[Fred Dello Russo]: which brought the entry of the United States of America into World War II, the largest cataclysm in world history, where 60 million people were killed. So let's remember the men and women who wear the uniform, who volunteer today to serve our nation, to protect us, protect our liberties, and to keep us all safe and free. Aye. Chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President De La Russa. I'd just like to move suspension of the rules to allow a resident to announce an upcoming event for our children.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of councilor, Lungo-Koehn for suspension of the rules for a community announcement. All those in favour?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Aye.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Opposed? Mark me as opposed. Ma'am, welcome, Councilor.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for the suspension. We appreciate it. We're here tonight to just reach out and make sure that everyone's aware that on Saturday, December 17th, we have rented the Karen theater at Medford High School to do a winter kind of festival or fair and show the Polar Express for the children of the city and those children in surrounding towns. Anyone's welcome. It's $6 a ticket or 20, did we say 24, per family of four. And we're gonna have Santa and Mrs. Claus and the elves if people wanna do pictures. We will have balloon twisting and face painting. And there'll be a little prize for the children when they leave after they see the movie. And we've got some other sponsors. I don't know if you wanna ask them.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: We'll also have the Mustang mall will be there to sell their wares. The vocational school is planning to bake some cookies. So there'll be some other tables. The Mackey is planning to have tables there for your last minute holiday needs. So it's really just a community outpouring. We're hoping to see a lot of people there and make this an annual event. Great.
[Jean Nuzzo]: So if anyone's interested in attending, uh, you can get tickets. We posted on, Facebook, if you are on Facebook on some of the different sites, or you can email us through medfordpolar at gmail.com. If you're interested in having a table, email us as well. And if you're interested in volunteering, we would love some volunteer help because we hope it's going to be a big event and people will come to enjoy the show and participate in the crafts and everything that we've got set up outside. Awesome.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: And the tickets will be on Eventbrite, and it's Medford Polar is our Facebook page if you want more information. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Thank you, ladies.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Congratulations. On the motion of Vice President Longo-Curran that the paper be received and placed on file. All those in favor? All those opposed? On the motion of Councilor Longo-Curran to return to the regular order of business. All those in favor? All those opposed? Hearing 16-779, location of poles, attachment of fixtures, and underground conduits, Medford, Massachusetts. You are hereby notified by order of the Medford City Council. Public hearing will be given at the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, City Hall. Metro Massachusetts at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, on a petition by National Grid of North Andover and Verizon, Incorporated, for permission to locate poles, wires, and fixtures, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures, along and across the following public way, Boston Avenue. National grid to install approximately 130 feet of two to four inch conduit from existing pole 1981 onto the property of 640 Boston Avenue. Verizon New England to replace approximately 130 feet of underground conduit from existing jointly owned pole 1981 in a southerly direction to provide a private property at 640 Boston Avenue. Wherefore, it prays that after due notice and hearing, as provided by law, it be given permission to excavate the public highways and to run and maintain underground electrical conduits together, with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity. Set underground conduits to be located substantially in accordance with the plan filed herewith. Mark National Grid, Boston Avenue, Plan Number 212, 58397, and Verizon plan number P2016-1A1WG9F, dated 11-1-2016. Approved, Chief Engineer. Upon review of this petition, the work can proceed forward via the following requirements are met. No city-owned or private utilities or other such structures are adversely impacted. The applicant shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Any disturbed concrete sidewalk panels shall be replaced in kind. Said panels are already being replaced by the developer's contract. Asphalt must be replaced by asphalt. An as-built sketch must be delivered to the developer's contract for its for incorporation into the overall site as billed to plan. Before beginning work, the contractor shall notify DIGSAFE and shall obtain applicable permits from the engineering division. National grid contractor shall utilize the City of Medford regulations and standards as well as for removing all debris related to its work, approve Superintendent Wyeth's call 781393, et cetera, et cetera, Edward P. Finn, City Clerk, Medford. is the chair now opens up the public hearing. To all those in favour, anybody in favour, please state so, your name and address for the record.
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Hi, good evening. My name is John Jankowski, 170 Medford Street in Malden, Mass. I'm representing National Grid.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And you are in favour of this? I am in favour. Anybody else in favour? Anyone else in favour? Please present yourself to the rail. Hearing and seeing none, we declare that portion of the meeting closed. Anybody in opposition to this petition? Anybody in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, we declare that meeting closed. Chair recognizes Councilor Scarpelli wishes to be recognized, and the petitioner is present at the rail.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. President. I know that as we've had discussions in the past, one of the biggest issues we've had with our public utilities and our utility companies is the work that they're, the, the, the, the road in the sidewalks that they're left after they perform work. I believe we've asked for our, um, um, DPW director to report back to us and give us an idea of what in the past, what was, what has been done and what has been replaced and what hasn't been replaced. So, One of the biggest concerns I've been hearing from our constituents is that where we've had excavation work being done, that there are, after the utilities leave, we have sinkholes and issues with our sidewalks that aren't being replaced the way that they were supposed to be. So where there was cement, there's now hot tub. And this is rampant throughout the city. I'll be honest with you. And this is one of the things that I find appalling since I've been here in just this short year that our public utilities are coming in and we have these, these recommendations that they need to follow and they're not being followed. So I as one, I, I, I will not vote until I get a better understanding with meetings with the public utilities and a DPW director and making sure that somebody is overseeing these, these entities and making sure that our streets are left the way they found them. So I know that it's probably not your doing with all of them, but unfortunately you're here tonight and I find it upsetting.
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Well, in this situation here, National Grid is not doing the digging. The contractor from 640 Bosnaf is doing the digging. Could you identify the owner of 640 Bosnaf? It's probably going to be an NEI general contractor from Randolph, Mass.
[George Scarpelli]: No, is he working with National Grid?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Yes. The, the contract is actually installing the conduit and, uh, we don't approve it until our trenches specter goes out and approves it. Cause it has to make sure it has to be a certain depth. Uh, we have to fill it with flow bill fill and, um, and then we'll give it the approval for that. So we're not actually doing the digging.
[George Scarpelli]: I know, but it's your job. So when the job is complete, you're coming in making sure. Because I'm going to give you just a personal example. Maybe about six months back, at 10 o'clock at night, there was a private contractor fixing sidewalk and a street on a dead end. When I approached him at 10.30 because the neighbors were calling because they're waking their kid, as they were using the compactor, I said, what are you doing here? And they said, we were here because National Grid did some work and we were told to come here tonight to replace it. And he said, would you like me to stop? I said, absolutely, I'd like you to stop. To this day, if you'd like to go in front of 18 Butler Street, it's not cement anymore. It's about an eight year old, eight year job of new sidewalks and new street, and it's now hot top there. So I haven't got an answer back from the DPW director, I haven't talked to anybody from National Grid except for you right now because you're here asking for this. And if you weren't here asking for this, I wouldn't be able to explain the frustration I felt so far on this committee that, and this is, I mentioned it once, I got five phone calls from South Medford and Main Street that replacement has now turned into sinkholes and patches weren't filled the correct way. So, you know, again, I apologize that you have to be the bearer of this bad news with my aggravation toward it, but I don't know how my colleagues feel about it, but this is something that I feel strongly about, so.
[Clerk]: Thank you, Councilor.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much, and thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, for your input. I think that you might be referring to a paper that I put forward asking the engineering division to provide us with a list of the permits that were issued to open up our streets to public utilities. as well as a report back as to the status of those streets, whether or not they were restored to the City of Medford standards or whether or not that work is still pending. We've seen a number of problems, Mr. President, when it comes down to the private utilities in our community. If you drive down today, if you drive down Lawrence Road, you'll see a patch on the side of the road as you approach Forest Street that's an absolute disaster. You look at the work that they did on Doonan Street. They damaged private driveways. It took a year and a half for them to get out there after me screaming and yelling and beating my chest in order to get them out there to fix the private driveway that they damaged when they put their stabilization bars and their excavator down, Mr. President. So I think that what's happening here is that the public utilities are getting a number of permits very fast and very furiously, and they're tearing up our city streets. But we're not able to keep up with the work that they're doing to make sure that it's done in compliance with our standard, Mr. President. I'm a firm believer that if the public utilities are going to come into our community and tear up our street, that they should repave them curb to curb, as opposed to these, you know, 16-inch trenches that go down the middle of the street. I also know, though, Mr. President, that a lot of that stuff is dictated by state law as to what it is that they're required to do and what they're not required to do. So with that being said, I'd ask that the matter be held until we get a response from the engineering division relative to what I believe would be paper 16404.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Knight that the paper be held in abeyance until a suitable response has been found and received by the council in response to the paper that was sent out several weeks ago, Councilor.
[Adam Knight]: Um, I believe it was filed Mr. President in March or April and then reintroduced again two weeks ago. Um, and still haven't been able to be provided that list. So I know that, um, I put the paper forward, I think right after St. Patrick's day, um, requested an update right before the summer break. Um, didn't get it. Then requested another update again within the last three or four meetings. Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: You know, I know that you're not the fellow that, is responsible for restoring the ground, and you're the messenger. And I'm sorry to shoot you today, sir, but we have some priorities in this community that we need to take care of, and constituents that are expressing a great deal of frustration. You can go up Traincroft and Crocker Road right now, and you can see what a nightmare it is. So I appreciate the work you're doing. I appreciate you coming down here this evening, but I'm not able to support the paper this evening, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Knight, Councilor, Vice-President Longueau-Kerr.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I agree. I think the utility companies need to do a better job, and I also think we need to have more oversight as a city, and it's something that we've been lacking. I know we're short-staffed, but there needs to be better checks and balances. And not only do we need to review it a first time, we need to review it six months later while we're still in a window to make the utilities companies come back to do the job right. Regards to that being said, I don't know if I could ask a few questions on this paper specifically with regard for when you do come back or hopefully when we do get our answers. How long will this project take and what does it entail with regards to displacing people from their driveways, their homes, getting down the street?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: I don't believe on this particular petition, we're not going to go in front of any driveways, which is going right across the street from an existing pole in 1981 and it's going across in front of six 40 Boston that we proposed apartment building. So it won't affect any, um, driveways.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And how long is the work going to take?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Uh, again, we're not doing the work. I would think probably depends what's in the street. It could be railroad ties. It could be, who knows. I would think maybe at least maybe a week depending upon good weather.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And what will the hours of operation be?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Oh, I would think it probably eight to three, I would think eight to four.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So no, no night work.
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: We're not doing the work. So I can't, you know, I'd have to speak to the contractor who's doing the work because we're not, National Grid is not doing the work. but you're going to, you're going to be there to petition the city. Yeah. Private contractors cannot petition the city as a public utility. We have to do that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All set ma'am. Thank you. Thank you ma'am. Vice president of the chair recognizes council.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. President president. I don't know. Um, maybe I don't have their, if I have their answer, but, um, who puts up the bond for these projects, national grade or the private contract? Okay, but why aren't we gonna hold?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe we self-insure it, so I'll step back. I would think so.
