just getting ourselves back into a structural hole that we cannot get out
of. So, we'll talk a lot more next week, I'm sure, about this process. >> Thank you, Councelor McDonald. Councelor Cologne Hayes, thank you very much. Um, so yeah, now we know where we stand um, after this vote, and I appreciate the
mayor showing up. I I do wish you would have stayed for some questions. I understand there's probably not a lot of answers right now, but at least to answer some um questions that I had, so I'll save those for another time. But we definitely need to obviously figure out what happened here.
Nobody wants to um beat someone when they make an error. Um we've all done that before, but we definitely need to know where it came from so to be sure that it doesn't happen again. And one of the things that I love to hear, I listened to the school committee. I tried to make it, but I couldn't, but I
did listen to it. And they did pass an the audit, the same audit that we had passed here, a DLS um audit. So, that made me um very happy that they're going to do an audit as well. So, the both of us looking into it um is definitely a
good thing. Uh, and also that we're going to be meeting earlier because there's going to be a lot of stuff that we need to discuss and I'm glad to hear that we're meeting um earlier. I think it's going to be very helpful. Finance team is going to be very busy. Um, we're all going to be very busy. We should be showing up um definitely as a team and
trying to get through this because you're right. Um, they're going to be layoffs. It's hard. I'm sure we've all been through a layoff um at some time in our life. It's not easy, but we need to hold each other accountable and we need to figure out what happened here to build trust back up that I believe we lost um during this process. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councelor Colon Hayes. Councelor Simelli. >> Thank you, Madam President. Um you know, I mean, most of us spoke already. I was just going to, you know, if I had gotten the mic a little earlier, I would have just said maybe we should just wait and uh talk about these things uh as we grow
into them. uh no doubt about it that we've got some serious work ahead of us and we've all got to kind of roll up our sleeves now and do our due diligence uh to make sure cuz we're all in this thing together. So, you know, the the bill didn't pass, so now we've got to kind of
like, you know, figure out what we're going to do here. And without a doubt, there's going to be some layoffs here. And I know there's some, you know, money can come from revenue reserve. I've reached out to a couple of counselors already and and let them know what my ideas were uh on being able to uh make
up some uh shortfalls. Pretty much a one-time thing so that get us through another year hopefully if it works out. Uh so we're all going to start to, you know, look around and see how we can all work this thing out together because that's where we are. We're all in this thing together. I I wish I wish the mayor would have stayed
around a little bit longer. I don't know if Marie is is is the the point person tonight to to talk about any of these things. And that's why I would just say that I think we should just wait until we start to take things up in your committee uh council um McDonald uh and
the finance committee so that we do have some of these questions and answers uh tonight because it's [snorts] just it it makes no sense for us to bring them up now if the mayor's not here to answer them. So, I mean, unless, like I said, unless Maria, if you're going to answer some of these questions that some of these councils have, I would just say we
have a full docket tonight. So, we should probably get on to the docket. And uh just to let the citizens know that we all should be working together on this thing along with the mayor's office uh on seeing if we can roll up our sleeves and see if we can get as few
of layoffs as possible and few of cuts as possible and can think out of the box on ways of uh generating uh some new revenue and some maybe even long-term revenue. And we've done this before. I've done this before on some other budget crunches. So, you know, I'd like to try and do it again. And like I said,
I've reached out to some of the counselors. it it would have never made it because we would have needed a home rule petition uh to do it before the ballot question for uh March 31st. But now we do have time enough uh to get it for next year's budget. As you can hear
the mayor say that it's going to be a multi- uh tier uh type of uh years coming up on the budget as far as being able to be fiscally responsible and and watching our pocketbook. So again, you know, I I again, I wish I would have
spoke a little bit sooner. Um that's just the way it falls, right? But I think that where we have a full agenda tonight, I think it's probably important for us to get to that agenda than to be talking about uh things that we don't have any answers for right now. And I'm
sure we will find them in your uh budget committees and joint committees as well. Thank you, Madam President. >> Thank you, Councelor Simmonelli. Councelor Lewong, >> thank you so much. I just, you know, I echo what everybody else has said, but I did, so not to recap, but I did want to
bring up um two things that I hope that we will be looking at at the financial um finance committee. One would be our municipal audit company that we have, you know, why wasn't this type of error found during our audit? Um other things,
what's the path? How did we do things? um we have a checks and balances in this in this city and how did that all break down and I hope we spend some time to really look at that because you know to hear about a $1.6 $6 million, you know, def mistake or whatever you want to call
it two days after the vote and then I find out on Facebook. >> Um, wasn't fun obviously, but I really look forward to, you know, delving into those things as we, you know, go next week. And, you know, we have a lot of work to do and we've
all said this, you know, the public does not trust us. They don't trust our processes. They don't trust what we say. And we need to we need to really do a lot of work to bring that back. You know, I I do have to say, you know, the mayor and his team has have applied for the the DLS um financial review that did
include the Malden public schools as part of that review. It was approved. It's docketed or queued, I think they call it, queued, right? They queued it in for the fall. So, and that's by the state. That's not us. We asked for it as soon as possible and that's what they gave us. So, I think going through the
budget process, seeing where our processes are, and then letting them come in and and do their thing, I think it's going to go a long way to hopefully that repairs. Thanks. >> Thank you. Oh, I see councelor Ali for a second time.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to to ask my fellow counselors if if my understanding of this was correct because I know that we had the two different ballot question numbers. One was the 5.4 4 and one was the 8.2. And so my understanding was the
8.2 took into consideration the in in part this $1.6 million that we had to spend above and beyond the the normal net school spending because it was like air quotes a penalty. And so I I do
think that this is $1.6 million that we're not having to spend more. So, it's a savings, but it's a savings from our from our free cash from our savings account, the $22 million. Um, so I the circumstances are not great. They bring
up a lot of questions, but the as has been cited, I think it is a $1.6 million savings from what we were expecting to spend. Um, I that's just my understanding and and if if if I'm wrong, it would just be helpful, but I I I think I heard something different and
I I just want to make sure I understand it correctly so the public also does. >> Okay. I see a light by councelor McDonald. >> Yeah, I I think that I heard two two things that you were asking about, councelor. My understanding is that yes, this does improve the situation, right?
it works in our favor and the the place that it improves it to is still big is still, you know, $9 million. I mean, that is that doesn't that's to be expected because all of the structural factors that created an $8.5 million
deficit this year are still in place and without count taking that 1.6 million into account. So it's you know the it's be I think I think of this as a liability of the if we don't spend this we get build by the state. So we avoid
this bill that we would have had to pay for either out of reserves or out of operating funds and income. I don't I don't know where that would have come from. We hadn't gotten that far yet. Um, but I do want to be clear that when we
talked about this in the in the finance committee, that was part of why we it was definitely one of the factors we used in talking about why a second tier was important to raise with voters. And we talked about other factors, too. We talked about um the increase in net
school spending um requirement for the future, not the look back, but what do we expect in the future? And we said we don't know how bad that's going to be. Well, that got significantly worse when we got the numbers from the state. And I will just speak for myself that part of the reason I thought it was important to have a second tier was the uncertainty
that went along with all of these figures. So, there were some that we had good estimates that we thought we had good estimates about and there were some that we thought we had less good estimates about. Um, but I think that the I just really want to state again, yeah, this helps. Maybe it would have
been a $10.5 million gap instead of a $9 million gap. uh if this hadn't if if we hadn't been able to um find this error and I'm very glad that we did. Uh and we you know we will talk I'm sure more
about that entire process. So it so it improves the place it improves to is still worse. I don't know how we would have funded that additional piece because we hadn't gotten there yet. And again I think that the reason that the numbers had been created the different steps had been created had multiple
inputs um because there was so much uncertainty around many of these factors that we were cons that we knew we had to consider. So that's my understanding. >> Thank you councelor McDonald. Councelor Colon Hayes for the second time. >> Yeah, thank you very much. So, um I just wanted to respond to the question
because I think it was actually I think I made that motion in finance um for the second question. Um and so for me that's exactly what it was based on. So once we heard there was a shortfall 1.6 shortfall plus a penalty what they call you know um we added that up along with
other numbers that council McDonald just said and we thought this is what we're looking at right so we should instead of coming back like just passing the shorter one the the lower one and come back again because we're still going to need it with these numbers um we decided
to put the the second number on there you know obviously now in hindsight which you know um we didn't know then it would have made it probably easier here it because the lower amount did better uh um in the vote. So I don't know maybe
that if people didn't hear us say oh no we found this 1.6 six maybe more trust in passing the other one but I mean we will never know that but that was my thought thought process um of adding that other you know question it was definitely based on those numbers that
are now not right so that's um not great but that's where we are but thank you for asking that >> thank you councelor Colon Hayes councelor Luong for the second time >> um quick question this is to councelor McDonald not sure if you know the answer
but um when we didn't spend the went over 1.6 million and we keep we received a penalty. Do you know if we were charged the penalty? And if so, would we still be charged a penalty at 62,000? >> Yeah, you know that. >> So, I think that goes into the
calculations of what we owe for next year. We need to make that up. So, we hadn't gotten to making it up yet, right? We hadn't got there. And I want to actually be clear that there's another piece of this whole calculation that is the penalty which is the under spending relative to the target of how
far away we are from the dream scenario that the state has for us for how much local money we can spend. So the we talked about both of those things in the finance committee. Um and uh so we hadn't paid it yet. >> Okay. >> This was this was this is a this is a kind of retrospective report that takes
effect for the following year. Um, and so in checking these over numbers over, I think my understanding is that's how this error was discovered. So, we're going to figure that out more. How do we make sure that we catch these things earlier? How do we make sure that we have the people in place who are going to be able to reliably generate these
reports? All of those questions. Um, those are those are the process questions. But I don't think this changes the money out the door. And I and also to your earlier point, um I I'm curious what the account what the auditors will say, but I don't believe this is an accounting issue because no
money moved. It's a reporting issue that the state would have sent us a bill for, >> but because no money moved or was expected to move at this point. It's not the kind of thing that auditors would would even be taking a look at because they're not looking at our state reporting. They're looking at our
accounts. So I I that would be my understanding. I'd love to know if that is correct. Um, but I I do want to also just note that I mean there's we are have a lot of conversations about trust at this table and trust is a big word that means a lot of different things to a lot of people. But to me what it means
is keeping your promises and being trustworthy. And I think we all have a role in trying to promote enough enough trust that we can have basic conversations about the trade-offs we actually have to make and that we do not use shredding trust to avoid the hard
conversations and make it seem like we don't have to make choices. We do. The voters chose and now we have to grapple with that. So, I hope whatever we need to whatever questions we want to put on the table that we as city leaders are doing that in a way that helps yes, us
build trust and be trustworthy and and raise those questions in good faith. I certainly hear us trying to do that tonight, but we all know that that has not always been the case. I think that's the only way that we're going to be able to make it through this difficult set of choices. So, I just wanted to offer that.
>> Thank you both for that. I I just want to say from the chair to echo some of the things that have been said. I I think all of us are feeling a little bit challenged by this because this has been a really this has been a tough week. You know, a lot of us have given up most of our free time with our families to try
to educate the community on what's been a very difficult vote. Um you know, we now have a budget that's a lot more difficult than we were hoping it was going to be. I think we're working as hard as we can to accelerate the timeline and to work a lot earlier than we typically do with harder
circumstances to be able to make decisions that none of us want to be up here having to make. Um, and this is certainly not information that any of us wanted to be receiving, certainly not right after an election. And having to communicate this to the community is I
will say personally was really, really difficult. Um, you know, some folks have mentioned finding out on social media. That's not how anybody wants to find out something. Certainly not something this difficult. And I think to the extent that we can all row in the same direction and try to promote that trust,
I think is what we have to focus on moving ahead. I'm certainly committed to that. I've had I mean, I feel like I'm in constant communication with the mayor's office. This is just going to be a tremendously difficult spring and summer as we move into this budget cycle. Um, I'm working as hard as I can.
I know Councelor McDonald and I also speak so frequently about how we're going to be transparent and and make these meetings accessible to the public. Um, that's something that we're trying to make a commitment to and to bring our colleagues in and make sure that this meeting process is something that
everybody can feel invested in. I will say that folks have been very very communicative with me. The ideas that folks have shared already. I mean, you know, even just at the morning after the vote failed, folks picked up the phone and, you know, we're all at work the
next day trying to get back to our regular life. And people are brainstorming, what can we do? How can we mitigate the impact of this? How can we do everything we can to make sure the community is as safe and healthy as possible. And I want to appreciate that publicly because I don't I want folks in
the community to hear how hard everybody up here is working to try to come up with solutions in this hard set of circumstances that we face. Um so I want to thank everybody for the comments tonight. Obviously this is not the conversation that we all wanted to be having. I do appreciate that the mayor
came in. I do wish that we could have asked questions but I also recognize we may not have answers to all the questions that we want at this juncture. I know that there's going to be plenty of opportunities for us to convene in committee. I hope that we can really dig into things. Um, I know it's not going to be easy, but I hope that we can get
to that when we start those budget meetings. So, seeing no other lights, I'm going to say that we can move on to our next order of business, and I appreciate all the dialogue that we had here. So, thank you. Next order of business is public comment.
Public comment is allowed under council rules. Each speaker is limited to the subject matter relevant to this evening's agenda and speakers must keep their comments to two minutes or less. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for public comment this evening? >> We actually do. Muhammad Ubata.
>> Let me put the podium light on. >> Muhammad Abu Taha, you have the floor. >> 190. >> Thank you. >> 190 Mountain Avenue. >> My name is Muhammad Abu Taha. I live at 190 Mountain Avenue. Uh like many residents, I voted no on
the tax override, not because I don't support the services of the city or the school, but because many families in our community are already struggling to keep up with the rising costs. For them, another tax increase right now would have been a real burden. The voters have
spoken clearly. Now responsibility shifts to all of us the city leaders and residents to work together on real solutions. We need transparency. We need accountability and most importantly we need a clear plan.
Residents want to understand what went wrong on the budget. What steps are being taken to fix it and how we will move forward without placing more pressure on working families. This is not about blame. This is about trust, responsibility, and leadership.
Thank you for your time and thank you for your service. Thank you. >> Thank you, clerk. Did we receive any items by email? >> We did. So, we have a comment that was submitted by Brian Deacy of One Earl Street regarding agenda item number
four. The clerk received a written public comment from Brian Deacy of Malden News Network accompanied by a full written statement containing 16 numbered questions. The submitter asks that the full document be entered into the record and that the mayor be asked to respond to each question on the record tonight or in writing within a
reasonable and publicly stated time frame and that the following be read. The submission documents the following timeline. September 2025, mayor proposes a $5.4 million override. December 2025, the mayor arrives unannounced with his full financial team introduces a new
$1.6 million school spending crisis and the override jumps to $8.2 $2 million. March 2026, both questions fail. April 2026, 2 days after the election, a memo revises the $1.6 million shortfall to $62,730.
A reporting error fixable with the journal entry. No voter authorization required. The 16 questions fall into four categories. On the books, when was the error identified and who found it? And who verified the $1.6 million before it went on the ballot? On the disclosure, why were the full council,
the press, and the public the last to know? On the audit, have corrected entries been made? Has the external auditor been informed? On the budget going forward, the finance chair now projects a gap north of $9 million. What is that? What is driving that number? Was it known in December? The central
question is this. If the error had been found before March 31st, would the second ballot question to raise their taxes by $8.2 [snorts] million have existed at all? The full written statement is in the record. The submitter asks that the mayor respond to all 16 questions on the record. Thank
you, Brian Deacy, Malden News Network. Thank you. Okay, next order of business. Next order of business is the consent agenda. This evening's consent agenda consists of meeting minutes to be approved and 10 petitions to be referred to the license committee. Does any counselor have a desire to remove any of
these items from the consent agenda for the purpose of further discussion? >> Motion to grant. >> Okay. >> Approve. Sorry. Hearing none. And seeing none, I have a motion to approve the consent agenda by councelor Sika. >> Seconded by councelor Winslow. All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? Seeing none, the agenda is
approved. Next order of business. Paper 196-26. Order that the finance committee engage in discussions regarding the city's current self-insured status and consider possible options for a compre comprehensive insurance policy. The
discussions shall include cost involved, cash reserves needed, and procedures required for any updates to our current status. And this was sponsored by councelor Cologne Hayes. >> Okay, councelor Cologne Hayes for the paper. >> Thank you very much. So um a couple of
weeks ago I had noticed um there was a lot of uh questions about our insurance um policies and what we've um you know what we do here for the city. And um we went I put in an original paper. So we went back and
forth with language with um Mr. Ranigan and Mr. Hogan. And I'd like to um I can talk about it a little bit, but I also wanted to make it uh change ask for um a vote to amend the wording. So basically what
we're looking for, we are Yeah. We're we're self-insured on let's say our automobiles. We have different insurance for other things. So rather than just hold the conversation to just um a
limited view, we wanted to open it up, hear from our um insurance um agent, from the city, our finance people, our city solicitor, have them all present and discuss, learn about what we have and then
discuss possible ways, if any, that we can move for forward with other insuranceances that might, you know, um work better for us. um than being self-insured. So the wording that um Mr. Hogan had u worked with me on to change. So this is what I would like to ask um
to suggest it be changed to Did we read in the the original one? We did first. Yes. Okay. So the suggested change is that the finance committee engage in discussions with the city's finance and legal team as well as a representative from the insurance company to discuss
the city's current insurance policy. So, it's broader because we didn't want to limit it and um you know because if something comes up that we want to talk about, we wanted to have in that. I also talked to our finance chair, our um council president before putting this forward. So, okay. So, you're making a
motion to amend. >> Amend. >> I'll second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion to amend as stated by councelor clone hay, seconded by councelor. Does everybody understand what the amendment entails? >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed?