[Richard Caraviello]: So a bond or someone, National Grid either puts up a bond that self-insures these projects. Well, why isn't the city going after National Grid's insurance company or a bond? They have it on file here. I think that's the avenue we should be going. We'll hire our own contractor to fix the shoddy work these private contractors are doing. Mr. President, if we could put that as an amendment to check into whether National Grid has a bond, a self-insured, and are we able to recover funds to repair the shoddy work that's done by private contractors and hire our own contractor to fix it correctly?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Would you like that question be directed to the office of the city engineer? Uh, yes. Yes. So on the motion of a council night that the paper be held in abeyance as amended by Councilor Caraviello chair recognizes Councilman.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank a council Scarpelli for raising this issue. Um, Mike, my question is, and I don't want to put the city engineer on the spot, but she happens to be here tonight, is typically there's a statement at the end of these requests. And it states that upon review of the petition, the work can proceed forward provided the following requirements are met. And the very last sentence says, national grid contractors shall utilize city of Medford regulations and standards. And I think it's important that we know what the regulations and standards are for the city of Medford. And does that include having a clerk of the work. Does that include what council Lungo-Koehn mentioned about having a follow up, maybe three, six months, nine months after a road is repaved or so forth. And I don't know if that's part of the procedures that's listed, but could the city engineer talk to that? Is there anything that is required that would put the city on notice?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Good evening. Excuse me. I'm not feeling very well tonight, so my voice might disappear. Cassandra Kudalitis, 29 Crystal Street, Melrose. The engineering standards and regulations and practices are general engineering practice that all cities and towns require from work such as this, which would be to backfill your trenches with good material, compact them appropriately, put in your base course of asphalt. And then what we do is we allow a project to winter over. So work that you will see done in 2016, these are the temporary trenches. These are not the permanent trenches. We want it to go through freeze-thaw cycles multiple times to get out any of the water, any of the voids that might be in the trench. Once we get into the spring of the following year, the utility company comes back and they do what's called a grind and inlay. So they key cut it. and they grind and they patch a wider swath than what they did in the original trench patch. So you might have a narrow trench patch and the final one would be about four feet wide. Now we're not able to get them to pave curb to curb. It was mentioned that there are, the Department of Public Utilities has oversight over the public utility companies and they use National Grid electric and gas and Comcast like to refer back to those and say that they don't have to do more than what is in those rules and regulations. We do manage to get more than that, though, by going for the grind and inlay. And if the trench happens to be somewhat out from the curb, we'll ask them to restore from that outside location or inside in the street all the way over to the curb. If the street is less than five years old, they do have to pave curb to curb to restore it. Some of the grind and inlay work that you'll see This year from last year's work looks good and is much better able to hold up over time. And also, we do go out. There's one person in the city who handles trench excavations and coordinates with the utility company and also does resident engineering work. He goes out and he follows up. And there's multiple phone calls to National Grid. They have to come out and redo their trenches. Some of the trenches you see out there that are in really poor shape are older, they predate me. They predate probably a few years before me. And those are the ones that I don't know to what extent our jurisdiction is over this period of time. I'm happy to look into it. We've gone to meetings with the chairwoman of the DPU. You know, we've talked about doing better with, you know, better coordination with these utility companies. I've voiced my concerns. It's very frustrating how they work sometimes. They're also very accommodating sometimes. you know, we're able to get, um, a good working relationship in certain locations. Does that answer your question?
[Michael Marks]: It does. So, so roughly in the course of a year, how many trenches, uh, dug in the city?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Oh, that's a good question. I don't, I couldn't.
[Michael Marks]: Are we talking hundreds, thousands?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I would say hundreds. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: And we have one person and that's their sole job to, uh, be, uh, the liaison with, Utility companies in the city?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's one of the hats he wears.
[Michael Marks]: One of the hats?
[SPEAKER_03]: One of the hats he wears, yes.
[Michael Marks]: So he's responsible. According to what Councilor Knight brought up, do you have any type of spreadsheet on where a trench is dug and the follow-up dates?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yeah, my understanding is George Connolly, who's the person we're referring to, has been working on that.
[Michael Marks]: So you don't have a current Is this something new that you're working on?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, he was asked as part of the council resolution that went through the DPW director to do a tally. We keep a list, we keep a log of all the permits that are issued from all the contractors. We have the dig safe numbers, we have permit numbers, you know, trench excavation numbers. And then we also track as-built drawings as they come in. But that's a handwritten log. And so what he's doing is he's writing it all down. He's going through that list and pulling out the private uh, utility contractors, such as people who do water and sewer services. And he's looking for the public utility companies as requested.
[Michael Marks]: So is it safe to say over the last few years that every trench that has been dug, there's been a set of eyes from a city employee on that trench when it's finalized. I realized you put a, uh, an initial code down and so forth, but is it safe to say they've been checked off?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: For, I would say that he, He tours the area when it's over, particularly the public utility companies. Now there are other trenches. There's water and sewer trenches. That's another hat that he wears and he has to follow through with that. There's some work that's being done by, I don't wanna cast anybody and push anyone in front of the train, but there's also work done by city forces that we don't oversee and we don't check up on in engineering.
[Michael Marks]: So maybe that's something that we have to talk about by having a policy. Because to me, it doesn't matter who's digging the trench, whether it's a city employee or a private contractor, there should be a set of eyes on behalf of the city. And I realize the city workers, the city employee, but there should be someone in your office that oversees all trenches, whether it's a city job or not.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We do do a lot of repair. We have a contractor on board that goes out and does a number of the water trenches. I can't speak to Highway because I'm not that familiar with the work that they do specifically, whether they just oversee their own work or if they have anybody else come in and do that for them.
[Michael Marks]: Have you seen these? I would assume there were water lines that were replaced on Riverside Ave over the last several years. Go down Riverside Ave right now, and if your car doesn't bottom out, I'll be shocked. You must go over. There's a gully. two or three of them in a row.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: There are some chronically sinking trenches out there, and we do have them out.
[Michael Marks]: They're in real bad shape. And this council has been requesting that something be done with these gullies. And, you know, I'm not sure if there's a responsibility we can tag along to this. I'm not sure who dug it. I'm not sure even if it was a waterline. It looks like a square patch for an individual waterline. But maybe if you could check into that, too, Mr. President. That's been something that this council has requested for quite some time.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I'm also responding to your request on Riverside Avenue, I'm walking the street as I can to note defects and make recommendations.
[Michael Marks]: And the curbing too.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: There's little curb reveal, I agree.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Some places it's level with the street pavement.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Nearly level, yes.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Marks. So the motion of Councilor Knight as amended by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 16-783 offered by Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the city solicitor draft an ordinance requiring any retail or wholesale business which is made aware of an incorrect store price and that has the ability to communicate with customers through the offering of a store savings card or other method be required to refund or credit all customers who purchased an item incorrectly priced. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm proud to state that this is, I believe, a first of its kind ordinance in the entire country. And it's a consumer protection ordinance that deals directly with the consumers. You know, we talk a lot about prevailing wage and so forth, and we've had discussions on a number of issues. This is an issue that I believe impacts anyone doing business with any of the retail wholesale stores in our community and outside of our community, but we can only create ordinances for our city. Um, the issue at hand, Mr. President, and I think I've had discussions with, uh, uh, our legal counsel, Mark Rumley. Uh, he asked that I put something, uh, in the way of what, uh, we'd like to see as an ordinance. and then carefully craft an ordinance that would have some tea to it. And what I'm trying to get at, uh, by offering this consumer protection ordinance is that I believe, uh, there's, uh, um, a real issue, um, not only in our community, but in many communities of business establishments that may put an item, um, on sale in a store. And, you know, I don't want to pick out any particular business, but I know when I go food shopping, I may have 75 items in my cart and I'll go through and you hear beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. And you know, it's, it's tabulating your items. Yeah, it was, it was beep, beep, beep, beep. It, it, it, it tabulates your items. And, uh, in my opinion, Mr. President. Many times stores may put an item on sale, buy one, get one free, and it's not until you get home or if you're really diligent in the store that you realize that you purchased an item that you should have got for free, the second item, or you purchased an item that was on sale for $3.99, and you paid $6.99. And many people may not even bother looking at their receipt. Many people may say, you know what, it's $1 or $2. I can't be bothered to go back into the store, wait in the customer service line. And what this ordinance is trying to do, Mr. President, it is if a store becomes aware. So if I go into Stop and Shop, I'll pick out Stop and Shop, or I could CVS, or any other store that has reward cards. And if I go in at 6.30 at night and I find out that I purchased something and there is an incorrect price on the item and I bring it to the store's attention, they should have the responsibility to go back into their system because if you have a means of communicating with your customer, you have an obligation to go back into the system, look at the SKU number, and figure out how many people purchased that item in the day, and then reach out to the person. And you can do it by possibly having some type of savings on their card. You can credit their card. You can offer coupons. There could be a number of ways you could reach out to the customers to rectify the situation, Mr. President. I know stores are probably gonna be opposed to this, and I had a discussion with a store manager who said, you realize how many people come through this door? And I said, yes, I realize, and I think if you're a reputable store, you'd wanna make sure that every one of your loyal customers that might've purchased an item, purchased it at the right price. And when they have store recalls, I'll get something in the mail. I get this in the mail, 20% off, addressed to me in the mail. from a particular store in the city. You get checkout coupons. You get gas points. So they know who their customer is. They know who they're dealing with. I get e-mail savings. They'll send me coupons with e-mails. So they know how to get a hold of customers when they want to solicit their business. But if there's a pricing error, they all of a sudden, now they put the blinders on and say, geez, how are we supposed to reach out to all these people? How are we supposed to control this? And I think they have an obligation, Mr. President, uh, as a customer, uh, and as, uh, a business, uh, in the community, uh, treating people fairly. So I would ask that, um, this, uh, resolution be sent to the city solicitor. Uh, he's expecting it. If we want to send it to a subcommittee first, that's fine, but he is expecting it. So he can craft some language that's more appropriate than what I put together. And that also has some enforcement teeth to it. that would require stores, Mr. President, to do their best to reach out to customers that they're able to. If you have — maybe if you're paid by a credit card, they can credit your credit card on a certain item. If you have a store savings card, they can reach out to you and possibly credit you that way, Mr. President. But I think it's long overdue. I think it's a great public opportunity. what do I want to say, incentive for stores to communicate with their customers and not just say, well, that's, you know, the one comment I got back, well, what if it's in the store's favor? And in my opinion, as someone that's been a loyal customer to many stores, 99.9% of the time, it's in the store's favor. For whatever reason, I'm not making any accusations, But it's always in the store's favor. And my resolution clearly states that it would require a refund or credit. So, if it happens to be in the store favor, then, I mean, against the store, then that's the cost of doing business, Mr. President. But I can tell you, in my experience, it's always in the favor of the store and not in the favor of the consumer. So, I would ask this be sent to City Solicitor Rumley for future ordinance and then be probably set to the appropriate committee for vetting and so forth.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Councilor Marks that this paper be sent to the city solicitor for drafting. If you could, Councilor, tell us about does the city still employ a consumer protection advocate who goes out with uh, the radar gun to, uh, test randomly, uh, products on shelves so that they're what, uh, is on the bar code. The charge, uh, equates to what, uh, the market price is.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that because, uh, the city does have two employees and I think they're regional employees. They're not, uh, hired by the city. They do a number of cities and towns. Uh, they told me that there was a grant. that was put forth some years ago. And that grant ran out, which allowed them to go in and do spot checks in stores. And right now, I talk to Weights and Measures with the State Department, and they have a department, it's not really fully staffed, but they have a department that spot checks the whole state. And they keep a list of stores that may have a frequency of wrong prices. It's not done to the scale that it should be done. I know it's not being done in this community to any great effect, and I think it really needs to be looked at. You know, I've heard people state to me that they went in, and this is a little different than an incorrect price. They'll go in and buy something, and it has a skew on it, and the person, like fruit or something, will plug in a code, and they might buy two pounds of grapes, but the person plugged in a basket of flowers for $68. And if you're only buying the two pounds of grapes, you'll probably pick up on it. But if you're buying a lot of items, you may not pick up on that. These are the things I think really we have to be conscious of. That's a little bit different scenario than just an incorrect price. But there is a division of the state government that looks into pricing as well as gas stations. We're a little behind on our gas station, the octane level. We're a little behind on some of the checks that we do as a city, uh, to ensure that consumers get a fair shake when they go to the pump. But that's something that's, uh, is out there, but I don't feel comfortable. They're protecting me to be quite frank.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Inspector Fusco, Jack Fusco, uh, worked through the board of health on a grant, uh, for consumer protection. with the gun to check the prices. But I think you're correct. You are correct, actually.
[Michael Marks]: I think it was Mike Callahan. Actually, I think it was Mike Callahan there. He was the one that got the grant through.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah. Great American. Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. I just want to second the resolve. I think it's a good idea. I look forward to language on it. More often than not, you have families who are too busy to check their receipts. Or you have the other spectrum, people taking taxis or senior citizen transportation to get to the store, and they're not able to go back and try to get their money back. And I do know people who look at their receipts, and two out of 10 times, there's something wrong in your receipt. And the grocery store or the chain stores are making money from it. And there's probably thousands of the same mistake. So I agree. I think it's definitely worth looking into. I think it's one extra way to consumer protection and anything we can do with the consumer is a good step, a step in the right direction. So I look forward to, and I thank the city solicitor for drafting an ordinance and thank council Marks for putting it forward.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Madam vice president chair recognizes council night.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And this certainly sounds like a measure that I will be willing to support once I see a final draft from the city solicitor. Um, and I would be, I will be voting in favor of it this evening. However, I'd like to amend the paper and request that the solicitor, also request the input from our consumer advisory commission, which is the body that, um, you just mentioned in council and Mark's just mentioned as well. Um, we have three individuals in the office, um, Patty Wright, Paula Keefe and Linda Petarino, um, that work in the office doing a lot of the consumer complaints and, um, they might have a system in place right now that works for them and maybe we can adopt that and bring it into kind of our ordinance, Mr. President. So that's why I asked that we, uh, seek their input and I'd move for approval on the paper.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval, seconded by Councilor, Vice President Lungo-Koehn and amended by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries. 16-784 offered by Councilor Falco and Councilor Scarpelli. Whereas the holiday lights have adorned Medford City Hall for the past 20 years, whereas the holiday lights were created and manufactured by the Medford Vocational Technical High School students, be it resolved that the city administration find a new location for the holiday lights if they are not going to be part of the Medford City Hall holiday display and communicate to the residents where the long-term plans are for these holiday lights. Related to this, we got a communique from the mayor's office but given that I read so much last week, I'll allow council Scarpelli to give us a, um, uh, a synopsis of that response.
[George Scarpelli]: Counsel, if I will, if I can't, thank you, Mr. President. I'll just read. This is a from, to the honorable president and members of the city council, city hall. They have Mr. President, city council, every guy has the resolution 16-seven 84. Please be advised the following formation on September, September 12th, 2016. I met with DPW commissioner, Brian Karen's highway foreman, Steve Tanaglia, Electrical Inspector Steve Randazzo and the principal of the Method Vocational Technical High School, Heidi Riccio, to discuss the upcoming lighting of City Hall and surrounding squares. I conveyed to those involved the construction schedule for the City Hall as well as the impact the former lights had on the interior office of City Hall. As the structures were supported through the windows into the building, leaving openings between the sash and the windows, in addition, DPW Commissioner Gerrans has confirmed that there have been no light fixtures disposed of this year. Furthermore, we discussed possible options for the figures, such as Hormel Stadium's Royal Park and Route 60 Rotary, to name a few locations, after the reviewing multiple location installations currently taking place at Hormel Stadium on the rear side of the bleachers facing La Conte Rink. We will announce a lighting ceremony shortly in conjunction with the upcoming hockey game. I also want to thank the vocational school students, faculty, and assisting in the preparation of the LED lights, as well as Steve Randazzo for his design on the building. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the office. Sincerely, Stephanie Burke, Mayor. I know that those lights, I know that, just to add to that, those lights are on, from what I've been told, and the communication, for a rededication is to give the, um, the vocational students and vocational school an opportunity to come back out and, and thank them for all their hard work in the past.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Uh, chair recognizes council Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I am happy to hear that, uh, this issue sounds like it's been resolved. Uh, we did definitely have some concerns last week as we exited the building. Um, We, uh, council Scarpelli and myself noticed the lights were on the side of the dumpster. So we had some concerns that they were not going to be used and possibly thrown away. And, uh, I know a lot of time, effort and energy has gone into this project throughout the years by the, uh, students and the staff up at the vocational school. And, um, you know, I love those lights. Uh, you know, I think they'd become a part of the community. Uh, the, you know, I'm happy with the lights that are out front here tonight as well. But, um, The most important thing is they are being used somewhere in our community. Well, Mel Stadium sounds like a nice venue. Uh, you know, especially if you want to drive up close, it's right there. Um, so it's, uh, the bottom line is they being used again, um, here in the city. And I'm happy to see that, uh, you know, the, the, they were saved in, like I said, a lot of time, effort and energy went into those, went into the construction, uh, of those lights by the vocational students. So I'm glad that, uh, they did find a location. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Is there a motion? Motion to accept the place file. Motion. Oh, a citizen would like to speak. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, my name is Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street. My family also saw the lights by the dumpster this weekend. So I'm grateful that it was posted on Facebook. I know that the mayor's office received a lot of calls on Monday morning. So I just want to say that I'm glad the tradition lives on. My daughter will be 21 next year and every year. She'll be 21 tomorrow, actually. Amazing but and every year we've come out to see these lights. These are a source of pride to people that live in the city and Change is great. But sometimes we have to hold on to tradition They're at Hormel and were put up rather quickly from dumpster to Hormel But we're very grateful that they are not going to find their way into the trash and we hope that next year that we'll be able to place them in a more prominent position so that more people will be able to enjoy them and So, thank you and happy holidays. Thanks.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilor Scarpello. If I can, just to reiterate, the mayor's office, when contacted with the situation, the lights that were on the side of the building, next to the dumpster, were taking off the roof during construction. So, I believe that everything was in place to find a location for them. Um, and I, and I think that, uh, in other words, there was never, right. There was never a time to throw them away.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That's what I was talking. I was told. So thank you. Thank you. Uh, Councilor, the chair recognizes citizen at the podium. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Gina Muzo, 35 Parris Street in Medford. Well, I can appreciate that the lights were taken off the roof and put aside at the dumpster. As someone who works in the construction industry, I would say that that was really An unfortunate circumstance. At any point in time, those could have been taken away.
[George Scarpelli]: Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli. Just so Jean understands, from what I was told, just so to eliminate any other discussion, if it helps, that from what I gathered, those weren't the same lights. It was something totally different. So that's what I was told. So just so you know that. OK. OK?
[Jean Nuzzo]: All right. So did those lights get thrown out? Are those not the lights that are displayed?
[SPEAKER_09]: I don't know.
[Jean Nuzzo]: So right. So the reason that I'm stepping up is that I'd like to raise two points for consideration. The first that I understand that the building is under construction, there's renovations that are going to be underway, and that we've got a solution up that is a reasonable solution with the work that's going on. But I think in the review of the space as the construction continues, there's an opportunity to look at ways to retrofit those existing creations from the Vogue students that have been very emotionally contributed. There's a sentimental value, not for myself. don't have it personally, but I know that a lot of my fellow residents have expressed sentimental attachment to them. And I think that as part of that effort, as we look at making renovations, we should look to see if they can be refit. And then my other suggestion would be if they can't stay on the building or on the grounds, maybe we could do something where different pieces get put in different places. Maybe some could go to the library. Some could go to Hormel. So it encourages people to traverse the city and look at them, rather than go down that freedom way just to Hormel. I think that's a fine solution for this year. But those would be two things that I would hope that folks could consider getting some of it, if not all of it, back. And then, if not, maybe encouraging folks to go out and investigate other things that are in our city by way of these beautiful displays that the students have created over the years. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion to receive in place on file by Councilor Scott Pell, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Carries 16-787. Offered by Councilor Falco. Be it resolved that the Department of Public Works lower or reposition the no left turn sign at the corner of Tainter Street and Fulton Street in the interest of public safety. Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: I received a calls from a number of residents on Tainter Street and Fulton Street. Um, when you come out of tainter and you're heading towards Fulton, uh, you cannot take a left. And I guess increasingly, uh, you have, there are cars that are taking that left and going down Fulton street the wrong way. Um, which is very dangerous. It's a very narrow street, but the no left turn sign is on a telephone pole that is to the right and it's really high and it's being, it's being blocked by a tree that's in a private property. So if good at the signs, the lower, uh, in the interest of public safety, uh, just, I just want to try to prevent an accident there. It's can be very dangerous intersection, especially after school when you have Roberts kids, uh, walking home, uh, kids that live in that area. So if we could just have, uh, the DPW lower those signs. So they're in a, uh, view of the public. That'd be great.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Good on that motion. All those in favor. All those opposed. Communications from the mayor is 16 to seven 85. to the Honorable President, members of the Metro City Council, City Hall, Metro-Maso, 2155. Dear Mr. President and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Body approve the following transfer. $10,000 to be transferred from finance permanent full-time salary count 010-1355110 to finance professional services-financial ordinary count 010-1355301. The amount of $10,000 is needed for the 2016 OPED, Post-Retirement Benefits Actuarial Evaluation Report. The purposes of the valuation are to analyze the current funded position of the city's post-retirement benefits program, determine the level of contributions necessary to assure sound funding, and provide reporting and disclosure information for financial statements, governmental agencies, and other interested parties. Sincerely, your signature on file, Stephanie Ember. Mayor, presenting to us for this paper is? Good evening.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Welcome. Good evening, honorable president and good evening, honorable Councilors.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Your name and address for the record.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Alicia Dunley, finance director, city of Medford.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome, Alicia.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Can you tell us a little bit about this paper?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes. Um, the OPEB report has to be done every two years and the last time it was done was in 2014 so I'm respectfully asking that we can get it funded for 2016.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Uh, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you Mr. President. Uh, the 10,000 that's being transferred from a permanent full time salary account. Is that an employee that left? How do we have $10,000 in that account?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, that's because Ian Baker, the former auditor, retired. And the assistant auditor left. So there's lag money. I was hired as finance director, and there's still an open position for assistant auditor. So there's still some lag money within the salary count. So how much are we talking? How much lag money is in there? Right. Above about $20,000.
[Michael Marks]: After this $10,000, there's $20,000 left in that account? Yep. OK. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair awaits motion. Motion to approve by Councilor Scott Paoli. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: The OPEB report is a requirement of the state government?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Knight]: Yes. And that's related to establishing our obligation underneath the pension liabilities, is that correct?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: No, it's not for pension. It's for health insurance and for life insurance. So it's other post-employment benefits other than pension.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: You're welcome.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you. Second. Counsel Scott Bell's motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor, do you wish to speak on this? Nope. I'll say it's on the motion for approval by council Scott Valley, seconded by council night. $10,000 requires a roll. Oh, council max.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure if Alicia can answer this or not, but uh, I think it was two weeks ago. I brought up a resolution regarding, uh, Aflac and there were a number of employees, I believe close to a hundred employees that um, uh, didn't have their secondary insurance for a period of time because of nonpayment of premium by the city. Are you familiar with that issue?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Uh, through the chair, I apologize. I'm not familiar with that issue.
[Michael Marks]: You're not familiar with that. Okay. Mr. President, maybe if we can get a response, it's been two weeks and we have not got a response on behalf of over a hundred city employees.
[Fred Dello Russo]: This is a serious matter.
[Michael Marks]: It's a very serious matter. Health insurance. Maybe we get some response from the administration. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So on the motion for approval, seconded by a council of council Scarpelli, seconded by council Knight. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice president Langeford? Yes. Councilor Matz? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of seven, the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Thank you, councilor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Congratulations. 16-786 to the president and members of the Medford city council from Mayor Stephanie M. Burke, re. Acceptance of tax increment financing agreement. Dear President Dello Russo and members of the Medford City Council, in accordance with the provisions of general law chapter 40, section 59, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the attached resolution accepting a tax increment financing agreement between the city of Medford and Bianco Inc. and Bianco White LLC regarding property located at one Brainerd Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts. The purpose of this resolution is to promote economic development. Among its goals is to assist the location and expansion of companies in Medford and to create new jobs. Also submitted for your information is a copy of the proposed TIF agreement and spreadsheet for the TIF. Representatives from Bianco Sausage along with various city department representatives will be in attendance at your meeting to answer your questions. Sincerely, Signature on Files, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor, December 1st, 2016, to the Honorable President, members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford Mass, 02155, dear Mr. President and City Councilors, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Medford hereby approve the Tax Increment Financing Agreement, the TIF agreement, between the City of Medford and Bianco, Inc., and Bianco White, LLC, in substantially the form presented herewith to the Metro City Council pursuant to General Law, Chapter 40, Section 59, and to authorize the mayor to take such action as is necessary to implement the TIF. Cecilia Yawes, Stephanie Annenberg, Mayor. Presenting on behalf of the city is Clodagh from the Office of Community Development, who's patiently waited for us. If you could update, just for the information, we met in Committee of the Whole and met quite favorably on this measure last week. In our report out, we asked that the mayor consider adjusting this if it was within a sense that would make sense for the city to do. So I believe there's been an agreement that rather than do this over a 20-year spread, is to do it over 10?