Okay. >> Could you email me that exact language because you read it so fast? >> Okay. So, we'll email the language to the >> New York came out. >> Okay. Are you all set with introducing Okay. So, I'm going to take some lights with questions on the paper. Councelor Winslow.
>> Yeah. actually uh you know one of the things I did after I was laid off for the redevelopment authority actually set up a law practice where part of my practice was dealing with municipal liability issues like this and and one of the things that um Mass Municipal
Association has a program called Maya which is a insurance program for municipalities and one of the things I learned at that time was um basically it did not cover cities over I think 60,000 or whatever Malden could not qualify.
Lynn or Somerville could not qualify. It's really set up for you know towns that have um smaller um uh you know legal staffs or maybe maybe not much at all. Just a lot of towns and even some cities just have outside legal counsel
don't have staff attorneys. Um and it was also very interesting to get the perspective of where public entities look at insurance. So um one key and one one role our legal department does is
not just um about lawsuits. A big thing they do is risk management. So um an entity like the MBTA actually has someone called a risk manager and in addition to their legal staff. So um so it's just something it is complex and
then when I worked in Somerville and was looking at getting um they didn't have an admissible insurance policy and the difficulty is sometimes you can kind of get oneoff policies for a issue um that you have but when you look at and this
is what we can talk about with our insurance agency when you get an all-in insurance policy um you know there's a question of cost and value I mean you are ultimately an insurance policy at the heart of it is just a guarantee to be able to hire outside legal counsel to
pay your bills to defend something sometimes. So um so that is and then then there's also liability limits of how much that insurance covers. So it's it's a complex thing to see whether it is worth it or not. So that's the type of thing it might seem, but because
municipalities it's it's not uh you're not making like you know there's not like millions of people like homes and cars that that balances out. It's very specific. So it's it's more complicated than you're signing up for an auto
insurance policy or something like that. So that's just something I I'd be happy to sit in on those. So but you know let's look at it. Doesn't hurt. I it'd be good to get an update and hear what that is. I mean something I dealt a little bit with MRA too. So thank you. >> Okay. Thank you councelor Wzo. Uh
councelor McDonald. >> Thanks. I just wanted to clarify for the public um what I know from our exchange earlier but this pay this paper is not about health insurance >> because I some folks had asked me well aren't we moving away from being
self-insured which we are for the health insurance pool. This is actually about um property and casualty insurance, general liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, those kinds of other types of insurance products, cyber security insurance that you can carry.
And so I I'm I'm happy to have us have some discussion about it. The I know the city does carry some limited policies and also we uh as councelor Winslow was saying it can be challenging for municipalities to carry the kind of insurance that private businesses and organizations are able to buy on the
open market for a range of reasons. Um so I'm happy to have us talk about that in the finance committee. I just want to make sure folks knew that we've already made choices about the health insurance. They're not revisiting that. We're but we are talking about this whether purchasing additional insurance coverage
basically as I understand the question is a good use of resources and worth it at the moment and so um look forward to talking about that. >> Thank you councelor McDonald uh councelor Ali. >> Uh thank you. Yeah I think I'd like to thank councelor clone hayes for bringing
this forward. Um you know my understanding in my time on the council was that we were self-insured across the board. Um, so I I wasn't actually aware that we had any insurance policies. I was under the impression that we were, like I said, self-insured for our health
insurance, that we were self-insured for auto, that we were self-insured for everything. Um, so to hear that there are insurance policies, um, was news to me. Um, and so I think it is helpful for us to better do a deep dive into this like what insurance policies do we have?
Uh, and does it make sense for us to have more? whether it's, you know, uh I think maybe the ones we have might be property insurance. Uh but does it make sense to have liabilities, errors and omissions, um an umbrella policy if something happens? I don't know. As
councelor Winslow had had identified, it really has to do as a cost costbenefit analysis, but I don't think that's going to be a very hard costbenefit analysis to do. You just look back the last 10 years, how much money did you spend in lawsuits and how much is an insurance premium going to cost? Um, I think it it
kind of helps us decide, does it make sense for us to get insurance so that we don't have to pay out of pocket? Um, [snorts] and the benefit, as councelor Winsow identified, is that you're not using the the resources of our local council in-house because the insurance company has a really big incentive to
not pay that claim. And so, they're going to defend you tooth and nail. That's the whole way that they keep the money. They cover you and they try not to have to pay out any claims that you might be liable for. Um, that's all they do. They don't have to worry about all of the myriad things that our in-house
legal counsel has to do. Um, I don't know if it's going to pen out in the end, but having the conversation is really helpful. Thank you, Councelor Colon Hayes. >> Thank you, Councelor Ali. Councelor Cologne Hayes again. >> Thank you. Just um quickly, yeah, I should have probably mentioned that to those listening. is not health
insurance. But also, um the reason why we didn't put all the specifics that you're bringing up about our insurance is just because this is an open conversation. We didn't want to make sure like things weren't um left out um and that we did learn. It's going to be
a learning experience about exactly what we have and then what we need. And it is um to Council Winsel's point, we know it's complicated. That's why we're having our solicitor, our, you know, um, the people who deal with this come before us to give us an overview before
we get into any discussions because we are going to be learning. Um, you know, I talked to we're small business owners, um, my husband and I, and I spoke with him and he was talking about how the reason why they get a big liability insurance for exactly what council was saying, so that when something h
happens, he's an architect for so like big major mistakes can happen there. um they're not fighting it hiring a lawyer. Um they pay so that other people can fight that for them and um and it works out well, but it might not work out for us. That's the whole point and we're
having a conversation. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we will be looking for a voice vote to you want to refer this to finance committee. Is that right? Okay. So, on a motion by councelor Cologne Hayes, seconded by councelor Sika. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? That is referred to
finance. Next order of business, >> paper 197-26, be ordained by the Malden city council that the code of the city of Malden 6.08.070C2 licensing of marijuana establishments is hereby amended by inserting provided that no fewer than five marijuana retail
licenses shall be made available after Mass General Law Chapter 138 section 15. Also sponsored by Council Cologne Hayes. >> Okay, councelor Cologne Hayes for the paper. Thank you very much. I won't be changing any wording in this one. So, a while back, um I had noticed while I was
doing some research on the city website that there was a number, um the cannabis license number that usually said five, um for the amount of license we had had changed to four. Um so, I reached out to Mr. Hogan um to understand how that happened, when it happened, um and why
weren't we aware of that. And um so our ordinance states that um it's based on our so our amount of cannabis licenses is based on the amount of liquor um licenses that we have and
the liquor licenses in Malden dropped below to a point where it affected our um cannabis licenses to to four and and we just didn't hear about that. I guess um there's not a clear way of letting us know when that happened because I had
reached out to council president also. We none of us were aware. So we were talking about ways to clarify that and the language um suggested so that we don't want to keep having to pay attention to when liquor license can go up and down. They can fluctuate. And so
rather than um keep a constant eye on that to keep our five um we figure to put in the wording that says provided that so still going by the alcohol licenses, liquor license, but providing that no fewer than five marijuana
licenses shall be made available so we don't run into that problem. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Cologne Hayes. I see a light from Councelor Simelli. >> Thank you, Madam President. I actually support that. Um, and I think that we should be made we should be made aware
of when the licenses drop or go up uh indicating on whether or not uh we have how many liquor stores in the geographical area. I I'll give you an example. In my neighborhood alone, I got like four liquor stores, but I can't have one uh not to go back to this thing
again, but you know, I don't I don't have one marijuana shop in my neighborhood, but I have four liquor stores. So, I I don't know how that all works out, but I think that that all being said, I think it's a good paper. I will support that paper. I think that we should be made aware of, especially right now, and I know that the marijuana
sales, I mean, I haven't seen the numbers, but according to what everybody tells me, uh, that the numbers haven't uh, you know, aren't aren't what they were supposed to be or what they want them to be. Nevertheless, they still are
numbers. So, under these trying times, uh, we should make sure that we're aware of when those numbers go up or go down. Uh, just so we're aware of it. And I don't know how that even helps. I don't know how that helps or hurt us with a lawsuit too. We've got I think we've got
another one coming in too from the other one from the uh >> one on Taylor Street, the corner of Taylor. Not to, you know, I don't want to mention any more about that, but I think I'm sure it's coming in. >> Uh, so I don't know how that affects us uh that way. Uh you know again very
confusing but we should be made aware of it. How we do that I what is it the clack board? Clack >> cl the clack >> clack clack board. I mean they should just let our license uh committee chairman uh know um when those things go up and down and then you know uh council
see could advise us uh on occasion when they go up and down. I don't think that's a big thing to ask. >> Why you? [laughter] >> No, I'm just saying. Well, cuz she's the chairman at the time. If it's Mickey Mouse next year, then it's Mickey Mouse. But I'm saying for now, it's JD and see.
So, [laughter] >> I'm just saying she should be the one. She's in charge of license for us, right? Why not? Just to keep us up to speed. >> Thank you, Councelor Simmonelli. >> Thank you, >> Councelor Ali. Can I say something? >> Yeah. Yeah, sure. You want to respond?