[Clodagh Stoker-Long]: That's correct.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Uh, Councilors, uh, chair recognizes, uh, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Uh, Mr. President, thank you very much. Um, as presented last week, uh, this is a, an opportunity for Bianchi sausages to be provided with some tax relief, um, in exchange for creating some jobs and keeping their business here in the community. Um, but with the approval, it also opens up an opportunity for Bianchi sausage company to, uh, gain access to some state funding. So, um, that's where the real relief is, uh, from what I understand, Mr. President. So, Absent the passage of a local TIF, they're not allowed to apply for the state relief as well. And looking at the paper, it came out of the committee of the whole that they paid about $3 million for the building over there, the old Hoffs Bakery site. Since that time, they've invested about another $3 million into the building, Mr. President, and based on the present proposal and the present TIF, The tax relief that will be generated over the 10-year period looks like it totals about $75,000, Mr. President. This is something that I'm very comfortable supporting this evening. It's going to bring 27 jobs to Medford, 10 new jobs to the city of Medford, and it's also going to allow us to maintain one of the larger businesses here in the community. So, for those reasons, it's something that I'll be supporting this evening, Mr. President. The President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. I call the motion for approval by Councilor Knight, Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. good opportunity to get a good business in Medford. Um, and I like council and I, I think the figures need to be made. Um, not only do they pay 3 million for the property, I think they put almost 4 million in improvements already and plan to invest 8 million in total. Um, there's also 27 jobs that are being brought from their old location to Medford with a commitment of 20 additional new jobs over the next five years. And, Medford residents. I know the wording in the contract is obviously not exactly what I'm going to say, but Medford will get preferential treatment and hopefully the applications from Medford residents will be looked at first so that we can hire within. Um, we also have many vehicles that we're going to bring in excise taxes for. Um, there is substantial amount of money being paid in taxes in this exemption over a 10 year period will be about $69,817. which is a reduction of between $6,000 and $7,000 per year. We did do the lowest percentage, and again, this is for the exemption, so they can get the state exemption. We look forward to the business getting up and running in Medford, and I wish them good luck, and I think this is something not only to support a business that has already bought the property, but it's a good tool to use to entice other businesses to come into Medford, and I hope it's use more often so we can fill some of our vacant storefronts and things like that. Um, thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, madam vice president. So on the motion of Councilor Knight for approval, seconded by vice president Lungo-Koehn chair recognizes council.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to take the opportunity, uh, to welcome the Bianco family, uh, to the city of Medford. I mean, it must have been a difficult decision to leave, uh, their other location after I think they said 40 years relocate here in Medford and, uh, I for one am quite happy that they've made the decision to come here, bringing jobs, their business, they'll be bringing cars will be coming here, their trucks will be here. We'll be collecting excise tax and a lot of other things. And again, it was good because I'd hate to see that property that was there when Hoffs moved to expand. It didn't stay vacant that long and this fine company stepped in, bought the property. and they've expanded their business and, uh, many, many residents have, uh, you know, uh, looking forward to them opening. And again, um, I think it was a great thing by the city to get this done. And, um, again, I want to welcome to the community and hope they stay here for another 50 years. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We also had as part of the committee report, um, uh, we want to get feedback from the safety gate, If anyone's familiar with the property, there's a safety gate in the back of the old Hoffs building where the fire department had access that was closed off to vehicular traffic. And I was wondering if we received any feedback regarding the safety gate.
[Clodagh Stoker-Long]: I can respond.
[Fred Dello Russo]: This report's coming out, so once it comes out procedurally. Claudia, go ahead, I'm sorry.
[Clodagh Stoker-Long]: I consulted with the fire chief and with the director of the DPW. And apparently, yes, those gates were put in to prevent through traffic through the neighborhoods. They are supposed to be activated by the fire trucks. Brian Cairns, the director of the DPW, is responsible for maintaining them. When I spoke to him, he sent someone out immediately to see what the problem was, and they're looking into getting the correct parts to fix the gates.
[Michael Marks]: We were told by one of the sons of Biaki that the gate was bent. Yes, it was hit recently.
[Clodagh Stoker-Long]: They found that it had been obviously been struck, struck by a vehicle.
[Michael Marks]: That's an important issue because that provides access for the fire department in and around the building and also the neighborhood if need be. Um, the only other thing I'd like to say, Mr. President, and I welcome a Bianchi sausage, uh, to the city. I'm sure there'll be a good neighbor. Uh, they, uh, currently in Revere, uh, nestled within a neighborhood from, I've never seen it, but, uh, nestled in, uh, within a neighborhood in Revere. And I told them, equally, they are in a neighborhood right now with neighbors on both sides and that they be mindful of that in the act of doing their business. I would also ask, Mr. President, that the city do a better job in promoting the TIF, because I've received several calls, actually, from local business owners that said, jeez, how do we get an incentive? And we may be looking to expand in the community. And how do we take advantage? So I would ask that. the mayor maybe get in contact with the Chamber of Commerce and have someone from her office explain what the TIF is, how you go about applying for a TIF, what are the benefits to getting a TIF, and what are the benefits for a community that accept the TIF. So I would ask that that be part of the paper also, Mr. President, that the mayor do outreach to local businesses in the community regarding the TIF.
[Fred Dello Russo]: as meted by Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight. Um, yes, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: I'd like to also point out that, uh, the, the, the Bianco sausage company was in Revere for a very long time. And, um, the family is from Revere and, um, now that it's moved to Medford, uh, we've inherited one of the sons as well. And Louis is going to be Louis lives here in Medford as well. Um, so, uh, I just want to welcome you to Medford and, uh, congratulations on, uh, your new purchase. And, uh, this is something that I'm going to support this evening, Mr. President, but, uh, It's a family owned and operated business for three generations. And it seems like a anytime that the business moves, a family member moves with it into the community. So a welcome aboard and thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_09]: Madam vice president.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, president. So I think we made it part of the committee report, but I just want to reiterate the annual report that is sent to the state that Medford get a copy, um, the clerk's office and OCD. I just want to make that part of the report.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So in approving this, we're approving the committee report. Yes, Councilor? Thank you. Awesome. Chair recognizes Councilor, no. Motion for approval by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Scott? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Councilor Martins? Yes. Councilor Scott-Gelder? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, with a vote of 7 in the affirmative, none in the negative, motion passes. Congratulations, welcome to Medford. Third generation family business. Thank you for choosing Medford. 16-789, to the Honorable President, members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford Mass, 02155. Your honor and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following transfer. $900,000 to be transferred from water retained earnings to account 340-450-5780-0000-0000-867-2017-0102 Water Capital Project. The amount of $900,000 is needed for the West Medford parking lot PCE cleanup for the water department. Finance director Aleesha Nunley is present to answer any of the council's questions regarding this matter. The remaining balance on the water retained earnings after this transfer will be $3,669,199. We welcome with us tonight our city auditor and the grand engineer of the City of Medford.
[SPEAKER_09]: Welcome.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Thank you, Council President and Honourable Councilors. I'm going to let the engineer, she knows more, explain this.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: By the way, my uncle was at Wheeler Field 75 years ago tomorrow, strafed by bullets, Japanese planes, survived. All of you are familiar with the PCE site in West Medford. We have reached a milestone in that we have finished the design and we are getting ready to put the procurement together, which means that we would be hiring a contractor, a remediation contractor, to go out and treat the PCE to remove the contaminant below ground in the soil and the groundwater that lies beneath the parking lot and beneath bargain spot liquors, and also is affecting 452 to 460 High Street and 7 Canal Street. We're requesting these funds so that we may proceed with the program, which is approximately a two-year or 18-month program for treatment, three rounds of in-situ chemical oxidation, follow-up monitoring, for a period of about two years. And we're highly hopeful that at that point in time we can start the closeout procedures for the site. Questions, please.
[Richard Caraviello]: Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. Cassandra, I'm a little confused. What are we actually going to be doing? We're just going to start injecting chemicals into the ground at this point?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Right. It's a push drill, a small drill rig. Some of them are no bigger than a pickup truck. I don't know the exact dimensions yet, but they push the oxidant into the ground. They're going to be treating two different locations vertically. One is in the soil layer, which is called the unsaturated zone above the groundwater table, and one is in the saturated zone, which goes down about 25 feet.
[Richard Caraviello]: What is the success rate of this?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Highly successful. In fact, we've already done a bench test. We took samples last winter and sent them out to a company to conduct a bench test using different kinds of oxidants. And the report came back that this chemical composition of sodium permanganate will work. In some spots of the parking lot, we have to add what's called a surfactant, which is like a soap. It attaches to the PCE and draws it from the soil so that it can get into the dissolved part of the column. and be eradicated more cleanly.
[Richard Caraviello]: And how quickly will this take? You said two years?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Overall, two years, because we have one round of injections, and then we need to monitor. We need to wait. We need to give the occupant time to move through the groundwater table.
[Richard Caraviello]: Now, at the end of this two-year process, if I owned a piece of property there, what would my 21E read at the end of that? If it were to be successful, would I be able to sell my property and get a clean 21E? We would have something that a sellable claim to 21e.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, the two of the properties of the three affected, in my opinion, are sellable 21e properties that the contamination is minor relative to, to, um, anything else. It's the one at bargain spot, which is sitting on top of the plume. That's an issue that the goal is for 18 months of remediation followed by two years of monitoring. So it's really about three and a half years.
[Richard Caraviello]: So these people are going to have to suffer another three years?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We're confident that each round of ISCO will make the problem smaller and smaller. So if you're looking at a horizon of looking to sell or develop, you're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.
[Richard Caraviello]: But my question is, so if I owned a piece of property there, I would have to wait another three years.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: If you wanted concentrations to be below reportable limits or be at what our goal is, which is 50 parts per billion, it is a very tiny amount of contaminant in the ground. One part per million is like 0.001 percent.
[Richard Caraviello]: So what you are saying is the people that own property over there, if they are looking to sell, they are going to need to wait another 3 years?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, we are looking at---- This is a conservative estimate. You know, we can't, we don't, we don't know how much of the contaminant is actually bonded to the soil. You know, there might be a layer of what's called dense non-aqueous phase liquid that is based on the dumping that occurred years and years ago, could have formed a small plume. The idea being that if the monitoring shows drop levels, then the individuals who have the systems, the air purifying units in their buildings can start to shut them off. And then once they've started to shut them off, then there's no more indoor air hazard. So the rents, you know, are not as, they're not burdened if you're going to be renting out your basement to a tenant. You're looking at developing your building, the concentrations are lower. So whatever cleanup that you might have to do at the time if you want to move on earlier, it's less than what it would be today. So it's getting better. No one can guarantee that it would be a clean bill of health. You know, there might have to be, Um, an activity and use limitation on the site, you know, for underground excavation, but it should be fairly minor compared to what we have right now.
[Richard Caraviello]: No. Uh, are these, are these businesses being given any kind of, um, uh, tax breaks or anything, uh, seeing that they didn't cause, uh, this, um, are we, are we offering them anything?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Uh, my understanding is that seven canal has requested one and I don't, I believe that the assessor has provided a tax break. I don't know about the other two properties.
[Richard Caraviello]: Has he provided a tax break to them?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I believe so, if memory serves.
[Richard Caraviello]: And what about the other buildings? Are they eligible for?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I don't know.
[Richard Caraviello]: Again, it's not the city's fault either. They can be dated because the city didn't dump this there.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We inherited this problem.
[Richard Caraviello]: We inherited the problem. I understand that. And again, I feel bad because for the people that own businesses over there, they're suffering some pretty good financial burdens. And again, for them to hold, they're going to have to hold on another two or three years. and hope that this works. Now, is this a one-time figure of 900? Will that cover the whole project? Or are you going to come back here asking for more money down the line?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: There is contingency in that number.