That's fine. Okay. Um, so really quickly, I'm not quite sure that falls under the purview of my license committee. I think that that number probably changed because it it it's direct it it's directly comes down from
how many how many package stores we have in the city. So if the package stores if the package package stores fluctuate, then I would assume the cannabis licenses would also fluctuate. So if we don't have the exact amount that we
need, then it would go down. So if I I'm pretty sure it went from five to four because our package licenses went down. When we were discussing this in 2018, I think we were going back and forth between four and five and we were at
four and a half based on the if I remember based on the amount of package stores we had, we were at four and a half. So, we as the council could have chose to go to four or chose to go to five. We we got to pick. Um, and I think at that time we went to five, but since
then, it's been several years, maybe the package stores declined and hence why it went from five to four. That um, and so I I don't necessarily think that I should be made aware as the chair of license. I think it would be nice for
the council to I I mean I did know that that happened but I'm in constant contact with you know the click with this all different stuff going on. So I um I was aware that that changed because our package stores went
down. So uh maybe just you know moving on if we can just ask them if it was to ever happen again if our package stores keep decreasing and it it decreases more. If we're going to have four, it's not like we're going to go down to three when we have four. We're going to keep it at the four. Am I correct? If if
[snorts] we ended up getting five licenses and our package stores keep declining, we're not going to change it from the five. We can't decrease it from the five when we currently have five. Am I correct, Nelson? Does that sound right? Okay. All right. So, yeah. So, thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you,
Councelor >> Sika. Councelor Ali. Oh, you got to you you want to respond. Council Mali, are you okay? Okay. You're welcome. Thanks. Say again, good information. I have no problem with it. I'm just saying that would be a that's
where I think it would go for us is the license committee so we can be informed about it. It's probably simple as just a memo letting us know. But right now, like I said, under these trying times, I mean, just what what uh councelor see just said, and she I know she's been on top of this stuff. It's confusing. And when people are asking for answers right
now from us and we're talking about, you know, uh being transparent with people and they're expecting five licenses and then we're down to four, we want to be able to have the answers for them. That's all I'm saying is so I think that we when things like this do happen, there should be a mechanism to allow
this council to be aware of when you know the liquor store formula increases, decreases, or that changes the outcome from the marijuana status and stuff like that. We should we should have that information because you know when people ask us out there like oh what are they
doing with the with the with the proceeds that they're getting for the marijuana sales or stuff. I mean as a city council you should have the ability to be able to answer those questions. And I think that's a a good way of of of knowing about it. And again it just seemed like there was a situation just a
few minutes ago on us not being able to get this information. Uh and I thought that that was just a good way of doing it. If that's not the right mechanism then fine. Let's figure out another one. But we should be made aware of when the formula changes to see if the license is
going to go from five to four, from five to six, from four to three, who knows? But, uh, I think we should be made aware of it. That's all. Thank you, council president. >> And I hear you and I think I can make sure to work with the cl so that we can get the information. Um, I think councelor Seika is doing her due
diligence and has package stores and an overlay and probably, you know, a little bit more incentive to stay on top of it as well, but we can make sure to get that information so everybody has it. I don't think we need a paper to necessarily do that. Okay. >> Um, councelor Ali, thank you for your patience. You have the floor. Yeah, I
think I think it was good a good dialogue and discussion and I think if I understand correctly what councelor Clone Hayes is stating is that she would like to move it away from a purely percentage-based formula to a fixed number so that there's not this
ambiguity. Um what I would say is that works for it going down but it doesn't work for going up. So we have to have at least 20%. So what I would say is probably what the language should be is five or 20% whichever is greater something like that. So that there's a
there's a floor but not a ceiling because if we end up having a ton of package stores that open up probably not going to happen but it could um that would require maybe more than five. Um so I appreciate that. Um, the reason why I was putting my light on though is that
um, one of the things I'd asked the council president and and the our legal department is to give us an update on Dris and on benevolent. Um, without going into anything, you know, privileged, um, on March 25th, um, there was a status conference with Dris um,
and then Benevolent tuned in and, um, I've requested the transcript in audio. Councelor Rali, I don't think this is relevant or appropriate to talk about on this paper, though. >> Yeah, I I'm going to explain why it's relevant because >> Can you do that very quickly because I fear it's not really relevant.
>> Oh, yeah. No, it has to do with our marijuana ordinance. So, so basically, I requested the transcript in audio. Um, I found the transcript as part of a legal filing, but I think the audio is really important for y'all to hear what's going on in in reality. Um, basically the the
judge has serious concerns about what we're doing in terms of how we're handling the rewriting of our >> I don't think this is appropriate >> of our ordinance. >> Yeah. You know, it's just because we're talking about rewriting the ordinance and I'm just saying
>> about numbers. >> No. Correct. >> We're not talking about the Dris suit right now. This is not docketed. >> Correct. Hey, Councelor Ali, can you put in a paper and we can talk about this next week?
>> Which is my next thing. We have to respond by April 22nd. And so I would ask >> we don't have to respond to anything that we don't have a legal communication about. >> Yes. So we have to respond as a city by April 22nd. And I would ask that next
week we have a meeting to discuss the fact that something in our name has to be filed on April 22nd. So, I just want to be really clear that you're talking about something that our legal department has received, not that this council has received. >> But the city of Malden must respond to
what you're saying right now makes it seem to the public like the council is in receipt of something that necessitates us to hold a meeting. >> We that is that is true. >> That is not correct. Or we would have scheduled a meeting. My understanding is that the city,
our legal department has to come to us based on what was represented in court for guidance about what will happen on April 22nd. >> Thank you. >> So, as we're rewriting our zoning >> to committee, >> okay, I I'm I'm we are not going to discuss this particular issue any
further, but I if it's appropriate and if we do need to take action on it, we either need a paper or we need for legal to speak to me about it. So, I'm not going to allow further discussion on Dris right now, but I don't want us to talk about this anymore. >> I would
>> understood. It just had to do with the rewriting of the ordinance, >> but I don't I actually don't think it's pertinent or appropriate because we're not talking about that we're talking about, >> right? It's it's two separate things. I don't want to stifle debate on this and we have other lights and if we want to talk about this, we need to have it
properly before us. >> Okay. So then I'm going to just so I understand through the chair and the clerk I'm going to ask that we put that on the agenda next week. I will copy and paste a similar posting from a prior one and I will >> please communicate to legal and myself
and the clerk and we can handle that offline tomorrow. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay, so I have two other lights and then I do want to take the vote to refer this to ordinance. Councelor Winslow. >> Yeah, just a couple things. Um yeah, I mean this was uh this is you know about
seven or eight years ago when uh this is really offered by councelor Mat at that time. So and we knew what like exactly what councelor see it was like we're at four and a half at that time and everybody kind of understood that that it might be five. So um so I think it is
you know now that we I always thought it was tied to how many we could have and how many we actually had. So I didn't think that it was something that would actually go down, but I guess it does the way it works. So um so so that is one of the things. So it makes sense to make it clear that you know we kind of
had set a floor and I'd have kind of this weird fluctuation. Um but it was sort of the intent of the council we might have up to five at that time when uh councelor Mat proposed this and I think that passed. It was sort of one of the first things we took in related to you know recreational cannabis. The
guess the other thing is like we do have coming out of rules and ordinance the papers related to the zoning and in this section u um of just the the regular code you know section 12 section 12 related to cannabis and cannabis establishments. So, um I you know I
don't know whether we um I guess it's some of the timing of that is something we got to think about is like obviously something on zoning has to go to a joint rules and ordinance committee and planning and the you know there actually some of the something that's coming out
of ordinance is actually related to this section too. So I don't know whether I know councelor Coen Hayes reached out to me and said how to do this and I said put it on a we weren't going to amend what was coming out of count it just has made sense to have it different than what's coming out of rules and ordinance. So but we should sync them
up. you should probably end up I mean I don't know I mean my intent in rules and ordinance if if it gets referred is that we would ultimately sync up and you know do go through the process of of getting the hearings for this section 12 zoning
changes for for the related to the um you know what we need to do to to update our zoning because of the um beneficial b by benevolent batonicles decision and then a vote, you know, sort of at
the same time on section 12 changes and section six changes. So that's that would be just let you know what the process I see going ahead. So all right. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Winslow. Um councelor Simelli. >> Thank you uh Madame President. You know, I just uh I agree with Council Winslow.
I think we should take that paper up again, but I think that you know, the paper has already been taken up. I think it may have died in committee. Uh, and I think it was uh, council president uh, Manda Lahan's paper originally cuz I know that when we were discussing this thing when I first got on and you know
there was talk about you know Drizz opening up on Taylor Street. So I kind of went through that thing and we went back and forth for a little while. >> No, no, I'm just saying I'm saying I think that >> I'm saying that I think that if that's what he wants to do is resurrect that paper, move it forward for the future so
we can start working on that if that's what he wants to do. We really can't talk about >> Drizz. Make a motion, please. >> I'll second it. I will second. >> Thank you. >> All right. On a motion by councelor Cologne Hayes, seconded by councelor Seika to refer to ordinance. All in
favor? I. Any opposed? >> Okay, that is referred. Next order of business. >> Paper 198-26 be ordained by the Malden city council that the code of the city of Malden 12.12.030 030 use regulations is hereby amended as follows to update
the existing table of use regulations by striking the N designation for self- storage facilities in industrial 1 and industrial 2 zoning districts and inserting in place thereof the SP designation. This amendment shall restore the status of such use of self- storage facilities to its state prior to
the 2023 amendment as was ordained with paper 198 series of 2023 and shall take effect upon its passage following the completion of the public hearing process as required by MGL chapter 48 section 5. Councelor SEA is the sponsor. >> Okay, Councelor SEA for the paper.
>> Thank you, Council President. Um, so really quickly, I'm I'm going to just briefly talk about why this paper's on the agenda and then I'm hoping to refer it to committee. I did ask um our building commissioner Nelson to come to the meeting tonight just in case anybody had any questions before we refer it.
But um it's been brought to my attention that we have two public uh s two self storage units that are currently operating in the city of Malden. One is um on Eastern A at the old hostess, the U-Haul, and one is in my wood um up on
Route One on Linhurst behind the um Cappies. They are both looking currently to expand their business and the zoning that we changed a few years back prevents them from doing that. So, I'm
hoping to maybe make some provisions to what we voted on before to allow, you know, um self- storage units that are currently already in business in the city of Malden to be able to come before
the planning board for a special permit to expand what they currently have. In no way, shape, or form am I looking to change, you know, the the way you guys voted years ago. I I think I might have been the lone person who voted against
it, but it is what it is. I'm okay being that lone person on that island. But I do um I don't want to hinder two businesses that we currently have operating here in the city, especially the one on in my ward on Linehurst. No one even knows it's in Malding. It's the
perfect place for a self- storage unit um to be put. Can I have Nelson come up and just throw some two cents in before you take questions? >> Sure, Nelson. You >> come on up, Nelson. You can say that so much better than I can. >> And they they tech I have not heard from
anybody. They actually contacted the building office. So he'll be able to >> Okay. Nelson, can you introduce yourself? >> Hi. Nelson Miller, building commissioner. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So when the change was made a few years back which um prohibited you know
storage facilities in the city the way our zoning works when you prohibit a use entirely you also prohibit the expansion of that use. [snorts] That's the way our zoning reads. So uh just as an example if you have a storage facility and it were completely destroyed let's say in a
fire you could get a special permit to build it back the way it was. But in this case with these two facilities where they they have existing uh buildings they want to make larger our zoning doesn't allow there's no mechanism uh to move forward and make them larger. So uh council of seea you
know asked about how to sort of alter our our zoning to allow the expansion and then we also had the discussion about you know allowing them allowing new ones in other places. You don't have to do both. You you could you could craft this ordinance uh if you didn't want to allow the new ones in new
locations, you could craft it to just allow the existing ones to expand, you know, through a special permitting process through the planning board or through the city council, however you want to do it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, I have a lot of lights. Okay. I'm going to go to councelor
Winslow first. >> Yeah. I mean this uh you know I appreciate that some of the thought behind this but you know it's just back in 2023 where we had a discussion. So, um, and you know, at that time, I mean,
you know, we we we we, you know, we had just in W 6, we had just had a pretty big property, um, you know, a storage thing. And one of the things that really concerned me about that business was sitting here and talk and hearing the
the businesses joke about they're in the business of death, displacement, and divorce. Displacement is really about when people get evicted and I thought is this the type of businesses we should be really to encourage expanding and that
was really you know hey they we got the new one but I think it is the type of thing of you know we are planning to do a master plan and we now do have an economic development committee so I think it's the type of thing of these
you know whether this really fits into the plan for the master plan like I am a bit concerned about the one, you know, the U-Hauls next to the trail, they're they're they're good, you know, tenants there. They've helped out with the the um you fridge and stuff like that, but
another storage building on Eastern Avenue is exactly, I think, what we didn't want to see. So, um and a bigger one. Um these are, you know, I I think that's the type of thing that we we're missing potential. So, so I really think
it's that's kind of my view. I think maybe um I think it's we got to think about a little bit more as a council. So my suggestion was and I I reached out to council secov maybe having the economic development committee look to make some decision about what we do. I mean we we we're trying to get some more tax
revenue. So this is you know the reality is is this is where you know the only things people might be building um besides data centers or something like that. So, so but I would sort of put that to the economic development committee to weigh you do what do we do in the short term and what what do we
held off I mean one part of a master plan is to say there's going to be some different things that are going to happen. So that's really you know just my concern that we are on this track to get high quality commercial development that is more valuable. I mean talking about hotels and other type of things
that not only generate property tax but generate other things. So, it's something that um that's part of what we didn't want to see Malden become, you know, all this, you know, have the the storage places that are getting forced out of Cambridge and Summerville because they're doing great development come
here. So, it is type of thing we have to think about and that's why we voted on. So, but you know, I I want to, you know, have the council consider that before we put it on a joint rules and ordinance and and planning board committee because I I'd rather have the [snorts] discussion before, you know, dragging
the planning board into this. Thank you. Great. >> Thank you, Councelor Winszo. Councelor Ali. >> Um, Councelor Wenzo did a pretty good job of highlighting kind of where I'm feeling on this. Um, you know, these are very predatory business models. Um,
people put their things in here as he was stating, death, you know, divorce, um, displacement, and people put it their stuff in there thinking that it's going to be temporary, and then it gets so ownorous and difficult to move their stuff out that it stays there for for a
long time. And, um, often times people lose stuff because of that because if you miss a month's payment um, then they sell your stuff. Um it's just not the type of business that I think and I know people who have lost like family heirlooms through this and so it's just
not the type of business model that I think we want to have in Maltton. Um it is the lowest and worse use in my opinion. Um higher and better uses would be commercial properties that bring jobs, housing, high quality development. Um and the other thing is like let's say
you miss a payment and you want to try to like correct it. They never have anyone there. There's never anyone on site. It's like if you actually want to try to pay your bill or if you actually want to try to do anything, trying to get a hold of someone is they intentionally make it almost impossible.
Um, so I can't support doing this, but I can definitely support having the conversation. I wouldn't want to prevent having this conversation. I just could not support expanding anything like this because I think my hope would be some of these uses would turn over in the future to something that's actually bringing
jobs and real tax revenue to the city of Maltton. Um but I I would never stifle the ability to have that conversation. >> Thank you, Councelor Ali. Um Councelor Taylor, >> thank you. Um, so I I had a chance to
discuss this a little bit with Nelson earlier and um did some thinking on it as the chair of economic development just to see what made sense. And and while I'm not okay with more storage units and that being
the only business that we have, I do think we really need to take a look at at how to manage the businesses that we have and and what's coming in and and what we're getting for um commercial taxes and if there's a way
to increase that using this. So, I would like to see more of a conversation with this whether it goes to ordinance and then to the planning board in that joint committee or at economic development. Um, but I I don't think this is something that we want to just shoot down right away without
looking at it further. >> Thank you, Councelor Taylor. Councelor Leong, >> thank you. I look at this maybe a little bit on both sides, not to just be in middle of the road. Um, and I agree that we don't want more
storage units, but the both of these companies have been in they're in our business. They're in our city. They pay taxes. They have, you know, large amounts of property. And I feel like if they want to, if we have the ability to let them expand their business, then I
think it needs to be looked at before we say no. And then we lose them. >> Exactly. >> I would love to lose them. I mean, you would like to, but it I think economically right now we can't afford to lose that tax revenue.
>> So, do I think I have the floor? >> My point is we should I mean, I'm not thrilled to have more storage facilities, but I think we need to, you know, need to keep what we have. >> Thank you, Councelor Lewong. And I'm sorry I talked over you as well,
Councelor Crow. >> It's okay. Thank you. And um you know one of the businesses had reached out to me and that's I asked Nelson Moax if there were business and I do agree that we don't want maybe not new ones but as Mr. Mill just had mentioned it. We can
craft it in way they are businesses that are already here that want to do some expansion. [clears throat] Do we limit that in some way? I think we can do that. You know, maybe we don't want a lot of more big ones, but people that are we do want to
keep them these businesses and if we can grow some of their business for tax base, then we need to at least have those conversations. But just saying absolutely no when again we don't want them to be leaving the city and then we'll have just have an empty building.