[Richard Caraviello]: What contingency is in that number?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: There's a cost contingency in that number. So there's money. It's padded, in other words. It's a conservative estimate, the goal being that we don't have to come back and ask for more money.
[Richard Caraviello]: All right, that's about it for the moment.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Thank you. With regards to, you said the injections will be vertical. Is that because the main spot of the contamination is under a building?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: It's under the building, yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So is there going to be any effects to that building during or after injection?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: No. No. They've already done a test of how much water you can pump into the ground. And they've measured the monitoring wells to see what any effects are. So it's going to be a measured and steady process.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then do you have any breakdowns at all for the $900,000 with regards to the contingency? How much is that? And when will the money be expended and on what specifically?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: So I have a spreadsheet. It's just, I know you can't see it from here, but there's a number of different costs involved. For instance, we have a contingency of a factor of $100,000 in contingency for that includes The pre-design investigation, the pilot test, the ISCO treatment of the unsaturated and saturated zones, ISCO treatment of the hot spots, ISCO treatment of the saturated zone, and ISCO reagents, which are the chemicals themselves. There are also costs. We're going to have to have our LSP of record be on this project, monitoring it, verifying the health and safety plans, being on the project at all times. So there's pre-construction engineering and permitting, remedial action work plan, The design that they're working on, permitting and bid support. Their costs in their construction observation and documentation, $35,000. If I'm going too fast, I'd be happy to make copies of this for anyone. Post-construction engineering and permitting, around $26,000. And that's the capital cost of $806,000. But then there's the O&M. So this is the operating costs. Year one and two. estimated at $55,000, and then years three through five, which we're thinking that we'll have to do less monitoring, because we're doing the initial major push first, with the idea that the second round of ISCO will be less, and the third round of ISCO will be even less than that. So the second round of O&M, and this goes beyond years three, because we're being conservative, is approximately $16,000. So looking at the year present worth, total is $949,000. Now we still have some money left in the EPA grant, which will make up the difference from what we're requesting tonight.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Thank you for the rundown. I wish we got, I mean, the mayor sent us this paper. I wish we got more than a couple sentences and maybe got that break down so we could review it over the weekend. But that's all my questions for now. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. At this time, the chair recognizes Councilor Kara Biala. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Cassandra, can you give me another community and something in the area where this has been used that has been successful?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I know that it's been used in Newton. I know that it's been used in Cambridge. And I'd be happy to provide
[Richard Caraviello]: If you could, provide where it's been used and what status it's in and the success rate of it. Is it the same type of chemical?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: There are different products on the market.
[Richard Caraviello]: No, I mean, but what was used in Newton? I mean, the contamination in Newton in Cambridge, was it similar?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes, I believe so. But I can get to you.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you could, I'd appreciate it. Let's see what the success rate. And if you had a contact person. Over in Cambridge and Newton, that would be appreciated also.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All set? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor.
[John Falco]: Chair recognizes Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of quick questions. Is it possible to get a copy of that report, the one you just read with the spreadsheets?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[John Falco]: OK, that'd be great. With regard to when this actually happens, Is there any impact on the day-to-day going-ons in that parking lot with regard to people coming and going? How many trucks is it going to be? Is it just one truck? Is it many trucks? Is it going to be shut down? Or is it off limits?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We're going to have to shut the parking lot down.
[John Falco]: It is down, OK.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes.
[John Falco]: Is there any, I guess, type of hazard to anyone just being in the vicinity? Or is it just as long as the parking lot's shut down, we're fine?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: As long as the parking lot is shut down and no one enters the parking lot, we should be fine.
[John Falco]: Is it just one truck or is it many trucks?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I don't yet know the number of the amount of equipment. Each contractor will have a proposal. They'll submit to us and we'll review it. They'll give us a footprint, you know, what they expect to have on site, what they need for the drill. You know, it's one drill rig, but there'd be trailers and other pieces of equipment for them to mix and apply the chemicals.
[John Falco]: Do we know, would this be happening during daytime hours between nine and five?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: It would be during daytime hours. Yes. And ideally during the spring. because the groundwater table is high and we don't expect as many people out and about in the early spring or mid-spring.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Okay, thank you.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: You're welcome.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Cassandra, do we have contingency plans for parking for the businesses that normally park there?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We have some ideas of contingency for parking. that I would need to explore further. I'm not sure I'd want to try to cover it. We talked about perhaps parking at the funeral home the last time we went up for this discussion.
[Richard Caraviello]: How long is this going to take?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, the first round is about a month's worth of occupation. And I'm just being conservatively about a month. Once again, the contractor, we're putting out an RFP. So we'll be reviewing proposals from contractors. And they'll tell us how much time they think they need for the performance that we're asking them to do. You know, we've, and the design is very specific. It's like, use this chemical, drill this many times, go this deep, you know, give us these results. Here's all of our pre-design work that explains what you should be finding. But they have to come back and tell us what they're actually going to do and how they're going to do it.
[Richard Caraviello]: So we're looking at maybe a month, maybe six weeks in the spring. And then when will they come back again?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: They wouldn't come back again, my understanding is, about six months later.
[Richard Caraviello]: So probably until the end of the fall.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Right. And then another six months after that. But we're going to be sampling. The DEP has actually volunteered to take some samples inside the buildings at 438 High Street and 452 High Street. They're going to do crab samples and look at the air quality in there. We're going to be watching it all very closely and tracking the performance of this treatment process.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, if I could, um, put an amendment in there that, um, the city, uh, schedule a meeting with the local businesses down there. So they'll, they know what's happening. Um, as far as parking in timeframe of the project, because there are many businesses that rely on that parking lot, um, uh, for, uh, for their, their livelihood. So I say if, if the mayor could schedule some type of meeting somewhere down there, um, before the project starts, to get up so all the businesses will know what's going on.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We intend to. We want to make sure that this is very transparent, that there's solid city representation on site. I don't know if it'll be me in a lawn chair or somebody else watching everything.
[Richard Caraviello]: If we could also maybe work out something with Republic Parking during this time to maybe help the businesses out that are impacted. especially in that square area.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much.
[Adam Knight]: Do you anticipate the impact on operations opening and closing of the abutting businesses down there?
[SPEAKER_13]: Will there be periods of time where they're required to close the doors? Will there be periods of time where they're not able to access their loading zones, loading docks, so on and so forth, if they're not coming in through that parking lot? I know I think Boggins-Bartlick as his loading zone is actually attached to the parking lot in the back. So if you look at it in that regard, is the project going to cripple these local businesses at the beginning of the springtime? Are they going to be able to continue to operate absent the parking? That's one thing. It's another thing if they're going to be forced to close their doors on certain periods of time while it's going on without being able to do notice and potential mitigation even
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I can respond to the bargain spot. The loading dock is not closing. That loading zone, the alley between the two buildings would stay open. So they can back in and drive out of that one. Snappy Patty's patio would not be open during the day while this is going on. Once again, we do the work in the spring. Really, outdoor dining is not an issue.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. If I may, from the chair, is there any, uh, environmental concern that people will have? Will they notice a chemical aroma in the air anymore than they already do now? I believe not process.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Thank you. We'll talk, we'll talk to the public about the kind of chemicals that we're using. We'll have MSDS sheets and, um, there's going to be health and safety officers on site. It's a very strict health and safety plan. The contractor has to follow.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. This time the chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Cassandra, what was the original state grant for? How much was it? A half a million?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: There was an EPA grant for $400,000, 400,000.
[Michael Marks]: And how much do we have remaining of that 400,000?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We have about 200,000 left, 200,000 left.
[Michael Marks]: And you mentioned that this will go for an RFP. Um, what's to say that there's no bidders on this at the current 900,000?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We don't anticipate that, but if there was, we'd have to take a look at what we've established as our criteria and we propose it, you know, put it out again.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I've seen bids just recently come back that, uh, for whatever reason, there was no bids on it. So I'm just concerned that this dollar amount is an accurate reflection. And, uh, if it's not, uh, Mr. President, uh, will knowing that there's 200,000 in state grants, can the city just tap into that money, or do they need approval from the council? I think that's a question that needs to be answered.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We're sure, as there always are, as you wisely know, Councilor, stipulations on how grant money can be used, and there's strictures on that. I think the engineer who's been in charge of these funds, or their allocation, can advise us and knows the parameters of those expenditures.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: where the money is available to us to spend on this project. It's just not enough money. We can't do a short piece of it.
[Michael Marks]: No, I understand that. What I'm saying is if just say, uh, RFP comes back and there's no bidders and all of a sudden now we move it up to a million, 100,000, uh, is the city going to take 200,000 of that and just poly on 900,000 and make the million one. Can that, can that be done that way?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Or do you want to answer this question? We have $200,000 from the EPA specifically for cleanup activities. That's always there. And if the bids come back higher than the $900,000... I guess it's a legal question.
[Michael Marks]: Whether or not if we approve $900,000 for the project and they get no bidders and then they have to put it out for a re-bid at $1.1 million. Can they use their 200,000 with our 900,000 or do we have to go through the whole process again? I guess that's just a question that maybe can be answered another time. I don't know if that could be answered here. You mentioned about excavation and if this is not successful, that anything at that lot for reuse, Just say in three years from now we decide that there's still a fair amount of contaminants and so forth. You're saying that that particular property could never be excavated for construction?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Of course it could be excavated for construction.
[Michael Marks]: If it's mitigated?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Even if it's not mitigated, it's just the cost of removing the material and hauling it out of state.
[Michael Marks]: So the first report we got was to excavate and remove the material.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes, and use ISCO.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Right. Did you remember what that cost was?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: It was over $2 million. And when we had it peer reviewed, the consultant said, the other consultant said, you might be looking at more like $3 million and a lot, you know, in a longer timeframe for monitoring groundwater than you thought you'd think you'd need.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So the first consultant we had thought it would be a way of removing it. They thought it was appropriate.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: They were operating under an idea that the city was very aggressive about getting it cleaned up quickly. So, you know, Digging it up and carrying it off is quicker than some other methods. But the more you look into it, the more you realize the fragility of those buildings, the foundations are not that well supported. You have to do a lot of shoring. It's a very disrupting, very tight space. You're talking about months of disruption as opposed to just one month of disruption. You've got dirt being hauled off, dust going off site, all kinds of air quality issues. $2 million in climbing, potentially, We regrouped and we said we have to look at a different approach. We'll take more time if we need to and do a less invasive method. This is a workable method. The chemicals might change, but they all do the job. They blast that PCE down to its daughter components. You're not left with a vicious subcomponent of that. They'll break it down.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So, so to me, uh, we're going to spend 900,000. How much has been spent to date, uh, on the remediation of this particular property?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: There's been no money spent on remediation. The money's been spent on studying it, um, meeting the EPA requirements because EPA and giving us the money required that we do a lot of things that follow their regulations, like put out quality assurance protocol plans and that costs money to write those up. Plus the APCA.
[Michael Marks]: So maybe I should rephrase that. How much money has been spent by the business owners?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Currently, I couldn't tell you about the past, but currently the city is picking up the cost of monitoring at the businesses.
[Michael Marks]: Right, I know that. But you don't know what's been spent from the Canal Street business?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Mr. Stephens has said he has spent, say, $60,000. I don't know what Mr. Pompeo or Ms. Eng spent.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So, you know, I, you know, I, I, I'm glad we're moving forward on this, but I think we've been talking about this for what, four or five years now.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: I mean, I mean, I mean, it's, it's been a long time and I'm a little discouraged to hear that, uh, we're potentially talking about another three and a half years. Um, you know, and, and I realized the appreciation, appreciate the fact that, uh, we can remediate this in a, a less intrusive way, I guess, by not digging and removing, but it's a far longer process. And what you just laid out in a process we'd hate to do to businesses, we're doing it in the square, right at the Craddock bridge, where we have a three and a half year project, almost four years of digging, dust, debris, and everything else under the sun. And it didn't seem to be much mention about that particular business. Um, you know, and saying, well, what about the business? But here we are in West Medford and behind the liquor store saying, well, we don't want to really get in there and, you know, start ripping it up and digging it out and cutting it off, which to me, uh, may have been more expensive, but probably the better approach, uh, now that we're going on four or five years and another three and a half years. And that's assuming it works. As you stated, there's no guarantee. Nothing's guaranteed. So we could be here three years from now saying, what's the next step? We've treated it with two or three different injections, and it's still not working. So we don't know. I guess none of us know. And who's going to be the wiser? Let's see, what else did I have written down?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, I would just say that the bench tests are promising. So the bench test would be, you take a sample of the soil and the groundwater. You know, so it's a scientific experiment on, we're going to take this real life condition, real soil, real groundwater, real contaminant, and apply the chemical and see what it does to it. And it worked.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But that's one particular, I know they drilled a lot of holes, but you're hitting up one particular spot. You don't know if that's the hot spot.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, they've got different hot spots, and it's like pincushion, these two hot spots, soil and groundwater. So there's a lot of different points being drilled. I did say that there's a possible dean apple in the ground somewhere, which is like blobs of PCE. And the reason for the surfactant is to draw it out, detach it from the soil so that it will go into solution and then can interact with the oxidant and be annihilated. We will know from the first round how it's going. We won't have to know two years from now whether or not this is working or not.