The um you know it is it is a conversation to look at to have actually try to keep businesses in Malden and um and growing. >> Thank you councelor Crow. Councelor McDonald. Oh, I have the same flavor of comment on the same thing, but the I
would just say I do think that it is um it's hard to dislodge storage facilities. The whole point is they're a room full of people's stuff. So, it's like I don't worry about them leaving. That's the problem actually is it's very difficult to get them to leave because it's an easy business model and it is
somewhat predatory and it doesn't create jobs, but it does create some taxes. So, um I just think they're good points. I'm open to the conversation about this. I haven't made up my mind. I do think, you know, council was your point about the you the U-Haul is a good example of a property that's in a corridor that we
are likely targeting for development. And I think it's important to not make the problem worse again because it is hard to dislodge a storage facility. Um, and that may be different for other parts of the city where the zoning is different, where the thinking is
different about what we hope to see. So, um, yeah, open to the conversation, trying to be fair to our businesses here. >> Thank you, Councelor McDonald. Councelor Simonelli. >> Thank you, Madam President. Listen, I you know, I'll be fair. I I'll let it go to committee and I'll listen to it. And
I I feel the same way that council Winslow and several other council council Ali feel about the same thing is that you know I I just think that once again you know Malden always wants to sell itself short because it's the only game in town. You
know I've got I've got you know nobody sat and talked to me. I I like when the counselors up here sit and talk about like how they get aggravated when other counselors put poke their noses into their into their wards and stuff. It's been like a thing going on for like a hundred years. I take it with a grain of salt because, you know, it's good for
some but not good for others. Hostess happens to be in my ward. Uh I actually got like three of them in my ward. Um so I and in [clears throat] a short corridor of Route 60. So uh I I don't know where they'd be able to expand to.
I mean they'd have to build up and I don't know if I really want to build up uh high stories for uh storage facilities. They don't bring any jobs. I They got like one person that works one shift. Uh maybe two shifts out of the
day. That's about it. Uh so they don't bring any I mean it's warehouse rate revenue of tax base that we're bringing in. Not the commercial or uh uh highway business type of uh tax base that we're looking to bring in to solve this problem. I don't know how many there are
in Melrose, but I know there's not as many as there is in Malden. So, you know, like I said, I I'll sit I, you know, I'll talk about it because, you know, and I and I do, you know, I feel for Council Seeker a little bit because she does have a large CE on Broadway and I think she kind of missed the boat a
little bit with the construction. Not her fault, but you know, because of construction that went on over there that it would have probably been a good area over there for a storage uh facility over there. But as far as I'm concerned for my constituents in my neighborhood, I'd have to fight this thing tooth to nail and say absolutely
not because my neighborhood don't want it. They've had enough. It brings nothing to the community. And I've been looking at the Route 60 car and I have said that for 16 years I've been in office. I have been talking about Route 60 being the new mecca of businesses
being for people to be because people want easy access on and access off. All right? They don't want to come to Malden Square no more. I mean, you know, the business that are there, the rest of us, they do okay, but you you hear it all the time about parking and inconvenience. So, they want, you know,
a a place like a Route 60 that they can come off and on and be able to do some things. So, I'm looking to do some serious development over there uh and been talking with a lot of people that own a lot of uh buildings over there. Uh from where the where the storage unit is
across from like where uh Honeydew is uh all the way down to the police station. And we're talking about doing some like, you know, um, affordable housing, affordable home ownership, uh, multi-dwelling type of lofts, uh, and things like that, which I'd rather
see something like that come in than just to have some open space that anybody from any city can come in and just store their stuff there and brings nothing to the neighborhoods. So, [sighs and gasps] you know, again, you know, I will, you know, I'll be fair and I'll listen to my colleagues and and hear what they have
to say about it. But like I said, you know, there's no room uh in in my neighborhood for it to go up higher. And I'm going to tell you something. You know, the gloves are going to start to come off soon because I'm going to start going into other people's neighborhoods where they're having meetings and they have a controversial issue and I'm going
to step in on that and see how they feel real soon. So, thank you, >> Council President. Thank you. >> Can I just >> Don't do it. >> Don't do it. >> No, I'm going to counsel you >> because I am not going into your wood
and I apologize if you'd think that I am, but did you hear me mention the old hostess on East A and Linehurst Road in W 8 on the highway on Bennett Highway. I never mentioned anything about Route 60.
>> Hostess isn't your word. >> I thought it was Okay, let's not >> My apologies. I thought it was W five. >> Councelor Crow, would you like to speak? >> I would. It was Well, because council simil
um actually I did reach out to councelor Taylor cuz I >> you told me it was >> I thought it was in W five and I said, you know, it's the hostess. So, just to kind of let her know. So, if I had known it was in W seven, seems to be >> I'm going to call the vote if we don't stop yelling over each other. We're
we're literally yelling. >> Refer it to committee. Refer it to committee. I make a motion to refer to ordinance, please. >> I want to speak. >> Yeah, me too. >> All right, let's keep it really brief. Councelor Conan, thank you for your patience. >> Oh, thank you.
>> To be honest with you, this conversation is ridiculous. Okay. Because the people that brought it up, it they are run by like one person. All right? You get no jobs. They draw in
rodents. Okay? And if you if you ever had one in your ward, you know what I'm talking about. But [snorts] just look at the size of that building on Eastern A and try to picture what could be there and
how many jobs it could create. You're looking at you're being shortsighted people. You know, you really don't want those kind of businesses in your ward. You're not going to throw them out. But I mean, if
I have anything [clears throat] to say about it, I know I went through it with Peg >> in the city >> at the old mountain news and we just didn't want it in the wad, you know. So, [snorts] and uh if you do put it in your ward, believe me,
you'll pay you will pay the price >> because people do not want it. Okay, that's all. >> Thank you, Councelor Condan. Okay, Councelor Cologne Hayes, this is going to be our our gonna be quick. Yeah, no
problem. Um, I was going to say that I would >> just to um repeat that this was not talking about anything new. So, everybody um [laughter] anything new and then if we refer it someplace else, I'd love to talk more just to see what we're talking
about. Like I don't even know how big of an expansion where it is. is I was trying to look up where you said the address just to see because if we do talk about um like allowing this obviously nothing about um new ones
>> it would be that's what I was going to say by special permit I was just typing that down you said by special permit and then maybe if if we could make sure that it it also >> follows certain rules like maybe expansion no bigger than blah blah blah
or you know Yeah. Exactly. So, I'm fine with passing that on. I want to hear more about that and just to make sure that it's not new. I just want to clarify with everybody. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, I heard two different proposals, though. Someone had said >> his hand up. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Nelson. I I didn't see that.
>> I just wanted to clarify cuz from some of the comments I heard I get the impression that maybe everyone feels like I'm a member of the self-s storage facility, Society of America or something like that. >> I'm just here to answer zoning questions. So,
if we brought up Melrose for some reason, I don't know, but um I I'm not advocating for this. I'm just here to answer questions. That's all >> we and we appreciate it. >> Motion to refer this to ordinance.
>> Okay. So, I I did hear a proposal to send this to economic development though. Are we sending this to ordinance or e economic development? >> I'd like to send it to ordinance. >> Okay. Do I have a second to send it to ordinance? Okay. On a motion by councelor SEA, seconded by councelor Simelli to send it to ordinance
committee. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? >> No. [laughter] [laughter] >> Was that two people that said no? >> I'm actually going to vote no as well. >> Do we need to revote that? Are we good?
>> Winslow, Condan, and Lahan are no. And it's not joint planning. It's just ordinance. >> So that would be an 8 to3 vote. It was referred to ordinance. >> Thank you. Next order. >> Next paper is 199-26. Committee report.
The standing committee on finance to whom was referred paper 160 series of 2026. Having considered the same make the following report. Committee recommends this paper out favorably to the full council. >> Okay. Okay. On a motion by councelor McDonald, seconded by councelor Taylor to receive the committee report. All in
favor? I. Committee report is received. >> Paper160-26. Order that 398,674.25 is appropriated from available water sewer enterprise fund retained earnings to fund principalonly debt payments due
to the MWR in May 2026. >> Okay. Councelor McDonald for the P for the committee report. Yes, this is an appropriation to pay the bills that we owe. We have in the past
regularly authorized loans and lines of credit from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. They are the ones of course who supply our water. Uh most of this appropriation is for all kinds of just standard water replacement work
that has to happen. Um and a subset of it is for uh lead pipe replacement. As folks may remember, we have a specific lead service line loan uh that is zero interest and great terms. So there's a portion of this that is uh lead service lines, but that's not the majority. So
it's to pay it's to authorize the payment of the loans that we had already authorized us to take out um from the from the fund. Um this does not clean out the fund. There's still a few hundred,000 left in the water sewer enterprise fund. Um, and so we had a
quick and easy discussion about this in the finance committee and unanimously recommended approval of this order. >> Okay, any questions? I see councelor Ali. >> Um, I just wanted to confirm. So this doesn't have to do anything with paying the tough situation.
>> This is not related to the tough situation. >> But but does this replace uh so this is a completely separate thing that we would have had we have to pay regardless? >> Yes, that's correct. I mean we use the earnings from the water sewer enterprise
fund for multiple purposes. This is one we have historically often done uh is borrow money at a good rate from the MWR, use it to finance capital improvements and pay it back with the retained earnings in the fund.
>> And is there a reason why this isn't appropriated during the annual budget, but we're doing it midy year? Um, there are timings of when these payments are due and also it doesn't impact the city's bottom line. So, it's not
something that I would expect to need to consider as part of the annual budget. It's not an operating expense, >> but we do know when it would come in regularly like these are, >> you know, we didn't ask that question. I didn't hear anybody ask that question in the finance committee about like, well, when were the when were the invoices
incurred? It's been a normal in the course of business kind of appropriation and payment in the past because it's from a restricted fund that is restricted for this purpose. Um, and so there were no there were no concerns about the timing. As I said, it's not an operating expense. It's a one-time um,
capital kind of expense >> to pay back loans we already authorized. >> And I appreciate you you answering the questions. I I just I think it's just something that we need to start now asking like how many times are we expecting to see this payment come in every year? and and then I think we should be able to like say okay if we
expect to see it every quarter then you know at the be [snorts] during the annual budget we should be knowing that we're appropriating the appropriate amount. It could be a cash flow issue. Maybe it's that we don't have the money in the water and sewer account when we're doing the annual budget to actually appropriate it that far in
advance and we need to wait for people to pay their water rates. That that could be the reason why. Uh my understanding from the controller is that the reason that we don't appropriate is because we don't have we don't know how much to pay and we don't want to give a blanket authorization to pay. We wait until we get the invoices.
Then we authorize payment of the invoices. >> Great. I appreciate you talking me through this. >> Okay. Thank you, councelor Ali. >> I'll second. >> Any other questions? Okay. Seeing no other lights, we have a motion by councelor McDonald, second by councelor Simelli to adopt
the order. And we need a roll call. >> Council Cologne Hayes. Yes. >> Council Condan. >> Yes. >> Council Crow. >> Yes. >> Council Lewang. >> Yes. >> Council McDonald. >> Yes. >> Council Ali. Yes. >> Council Sega. >> Yes. >> Council Simmonelli. >> Council Taylor. >> Yes. >> Council Winsow.
>> Yes. >> Council President Lahan. >> Yes. >> That order has been adopted by a unanimous vote. >> Okay. Next order of business. >> Paper 200-26. order that the city council will vote whether to go into executive session
with legal counsel for the city for the purpose of exemption 3 Massachusetts general law chapter 30A section 21A3 for the purpose of discussing strategy as to possible future litigation related to budgetary constraints with such discussion in open meeting may have a
detrimental effect on the litigation position of the city if so declared by the chair and if so allowed by the body to admit special assistant to the mayor Murray Louise, chief strategy and innovation officer Ronald Hogan and the honorable may uh mayor Gary Christensen.
>> Okay, I see a couple of lights. Do we have questions on this? All right, councelor. Oh, I have a lot of lights. Councelor Seika. >> Thank you, Council President. So, um, after hearing a bunch of back and forth on this particular agenda item, out of
abundance of caution, I am asking that we table this paper until we dot our eyes and cross our tees to make sure that the wording of it is appropriate for for what we need to do. So, I'm making a motion to table executive session for this evening.
>> Okay, that takes precedence. Can we take We can't take discussion or we can >> You can take discussion, but it takes precedence over any other motion. Okay, I'll take councelor Winsow next. >> Yeah, I mean I just in addition to that what councelor see raised I think we
should also think um I I mean my the question I would have is to you know if even if we get the language um I would want to know that either there's a some sort of correspondence we've had received related to potential litigation
or you know someone is filing a notice of a lawsuit. Um, you know, the voters just voted against raising taxes and we really need to make sure we're transparent and build trust and to have
maybe the first discussions being in executive session. I don't know if that really sits well. So, I I'm kind of almost leaning not to have this discussion executive session. So, it's something we have to think about. Um, so that that's my concern that we we
actually need to work um with our, you know, the mayor, our our staff through their unions, but we need to make sure that the public has a view of that. They they just just the situation this this
city is in, they uh they're looking over our shoulders. And um trust is something that came up several times as we were talking about, you know, the mayor being presented and Muhammad presenting. Trust, building trust. We may need to
have these discussions out in the open so people do not uh think that there's something happening behind the thing. So that's just so that's my comment that it's something that you know when this comes back up next week or whatever, we should be able to hear those answers of of that. I just, you know, we can make
up reasons to try to have have these discussions outside of a a public session, but we may not want to. You know, that's an option and we may not want we may not want to as a council. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Winsel. Councelor Ali.
>> Yeah, it's a it's a delicate balancing act. um you know what councelor Winsow is referring to you know is is if we are defending against litigation um it gets a little bit more complicated if we're talking about initiating litigation I know we've in the past talked about you know it's not fair with chapter 70
should we be suing DESIE like is there a proposal to sue the unions I have no idea what this is about and I would like to know going in at least some basic information so I can prepare and at least be able to field some questions that people are asking and so I don't
know what this is about. It's it's very broad and obviously we have to be careful what we broadcast, but I think there's a way to add a little bit more information so we know roughly what we're going in in in to talk about or at least roughly what it has to do with. Um
I'm not saying to air litigation strategy, but I think everyone knows that I don't think we would be upset to sue Desi. That's not a secret. I think Desi knows that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Mali. Councelor Cologne Hayes. Oh, thank you. Um, yeah.
So, I had similar questions. I had reached out to the council president, um, clerk, [snorts] and I was already saying I was going to vote no to go into executive session just because I don't know what we're talking about. Um, and without more information, I don't know
whether or not it deserves to go into executive session. I was told, so I give that we have done this in the past. So, I'm going to give that up. We had um done this. I can't even say what it was about, but we did go in the past. I almost said it. Um, we did go into executive session with similar wording.
Um, but I question that now for the exact reasons that I'm hearing my counselors to. It's um, at the time maybe I thought that was okay. I don't think that's okay now. Um, and so without for our conversations need to be held in public before the public as much
as possible. So, um, I did second a tableabling vote, but I don't know what what happened there. So, we'll just >> we'll take it up after discussion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Colones. Councelor McDonald. >> Um, I certainly of course agree we need to have [clears throat] budget discussions in public. I I don't think
this is a budgeting discussion. It's a litigation discussion and I also don't know what it is, which frankly I would like to go into executive session to hear what it is the topic. We're we have a chicken and egg problem. We can't talk about the thing. We can't talk about it, but we can't talk about talking about it either because we're not in executive
session. So, I just want to know what we're talking about. I think if we could go into executive session, then we could talk about it. And then if we were like, we should do this in open session, we could adjourn executive session and come back and do it in open session. And that would be our judgment. But right now, I feel like we're having an argument with
phantoms because we can't go into executive session and hear what it is that the administration wants to bring to our attention. So, I would I'm in favor of at least hearing what the topic is and then deciding if we want to proceed. >> A motion. >> We have a table. >> We have a tableabling motion. So, I will I I will vote against tableabling right
now because I would like to know what the topic is and then we it's [clears throat] not a motion. [laughter] >> I can't make a motion because tableabling takes precedence. If the tableabling motion fails, then we could have the opportunity to hear what the topic is and decide whether we would like to discuss it in executive session.
If we table it, I don't I don't know where that leaves us. I guess trying to further >> get more info >> get more info except that if we can't >> get more info because it's appropriate for executive session. We will be right
back here in a week. >> Reward. >> So, I don't know that rewarding my perspective is rewarding this because people are concerned about the docketing of this >> if we've already done this before. Do can I is it okay if I ask our legal >> Yeah, the language comes from legal, but
I'm happy to >> Can I ask our legal representatives? Do you have any concerns about the docketing of this? Because >> they did docket it. >> You did docket it. [laughter] Has anything changed your judgment about whether this is an appropriately docketed item? >> Because if the docketing is the problem,
yes, we should fix it. But if the issue is we don't know whether this issue is appropriate for executive session, I don't know how we find that out until we go into executive session. >> Thank you, Ally. Can you introduce yourself? >> Yes. I'm Alicia McNeel, the city solicitor. I didn't hear the entire um discussion. I was in the back. So,
>> I'm sorry. My question was just I know that the legal department docketed this issue. Since you've docketed it, do you have you had any concerns about whether we should be revising it or does it still seem properly docketed to you? >> It seems properly docketed to me.
>> Okay. So, that's not a thing we can fix cuz it's not a problem. >> Because it's properly docked. So, anyways, that's what I think. We we um solicitor McNeel, we have a motion on the floor to table this item because the counselors have asked if the description
is sufficiently specific enough and I've explained that this the clerk and I have received this from the mayor's office and that this language has undergone review from your office and that it's identical to
um similar litigation discussions that we've undertaken in the past year um when I mean I I I think we've been as specific as we can related to future potential litigation. >> Yes. >> It's not related to discussing the
budget. >> Yes. And I've checked um with determinations with the secretary of state and I'm comfortable with the language that we proposed and that if we do not discuss if we convene an
executive session and we to councelor McDonald's question and we decide that it's information that we would prefer to discuss in open session, may we do that or is that something that we would have to determine once we're in executive session if that's appropriate? or not.