[Michael Marks]: But the first round is how long?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, the first round you start monitoring about three to four weeks after your injections. And then you're looking, you know, you're just tracking and seeing what your levels are. You're going into the wells and you're drawing samples and you're testing it. So we're going to have, I would think, within six to eight months, a pretty good picture of how we're doing. These companies that do this kind of work are very conservative. They really don't like to go out on a limb and make promises that they can't keep. So they have to couch things in certain ways. And I'm a civil engineer. I'm a conservative person. In my profession, I don't wildly promise results. But this works. It's been done before in multiple places.
[Michael Marks]: So to me, the conservative approach would have been to dig it up and cut it off. That would have been to me, the conservative approach. Uh, but that's, that's my own opinion. That's my, that's my own opinion. So, uh, Mr. President, I just asked that we receive continued updates on this, um, from the city engineer and from the city administration. And, uh, ultimately I'm not sure who makes the call. If in eight months from now, is it your decision to say, Hey, wait, enough's enough. We spent, 500,000, we're not any closer to removing the contaminants. Who makes that final? We have a consultant that makes that decision?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: We would be doing it in concert. You know, we have the DEP available to us. We have our consultant. We have the EPA. You know, we're spending their money. They're very interested in the outcome of this. And then there's me and other professionals in this building.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And I have the utmost faith and confidence in you. But, you know, we talked to the business owners. and you can feel this sense of frustration of, uh, you know, uh, how long this has been taken. Um, many business owners feel that they haven't been at the table during discussions. Um, I'm sure you probably heard this or not, but, uh, they're very upset about the fact that they weren't privy to a lot of the dialogue and discussion, uh, or at least had some notification on what's happening. Now, all the abundance have been notified regarding this project and the lack of the pocket lot, uh,
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yes, yes, we went through that at the public meeting for the alternatives analyses when we had to write the ABCA, you know, analysis of various different alternatives. This was one of eight alternatives. And it is a balance. It's a blend of, you know, effectiveness and cost and time. It's the best choice looking at all these considerations. All of the abutters have copies of that report. They came to the public meetings. They call me occasionally or talk to me and say, hey, what's going on? They do express concerns. I don't dispute their concerns. I think they're very valid. And they'll be around as we work on this. It's a visible location. It's a very small site. If we don't clean it, this won't go anywhere. It'll still sit there like it is. leaching into the street, getting into our, you know, maybe our water and sewer system trenches, who knows where it's going to go. You know, we have to do something.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I would also ask as part of the report that, uh, if there's any cost incurred by any of the direct abutters of this particular location, that they receive reimbursement from, uh, the grant that is out there over $200,000 in state funding. that I assume would be available to offset any cost that for any of the bodies directly affected by any of this work that's taken place.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Council max chair recognizes vice-president London current.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. President Delaware. So I was going to say, where's the 200,000 come into play? That's left over. Are we expecting this to cost another 1.1? No, no.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: That 200,000 will be applied. So we're asking for $900. We have $200. We have $1.1. It's an outside number. With all things considered, we may not spend the $900. The $200 goes first.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: OK, $200 goes first, then the $900? Follows, yeah. And then what will we do if we have remaining monies? I would expect it would go back, right?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: We could re-approve them, or approve to go back to home.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: put it back to water-retained earnings? Okay. And then, with regards, I think Council Member Marks touched upon it, with regards to the RFP that goes out, will there be a back-out clause if, so if testing after six months doesn't show improvement or enough improvement, will there be, I think Council Member Marks mentioned who can back out, but are we going to make sure we have a back-out clause?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Yeah, we'll have the ability to cancel the contract. That's standard language in our contracts. With written notice, we can cancel. You know, what if a company we hire goes bankrupt? We don't, you know, if something like that happens, we would be able to cancel. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. So the Chair awaits motion. We have a proposal. Here before us. It has been amended by councillor Caraviello and councillor marks twice I believe there's a citizen that wishes to address us So if you would give the citizens some room to address us and sir, would you please state your name and address?
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter. I live at zero summit Road method mass at the outset I'd like to congratulate councillor Caraviello and coming the incoming president for next year and councillor marks I believe you the incoming vice president I have some concerns over this subject matter, because having served on the city council, I've been a part of this. And some of my concerns reflect upon the following issues. Number one, when we talk about the $900,000 that you folks are being asked to appropriate here tonight, first $200,000 supposedly is coming from the remaining amount. There is nothing in here that talks about change orders or this being a fixed fee. So you really don't have anything in front of you that tells you that this is going to be a definitive number, because this number could escalate. if, in fact, things were to change. And if, in fact, this is a $900,000 project, why are you folks paying for it up front at 100%? If this is going to be a two-, three-year project, why wouldn't you be paying for it? Why wouldn't the city be proposing to make a payment over a three-year period of time? That way there, according to the engineer, she's not guaranteeing anything. But the fact of the matter is, if this thing doesn't work out, at least you have some leverage to go back to make sure that they do what they're supposed to do, or something needs to be changed to correct the problem. That'll take place. And also taking into consideration this is an excessive $1 million project, there doesn't seem to be any bond performance that seems to be being presented here, protecting the city's asset, which is its cash, which is that of the Medford public taxpayer. So you're looking at a cost factor. You don't have anything in front of you that tells you that a bond performance is going to be had here. There's nothing telling you as to why you're paying it up front rather than over an extended period of time. That, to me, would present a concern. Also, I don't know if there was an enviro-forensic analysis that took place relative to the composition of what the problem is in the ground. These are specialist people who come in, and I'm quite sure that our city engineer is aware of these type of people. They're experts, and they can tell you that what and if the city is using is the right treatment to be done. I don't know. The last time I know of a public hearing on this matter, because I attended it, was in August of 2015. And in that report that took place and presented in August of 2015, a public hearing was supposed to take place before this Medford City Council and for the people of Medford and for the people affected in the West Medford area to come forward to listen to what's being presented. You are being presented the lowest of the numbers as compared to the highest of the numbers to resolve this problem. And I think you're aware of this, Councilor Caraviello. I think you're aware of the fact, because you were there with me at the meeting. This 900,000 figure is the lowest of whatever it's going to cost to remediate this particular project. The city of Medford and the taxpayers And those business owners, as Councilman Max has alluded to, deserve more and deserve better. To wait almost three years and hold your property up for almost three years cancels out any idea of the fact that the property can be sold and somebody would have to come in and deal with this. And if you're going to go out for a bid, maybe the bid should go out and be inclusive of the fact that if somebody's going to come in and make a bid, to do this project, maybe the bid should include somebody wanting to buy the product, buy this particular subject matter. And maybe that person who buys it will have to pay for it. Therefore, if we are going to go out of our way to pay to remediate this piece of property, And then once it's remediated, and if it's corrected properly, the business owners then go out and sell the property at a much higher rate. Who loses out on that particular deal? And that particular deal, the city loses out. So I think your options need to be put both ways. Maybe somebody coming in who wants to buy the property, or somebody coming in to remediate it. Let's just see what's out there. Who's offering whatever needs to be offered? I don't know. You also talked about the fact that you want to take this money And you want to take it from the Water Enterprise Retained Earnings Account. Now, we all know that the enterprise account here in the city of Medford dates back to 1983, 1984, when the city of Medford first entertained it. And we know that the city of Medford's enterprise fund, its enterprise fund, is one that's considered, for its best practice, and for this fund, it's for water, sewer, and stormwater systems, period. The law is very specific. when it turns around and tells you what it cannot be used for. The community may not establish enterprise funds for normal government operations or services such as public safety, inspectional services, or cemeteries. This is a public safety issue. This public safety issue wraps itself around an environmental issue and maybe a public health issue, but it's a public safety issue first. This has got nothing to do with your infrastructure of water, stormwater, or infrastructure for any of these pipes that are going on. The City of Medford presently sits on over, I believe, close to $9 million in your free cash account. If the City of Medford wants to go forward and pay for this without disturbing that process of profit that you have almost $8.5 million in your water and sewer account, You have nothing presented before you tonight that talks about any kind of major infrastructure in this community, nothing more than fixing a parking lot that's been there for many, many years that the city's had control over. I think you're doing a disservice not only to yourselves, but to the enterprise fund account, because that money is there for a specific purpose. Plus the fact enterprise account, on an annual basis, The accounting needs to come forward as to tell you what they're going to spend their money on. And now you're getting a hit for $900,000 right now that was not put in any part of the budget, no public hearing has taken place, and the city administration wants you to go forward and spend this money on something that's going to take almost a three-year process, and you're paying up front. something that's not even going to be guaranteed by any kind of a bond performance. What if the contractor goes bust, goes, becomes bankrupt? Where does the city go then? You know, you've got to protect your assets here and the assets is the taxpayer's money for what needs to be done. More importantly, you know, when you sit here and you think about all the things you talk about on a daily basis, you know, things that you might, you may want to call this environmental. You may want to call it public health. You may want to call it public safety. But you're taking money from an account that it shouldn't be coming from. Unless somebody can come up before this podium and explain to you that Medford's Water and Sewer account, its Water and Sewer Enterprise account, can legally transfer this money, for which the law under Chapter 44, Section 58, F and a half, and 44, Section 38 and 43 says that you can't. And the Department of Revenue also says that you can't. under the Bureau accounts under the guideline release of 08-101. You cannot transfer this money.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: I understand that. I have the podium right now.