>> I don't actually know the answer to that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I don't actually know the answer to that. >> Okay, that's that's helpful. >> We could redocket it for next week. Okay. [clears throat] >> Okay. >> We have We actually still have a lot of
lights to get through before we can take the vote on the tableing motion. >> Thank you for for answering those. Um I'm going to take Councelor Condan. Thank you, Madame President. Uh, does anybody think that it's right that rever
and ever should get $20 million more than the city of Mald than Chapter 70? >> No. >> Is this related to the tableabling motion? >> Well, I'd like to I'd like to tell you I'd like to tell you because I don't
think it's fair either. >> And we've talked about >> the city of Malden getting screwed by those reps and senators up in the uh
state house. And we all know that the formula is messed up. Really messed up. But nobody wants to admit it. Nobody wants to point fingers at the higherups.
So, you know, we're going to just go down a road that if we're not willing to fight or push forward and let people know that it's wrong, and it is wrong, then we get nothing. So, I'm in favor of
it >> any way you want to talk about it because everybody says, "Yeah, I know the formula is wrong." Well, no one wants to do anything about it.
>> We're the losers. >> You really can't say that. [laughter] >> What? I was asking councelor Simmonelli to keep it down. >> Okay. >> Are you all set? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Condan.
Councelor Ali for the second time. >> Yeah. And I agree with Councelor Condan. I want to have that conversation anywhere. And if we're talking about suing Desi, I think we can talk about that out here. Obviously, we shouldn't be talking about litigation strategy specifically, but it's not a secret that the city of Malden is pissed and wants
to sue Desi. And so, I don't know what we could possibly say that would hurt our litigation strategy having that conversation in public. And I think it would actually build a lot of trust and a lot of confidence that we're doing something as a city rather than having it behind the scenes. Um, so in
hindsight, councelor Sika, I probably won't support the tableabling motion, but I would vote not to go into executive session with the hopes of having that conversation here in open session. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Ali. Councelor Simonelli. Oh, hang on one second. You're all set. Okay, Councelor Winsow.
>> Yeah. No, I just I don't know if Coun uh Solicitor McNeel heard the questions that I was was raising about my my kind of confusion about what's here. So, so you know specifically why I asked was it
have we received either any correspondence or notice saying that there might be potential litigation against the city because of uh you know the you know the [snorts] future litigation due to budget constraints. Has that something has
anybody communicated your office the mayor's office and is that why we're meeting or is it a proactive thing? I guess that's that's just to me that that is the type of thing that uh you know what is is this just something we're thinking of or is it something we're having to react to and and what is the
the I mean likelihood of that happening. I mean is is there actually been a lawsuit filed? I mean that's that's the type of thing of you know it's it's speculative as that's that's the thing that gets me. So that's is that something >> Oh did you turn your light off? Hang on.
>> Sorry. But >> okay. So, there has been no communication from my office to anyone. I can't speak for the mayor's office. I guess if you all didn't receive any communication, then there hasn't been any. >> So, but has anybody
>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Steve. >> Has anybody communicated to you or the mayor like any union or or other entity uh communicated a threat of litigation or filed any written thing? I mean,
that's what I'm trying to figure out. Is is this something that we're we're anticipating litigation? >> Are we against us? Are we reacting or are we being pro? That's I just that is what I'm asking. Let me see if I can answer that question
without um >> I don't think >> it it's we're we're being pro proactive, not reactive. >> Are you all set? Okay. >> Okay. Um I have counselor Lewong last but not least.
to I'm just going to echo what count, you know, councelor McDonald said. I think it's not a matter of trust to the public. I think it's in any potential litigation on our part being proactive or reactive. I think as a council, we should step out, find out what it's
about, decide what we want to do, and then come back out. It's not time for being in secret. It's just it's a I don't think it's a correct p what's the word I want to use? um precedent to set to just to decide if we
don't know. I have no idea what we're going to talk about. So, I'd like to go back, find out what we're going to talk about, and then decide should it be for the public's, you know, let's talk about it in public or not. >> Thank you, Councelor Leong. And I'll just say from the chair, this is in an attempt to be respectful of folks
repeated requests that we have more executive session and that we are involved in as much decision-m process as possible with respect to litigation. Um, and that sometimes the language here is necessarily
um not as descriptive as folks might like, but again modeled after many other instances where we've had to just be as specific as we can. and it it's you find out more when you get into the session and then that's the intent of the executive session. Um the clerk and I
again not to you know be repetitive but went over this many many times over the weekend and um I'm comfortable with the language as it stands but we do have a motion to table. Uh that motion was made by councelor Seika. Do we have a second? >> Council councelor Cologne Hayes. So we
need to call the role for that >> on the motion to table. >> Council Colon Hayes. >> Yes. Yes. Council Condan. >> No. >> No. Council Crow. >> No. >> No. Council Lewong. >> No. Council McDonald. >> No.
>> No. Council Omali. >> No. Council Seca? >> Yes. >> Yes. Council Simmonelli? >> No. >> No. Council Taylor? >> No. >> No. Council Winslow? >> Yes. >> Yes. Council President Lahan? >> No. >> No. Okay. So, the paper has not been
tabled. >> Okay. So therefore citing exemption three on Mass General Law chapter 3A section 21A wherein discussing paper 200-26 in open meeting would have a detrimental detrimental effect on the
city's litigating position. I'm looking for a motion to enter executive session. >> So moved by councelor Taylor, seconded by councelor Leong. The clerk will now call the role. >> Councelor Cologne Hayes. >> No. No. Council Condan.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Council Crowe. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council Lewong. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council McDonald. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council Ali. >> No. >> No. Council see. >> No. >> No. Council Simonelli. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council Taylor. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Councelor Winsow. >> No. >> No. Council President Lahan. >> Yes. >> Yes. So, the um order to enter into executive session has passed. Okay. By 7 to4 vote
>> passes 7 to four. So we will enter executive session. Do we want to have personal privilege prior to entering executive session? >> Okay. I see councelor Winslow. >> Um yeah, I'm just going to hand out um Maplewood Fest. I have the initial flyer
here Saturday, May 16th. So just encouraging people we have more uh crafters that are coming in. and we're going to have a puppy parade and we're going to have a couple local bands. So, uh, just want to spread that word. Um, so I'll hand this out to everybody as we're going in executive session. Thanks.
>> Great. Thank you, Councelor Winsow. Councelor Omali. >> Um, I just want to announce that um, Saturday, April 18th, um, there's going to be a cleanup at Weights Mount with the Great Molden Outdoors and myself.
Um, this is something we do annually and it's going to be at 10 a.m. Um, hopefully the weather will be great. It's rain or shine. Um, you know, cleaning, doing park cleanups and planting trees is, you know, one of my mo most favorite things genuinely and so we're going to be doing both. Um,
additionally, I just want to address earlier in the night there was some talk about um, you know, rewriting the chapter 6 portion of our marijuana ordinance. And I just wanted to clarify the reason why Dris was coming up was because that fifth license I believe is
the license that is being proposed to be taken away from DRIS. So I think the reason why we were talking about that is because it has to do with Dris and I apologize if I went over the line but I as mentioned we'll we'll send everything
I can to yourself legal and the clerk. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Ali Councelor Taylor. Thank you. really quickly. Um, April 25th is the citywide yard sale. Um, we have almost 50 people signed up in over three locations. Uh, sorry, uh,
over 35 locations. So, three of them being um, multiple people at the Forestdale School, the BB school, and the ELC. Um, and then at individual cities, uh, individual houses. Sorry, it's late. I've got too many words in my head. Um,
so we hope that you'll join us between 8 and 2. Um, the coffee cart will be at BB, I believe, between 7:30 and 1. So you can start there, make your way across the city. There'll be lots of great finds. Um, and there is a extensive
map and and detailed list um on Facebook and also will be getting posted. And I need to just say that um this is something that I help with, but really it's been my constituent uh Marlene Gala who has put this all together, taken on
the brunt of it. She has done an amazing job from starting this last year in Ward 5 and um I'm so excited to see go to every location this year and hopefully not come home with more than what I need. [laughter]
So, book yourself a donation truck to come pick it up the next day. That's what I'm doing. [laughter] Well, from the chair, um, I'll wrap us up. I am so honored to be announcing that our very own Diana Fardo, our elections administrator from the city
clerk's office is going to be honored at this year's Northshore Hispanic Association, um, 2026 Americans Making a Difference Gala on April 30th, which councelor Cologne Hayes had updated us on last week. Um, so just a little bit about Dina. Prior to accepting a full-time position as the elections
administrator for the city, she served the voters of Malden for seven years running elections as the precinct warden at the Ferryway School. Last year, Dina was a recipient of the 2025 Latino Excellence Awards sponsored by the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus. And she's
helped lead the clerk's office in earning consecutive A ratings on Malden's bilingual voting rights report card in both 2024 and 2025's election cycles. Dina is an essential member of our clerk's team, and I am so happy to take this opportunity to highlight the
great work that she does for Malden's constituency. [applause] So with that, the council will now enter into executive session and the body will not reconvene for any further business this evening. So we will adjourn directly from executive session. Thank
you and good evening. >> Oh, thank you. >> That's adorable. This is coming together. >> So, we are at 8:54 p.m. What's up?