[Robert Penta]: You know, when we had this discussion a few years ago and then keep bringing it forward and we're going forward and we're bringing it forward for the next three years or whatever it might be, there's no guarantee here. There's no guarantee here that this is going to work. And I agree. with the city engineer. Nothing's guaranteed in life. Maybe the only thing that's guaranteed is we're all going to die someday. But while we're alive and while we're elected to do the people's business, maybe we should look at all our options that we need to have. You need to have that public hearing. You need to present it before the city, the people of the city, to the public, to the taxpayers over here, and to yourselves as to know what's going on. You need to know all your financial options and how we're getting to them and how you are getting to them tonight. Right now, you've got $900,000 being asked to transfer. I would respectfully state that I would put that on hold. I would request if you want to take it out of free cash, if in fact it's that important. But I really think you need to have that public hearing and to hear all the comments from all the people and to understand what the valuation is. And you need your city assessor down here because you're going to take the evaluations of the property today, right now, which can't be sold. Some of them can't be sold. And as it's going to be in three years, if in fact it is remediated, whether it can be sold, So that means the city of Medford is going to spend in excess of a million dollars, if not more, to make somebody else's property beneficial to be sold. True, they did not cause the problem. But we need to look. You're looking at the short term. I'm looking at the long term. And the long term tells me you need to have more of a discussion on this. This has been hanging around for a long period of time. I think you need another committee meeting. You definitely need that public hearing because that was part and parcel of the $100,000 cost that the city paid to have an outside consultant come in. And if you remember correctly, they also paid $5,000 for another company to come in to check over the $100,000 consultant's report. So you really need to take a look at it. And you really need to understand that you're buying the lowest of whatever was proposed to remediate the problem, hoping that it would resolve it. Nice to meet you.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Hi, I just want to address some of his concerns, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes, you may.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: First off, when we do a contract, we have- To the chair. Oh, to the chair. When we do encumber a contract, it has to be for the full amount. She can't just pay it in increments. It has to be encumbered for the whole amount. And as far as for the legality of the retained earnings, It is legal, it is groundwater that is contaminated. She can legally use that. It's not in violation of the law.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Thank you. The chair awaits a motion. Ma'am, if you'd like to address the council, welcome. Please state your name and address for the record. Folks, would you give speakers some, uh, uh, breathing room around the podium so they don't feel encumbered or impressed upon. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Gina Muzo, 35 Parish Street, Medford. So, I have a few points that concern me. As this dialogue went back and forth, we'd been talking about soil contamination and a plume in the soil. And just now, offhandedly, someone said, it's our groundwater. This troubles me because if we're going to start injecting chemical into the ground to hopefully treat against these PECs, there's nothing to say that we're going to just disturb them and push them further into the groundwater and further contaminate spaces that may not already have a plume. I feel that what we need to do is an assessment. We need to have a geological assessment. We need to have geoscientists involved, and they need to assess specifically the chemical. They can assess specifically where that plume goes, and they can assess specifically how it enters into the groundwater. At the point where you're not just talking about soil, and you talk about groundwater, the implications of that in that neighborhood, and not only that neighborhood, in abutting areas and under the water table becomes significant. This troubles me greatly. It troubles me greatly because I'm sure they've worked hard, but there's still a lot of unknowns. And to come up and say that the city is prepared to step forward and enter into a contract with the lowest bidder in a project that they're not sure how it's going to work, troubles me significantly as a project planner, as a project manager. It's not the right way to approach it. And as a taxpayer, to spend $900,000 on a project that we're not sure is going to work after already having a sunk cost of $200,000 plus an additional $200,000 surplus, this is a big project to have someone not have a clearer understanding when that clearer understanding can be attained with the proper consultancy services. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President. Quick correction here, I want to make my point clear. The Department of Revenue through its Bureau of Accounts indicates that every community with an enterprise fund establish a written internal policy regarding indirect cost allocations and should review this policy annually. That's an annually written report. This is an indirect cost to the normal water and sewer account. And if in fact the new city auditor indicated that it's legal Show me a case. Show us a city. Strike that. Show you folks a case and a city where this has taken place. This is not within the guidelines as provided under the Massachusetts General Laws, and it's not provided in the Department of Revenue Bureau of Accounts guidelines. Now, if she can produce a case that says that you can take that money from there, that's all well and good. As I said, I've yet to find it. It's yet to be proven to me. But I think it needs to be proven to you. Because $900,000 is a lot of money to take out of a surplus account. And if you take that money out of your water and sewer account, the better question is, why are you sitting on $8.5 million when people throughout this whole community talk about water pressure problems up in the heights? They talk about groundwater problems in certain parts. You have storm drains that can't hold water. These are the projects you should be talking about if you want to talk about water and sewer account. And this dollar amount was never mentioned anywhere in the accounting. of this new proposal that's being before you here this evening. Sounds great if you want to rectify it, but financing is another thing and you have the money in free cash. So why would you want to disturb an account that's there for a particular purpose? I respectfully disagree with the new director because she doesn't produce anything. She's just saying it's legal. Well, if it's legal, they wouldn't write it in here that you can't use it for that purpose. And there's no case to be proven that it can be. Once that's before you, I've got no problem, then the choice is yours. But I believe as it stands before you right now, you have an option to go another way to fund this if that be the case. And again, I respectfully disagree that you can fund, you can negotiate a contract that does take place in segments, not all together up front, because there in itself presents no guarantee to the city of Medford or to you folks that your vote is really gonna be worth anything if that person or that company falls or goes bankrupt or whatever it might be. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: If I may.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: The RFP is not selecting a low bidder. This is why we want to go out for an RFP and not a bid, so we can select the best qualified consultant, the best qualified contractor. Price is a consideration, but there'll be other criteria that will be used to evaluate this contractor. Second, the plume, as it was mentioned, the ISCO injections will start at the outside and work their way in. So it's not pushing any water outside of the plume that's been defined. It's cleaning from the outside in. And third, the site has been studied quite thoroughly, soil and groundwater. And I've mentioned groundwater up here at the podium at least a few times as I've discussed the treatment process. So it's RFP, treat outside, work your way in. And it's all layers. It's the vadose zone, which is the unsaturated zone. It's groundwater table, down to 25 feet where we hit clay.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very, very much. You're welcome. And there's another citizen who would like to address us. Welcome.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: Please state your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is DJ Dabeningo. 470 High Street in West Medford. I'm one of the several businesses that utilizes that lot during the day. Every January, I head up Main Street, I buy my business permit from Republic for the $100 for the year, which guarantees, not guarantees me, but allows me to park there for free during the day while I conduct my business. One of our policies in the square, kind of an unwritten rule, is the business owners don't really park in front of their businesses to allow spots for customers. And I just was hearing that this construction is going to close down that lot for a period of four to six weeks during the day. Now, during the day, those 30 to 35 spots, depending on how you want to count them, are always filled. There might be one or two where you can pull in, pull out. But for the most part, you're going to be now taking away 30 to 35 spots, which includes business owners who paid for a permit to park in that lot. Now, I have cameras behind that building. I just pulled up the back lot. There's not a single car there. We just had National Grid construction go on in our street in front of my shop a couple of months ago that happened from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. Monday through Friday. And that was meant to non-disrupt the businesses in that area and allow on-street parking. At 5 or 6 o'clock, the police came in, they cleared out the cars, they started their construction. I don't understand. I'm not opposed to this project, but when there's no cars here, why can't we have the construction overnight? You know, it doesn't sound like it's going to be a loud thing. Maybe the little bit of drilling, a little bit of injecting of whatever. But it just really concerns me where now you're saying up towards of 12 weeks, business owners won't be able to park back there during the day when they have to utilize that lot where they're making deliveries, bringing products into their store, bringing them out of their store, their customers rely on it too. So just please keep us in the loop as West Midford business owners, you know. Yep.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think the engineer said the parking lot will be closed all the time, not just during the day. During that four to six weeks, it will be closed for day and night.
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: The way I heard it is I thought it was going to be open.
[Richard Caraviello]: If I understood it right, it was a day and night project because they've been using chemicals and the contaminants. Thank you.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Excuse me. Yes, we would have the parking lot closed full time, but when there's no activity at night, the patio at Snappy Patty's could be open for business.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And keep in mind that we're asking that there be a representative from the city and the engineer's office who's familiar with the project to come down and address the local business owners. And I think that's clearly imperative for this to be a successful process.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Right, right. I've been speaking with Allie Fisk, who's the mayor's business liaison. She and I are beginning to talk about this project. We're going to coordinate, so she's the Point person from the mayor's office as well as I've gone up and down the street handing out flyers talking to people letting them know It is you know it is unfortunately a disturbance But thank you very much citizen if you'd like to continue Yep, just just one more ad you know if there's something that can be worked out with the city with Republic to maybe lower that fee as we're now going to
[mex41hYCPiQ_SPEAKER_17]: 12 out of 52 weeks out of the year, we now can't park in that lot now 24 hours a day. I don't know how that would pertain to Steve Pompeo, who actually owns some of the spots in that lot towards his building, whether that'd still be left open or if the whole thing gets shut down. But like I said, it's 30 to 35 spots that you're now gonna inconvenience to either push on the street or tell people to walk further to their businesses. So please keep that in mind when this comes time for this project.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Chair recognizes Vice President Lugo-Kearns.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll yield.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome, citizen.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. If I may, just through the chair, inquire from our city engineer what organization or consultancy conducted the study, and how would parties of interest get a copy of it for review? Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: The consultant we hired is Brown and Caldwell. The consultant that reviewed Brown and Caldwell's reports was GZA. The DEP has also been involved, and I'd be happy to provide the release tracking number information for the DEP website. All of the reports are available online for review.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Mrs. Engineer. And if we could now, did you have something else?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Well, I can actually read the release tracking number. It's RTN3-28477.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you so very much. Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If our city engineer would just let us know the time frame of going out for an RFP. I don't believe we're under any time constraints, so do we have a couple weeks to review, obviously, the financial aspect of it, the studies, maybe give a call to our city solicitor and make sure that money can be spent out of that account. I trust our auditor, but the language does sound a little confusing. So if we could maybe cross our Ts and dot our Is, what are we looking for a time frame as far as we want to start in the spring? So do we have a month or so to?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: Easily a month or so. We're just issuing the task order to Brown and Caldwell to start the procurement. So I don't expect to see anything from them to probably early to mid-January. And then we have to finalize it, advertise.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then so you're expecting to go for an RFP end of January, sometime February?
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_39]: I would hope for end of January to give us enough time to review it, hire the contractor, and get them started by early April. It would be ideal if we could do that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Uh, paper 16, Josh seven 89, uh, as amended by councils, Carfiello and council of marks share weights motion through the chair.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may, it just was with us having getting a breakdown, probably hopefully in our Friday packet of the 900,000 talking to the city, you know, try to get a grasp of the law and make sure that it's coming out of the right account. Cause I don't doubt that maybe it should come out of free cash. Um, If we could just have a couple of weeks to review the documentation, I don't know how my colleagues feel. I think this project needs to get done. This is one avenue, one way to do it, and it's obviously what the mayor's choosing to do, and our engineer believes it's the best avenue, and I don't doubt that, but if we could just have a little more time on it.
[SPEAKER_09]: All right, so is there a motion?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to table for a week or two.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion to table by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. As amended by Councilors Caraviello and Marks, those amendments will stay in abeyance, of course, until the paper comes off the table. On that motion, all those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. 16-790. To the Honorable President, to members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford Mass, 02155, dear Mr. President and City Council, as I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the following transfer. 563,593 to be transferred from sewer retained earnings to account 610-440-5255, sewer repair slash maintenance slash infrastructure. The amount of 563,593 is needed to cover projected revenue deficit in the sewer department, as the rate structure does not support the costs. Finance director Alicia Newley is present to answer any council questions regarding this matter. The remaining balance of sewer retained earnings after this transfer would be $4,207,779. Sincerely yours, signature on file, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. Madam Auditor. Thank you. Good evening.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Honorable President and Councilors, the city has been fortunate that revenues of the sewer enterprise operation have exceeded expenses in most of the last few years. This has allowed the city to increase reserves in the sewer enterprise fund, and reserves, when used properly, are a good fiscal tool for management. It helps smooth out our operations and insulate the user from rate shock. In fiscal 16, the city elected not to increase the rates in the enterprise fund, Subsequently, a separate irrigation meter program was implemented, which had adverse impact on the sewer revenue. In addition, the MWRA assessment was larger than anticipated, and these situations have reflected on the 2017 tax rate recap, a shortfall of 563,593. So we are requesting this be funded from the reserves that we have built up for exactly these such events, and we hope that the council endorses such actions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilors, Chair awaits motion. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just if you could, you mentioned something about an irrigation meter.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes. When did you say that took place? I'm not sure exactly when that took place to be exact. I know that they recently did that.
[Michael Marks]: Recently did what?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Put in those irrigation meters. Dominic was here earlier.
[Michael Marks]: Are you talking about this? Are you referring to a second meter outside?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: So when you're, when you're watering your yard, that was done years and years ago, right? I think that was done four or five years ago.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, we approved it four or five years ago.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Oh, that's what I was told. Unless I was told incorrectly, but I was told that that was one of the reasons for the shortfall was because we didn't increase the rate, but we had implemented that.
[Michael Marks]: Well, recently we went back, we created a tiered system and then we went back.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That was around the same time we did the double meter thing, right?
[Michael Marks]: Right. But the tiered system didn't go into effect until I believe it was last year or the year before. That was a state requirement too. Right. And, uh, as part of the tiered system, uh, we had a tier one being rates from zero to a thousand or whatever it was. And, uh, we found that, uh, it was actually losing money. Uh, the tier, the first tier that we set up, So we refocused the tear back to be zero to 1,200, I think it was. I can't remember the exact numbers. So that may be the experience of losing some of the money that you're referring to, because I don't know that meter program to be anything.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, the meter wasn't the big impact. It really was the MWRA assessment. That MWRA assessment for the sewer was a difference of 523,997. Right.
[Michael Marks]: And it was also mentioned too, and I know it's not part of this paper, but, uh, that the city is going to be looking at, uh, their I and I influent infiltration and also the leak detection program. Because I guess there is a fair amount of money that's being lost through a leak leaks in the community. Are you familiar with any of that at all through the chair?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, I've sat in a couple of water and sewer Commission meetings and they have told me about that that they want to do that leak detection study To regain and see where we're losing money where there are any leaks that are being caught that could be caught and save us much revenue Right.
[Michael Marks]: So so just just so I understand Over the last several years we had a lot of surplus in the enterprise accounts and Um, and, uh, it was due to a number of factors. One of them was when we remated the city, uh, we were estimating probably half the city and then we came to brand new meters in each home and we would get an actual, um, results, uh, which increased our revenue, uh, and created large surpluses in the accounts. Uh, now that from what I hear, uh, they're running in deficit and, uh, this will no longer be the case. So at what point are we going to have to revisit? because now we're able to take a half a million out of the account, and that's great. But at what point are we gonna have to revisit it when the surplus account dwindles down to next to nothing?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Through the Chair, Councilor, we do have Dave Fox and Mr. Woodcock is working with the Water and Sewer Commission and looking at the rate structures and looking at the revenues and doing an analysis for them on that. As far as I know right now, we don't have anything back from them. So I can't really answer, um, the question that you're asking me until we meet with them.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So, so the deficit is not in the operating expense of the water and sewer department here in the city.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: The deficit is in the sewer department. It's the revenue forecast that they put, cause they want to keep the rate stagnant. So when you're keeping the rate stagnant and your costs are increasing, it's going to cause a deficit.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so at this point, where July, August, September, October, November, we're five months into the fiscal year. And this deficit is incurred over the last five months?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: No, this is a projected deficit.
[Michael Marks]: Projected deficit.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, for the year.
[Michael Marks]: For the year.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Right, so if I don't plug that in, we will have that. We're not there yet in the first five months, but we will be there.
[Michael Marks]: So what if revenues pick up in the next several months in the water and sewer accounts?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: The chances of that are very, very slim, and I wouldn't want to chance that happening, especially when it's a part of the tax recap as well as I stated. So we need to put that in there. It's not something I can just arbitrarily take out and say, well, it may happen. I have to plug it in for the math for the DOR.
[Michael Marks]: So just say it does happen. Just say we're able to recover the deficit money through the rates. Will that money be able to go back into the enterprise account? Where's that money go?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, it would. It would fall back into retained earnings. It would go. It's from the rate would go right back into the account.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And, um, I also heard, um, and I don't want to reveal my source right now, but, uh, the city of methods looking into a connectivity charge for water and sewer rate payers. I believe it's done in the city of Somerville. Um, They charge a rate to be connected to water and sewer, which we've never experienced before. We pay our bills, and we pay a heavy, hefty bill, but never had to experience a connectivity charge. Have you heard anything about that at all?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: through the chair, um, the water and sewer commission. I attended their meeting. I think it should come from the water and sewer commission chair, Dominic, but that is something that they have been discussing because one of the things that the consultant, uh, David Cox and excuse me, David Fox and Mr. Woodcock said is we have some fixed costs that we have and we have variable revenues. We should have some fixed revenues to go against those fixed costs.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And my last point that I know you're relatively recent to the city, but the intended purpose for the account as Councilor Penta mentioned in the past has always been to offset rates and also for infrastructure improvements. And I'll be honest with you, over the years, I've seen very little done with INI, although the city in flow and infiltration, although the city claims they're doing a lot with it. There's a number of catch basins that are hooked up directly to the sewer system. which is, first of all, illegal, that was done many years ago, but it's costing the rate payers of this community millions of dollars a year to treat groundwater as raw sewage. And then leak detection. There's a lot of leaks throughout the city and a lot of hot spots. And I wish we could see more of that money put towards actually trying to save the rate payers some money. And if you have any influence, I'd appreciate you bringing that word back, I've mentioned this a million times, uh, that, uh, we really should be trying to, uh, save the rate payer, uh, any, any time we can with their water and sewer and I and I and leak detection is a major way of doing that. Absolutely. Thank you.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair weights motion. Citizen, please welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Penta]: Once again, my name is Robert Pantazero, Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a little bit confused here right now because I never remember sitting on this council in the month of December and voting on something that's projected as a deficit. Because if you look at the sewer retained earnings like in the water retained earnings, I believe your budget is 50-50 in this past budget that you had, you did have a proposed increase of one.
[SPEAKER_09]: Excuse me, sir, for one moment.
[Robert Penta]: Folks, would you please quiet down back there?
[Fred Dello Russo]: so that the speakers might not be disturbed. Thank you. I beg your indulgence.
[Robert Penta]: If you looked at your budget that you just passed this past year, I believe that there was somewhat of a minimal rate increase there from the water and sewer department. I mean, from the MWRA. Also, your sewer charge is at 121% of your water rate. So if you're at 121% of your water rate that the customer is paying out back out, but your water side is balanced, but your sewer side isn't balanced. Is somebody telling you that your budget proposal that was presented was inaccurate? Have you ever gone through this before, making a paid on a deficit, a projected deficit, and you're not even what? You're just no more than six months into your budget? So that means your budget that was presented to you that you guys and ladies passed was in deficit. It was a deficit budget. It was incorrect. You were operating with deficits in departments. It doesn't make sense. I really think you need to take a second look at this. And I know she's new to the city of Medford. I don't know if she's new to this whole idea of where we're going with this and if you want to put this in a projection because you want to set a tax rate. But how do you set a tax rate on a deficit when you've already been here and you haven't even been programmed or been told? This is one thing this council has asked for over and over again on a monthly updated status report. If you were traveling down this road and you knew there was going to be a deficit, you should have been told. Not two weeks before Christmas. And to give the taxpayers once again, another Christmas surprise of taking money out of their surplus account that should be used, should be used only for water and stormwater drain construction here in the city of Medford. I don't know how this city is operating lately, but all I can tell you is this, this is a radical change in what it used to be, and it's not going in the right direction.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. And at this time, I'd like to invite the next speaker up to share his name and address for the record.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yes, Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street. Thank you, Councilor. Uh, I'm not privy to much of this information, so I, I really don't have any comment. However, if a supermarket overcharges me $2 for an item, my shopping cart, it'd be nice to get that $2 back with treble damages, mind you. And also if, if, if, if some entity is charging me, the homeowner, a water bill in excessive totality of $8 million. I would like to see that gave them back to the customer also. Um, and furthermore, what I don't understand is this tier one, tier two and tier three, I believe is designated for tier one, one family, two family, three family, It's based on consumption, actually. It's an assumption? Consumption. Yes. It's a general ballpark number they go by, if I recollect without having a water bill in front of me. However, then there's the un-tiered rate. And I presume un-tiered has nothing to do with one, two, or three family homes. It's most likely commercial, businesses, General Electric, Metal Grimm Mall. business establishments. However, that commercial rate, I'd like to call it, sir, is lower than a three family rate. So I think the people are getting it and not so nice ways. I still, and I brought this up numerous times in the past. Good luck.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Chair weights emotion. Councilor Knight. Um, a couple of questions from Ms. Nunley, Mr. President, please.
[Adam Knight]: So through the chair, um, as I understand this right now, you're requesting, uh, an appropriation from the city council of 563,000 and some odd dollars to address a revenue shortfall. And you also stated that the water and sewer rates have not been raised. The sewage rates have not been raised for, was it two fiscal years? Yes. And you've also said that right now the MWRA assessment came back in at $523,000 higher than what was estimated by the city of Medford?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: I'm not sure what the city estimated. I just know it came in 523,997 above this year.
[Adam Knight]: Okay. Cause Mr. President, the way I'm looking at this is if in fact the water and sewer department estimated that they were going to have to provide, um, they were going to have to generate a certain portion of revenue for, for the, um, payment of the sewer portion of our MWRA assessment. And they based that on a figure, um, that was $523,000 less than what actually came back from the MWRA. The revenue shortage for the fiscal year is really $40,000 based upon their projections. Does that make sense to you? Am I understanding this correctly?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: That makes sense. I'm just telling you what the change is that I've seen. And when I did the tax rate recap through the chair, there's a couple of things that go into that in addition to the MWRA assessment is also indirect costs, which I did not bring into this that I will bring to the committee for the whole.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'll say Councilor. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilor chair recognizes vice president.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Sorry. Um, just so I understand it correctly too. When did the assessment come in? Like when did we figure this out?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Obviously recently the assessment, I pulled a purchase order report and looked at the encumbrance. I don't know exactly when the assessment came in. I just based it off of the purchase order and the purchase order was created in July in 2016.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So the assessment came in after we voted for the budget.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: July 2016 is when they did it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Sorry, thanks.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very much, Madam Vice President. Chair recognizes Councilor Adam Night. Move approval, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval, Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President Long and Kern?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Markswell? Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Dello Russo? Yes, with a vote of six in the affirmative, one in the negative. Did I get that right? The transfer passes. Thank you very much. 16-788, committee of the whole meeting report held November 29th, 2016 in room 207. That was last week. Council office, Medford City Hall regarding Riverside Plaza and TIF for the Bianco Sausage Company. Those issues related to the TIF agreement and the city were again discussed uh, this evening in our process of approval of that, uh, agreement, uh, and that the, uh, issue regarding Riverside Plaza remained in committee, which we will reconvene to, uh, uh, discuss next week. So, um, Chair awaits a motion to accept the committee report, Mr. President. Motion to accept, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Motion by Councilor Falco to take papers under suspension and in the hand of the clerk. All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Papers in the hand of the clerk and under suspension. Under suspension, 16-791 offered by Councilor Knight be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Maureen and Eugene McGillicuddy on the momentous occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. Councilor?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much, and congratulations to Gina, Maureen, and McGillicuddy on the celebration of their 50th wedding anniversary. Gina, Maureen, and neighbors of mine, we park next to each other every single day. Mr. McGillicuddy was my Little League coach when I was strapping on the cleats over there for Foodmaster down on the West Medford Hillside Little League, Mr. President. So it's with great pleasure that I get to offer this momentous congratulations, and I thank them for all that they've done for the city of Medford.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On the motion for approval, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. 16-792 offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate longtime Medford resident and current City of Boston Police Officer Frank Femino on being awarded the Detective Sherman C. Griffiths Medal of Honor at the 145th Annual Boston Police Relief Association Awards Banquet on Sunday, December 4th, 2016. Councilor?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And thank you to Frank Femino for his services, a member of the Boston City Police Department. Mr. President, as we all know, Mr. Femino is the brother of Jeanine Femino Camuso, who works in the mayor's office. But he's also was a fixture at Placetet Park from the early 80s until he went away to college, Mr. President. And it's with great pleasure that I sit here this evening and congratulate him on this momentous award. He received the Detective Sherman C. Griffiths Medal of Honor. at the 145th Annual Boston Police Relief Association Awards Banquet. And this is a recognition of valor in the line of duty, Mr. President. So congratulations to Frank. We're glad to see that you came home safe and sound. And we wish you many, many more days, weeks, and years of safe service.
[SPEAKER_09]: And a great athlete in his day.
[Adam Knight]: It wasn't bad. He could play football, I'll tell you that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. Motion approved by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Offered by Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate World War II veteran Mike Petroni on the celebration of his 96th birthday.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. As a veteran chairman here, I feel that we don't have many World War II veterans left in the community. And Mike is one of those guys that at 96, I think he deserves a good round of happy birthday from this whole council and the whole city of Medford. for protecting us during World War II.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Less than 10% left to them. That's right, very few left. On the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Offered by Councilor Knight to be resolved that the Metro City Council request the Traffic Commission to examine a commercial parking ban after 11 p.m. on Winthrop Street, the Winthrop Street end of West Street. Councilor?
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, at the old location of Marty's Cater is at the corner of West Street and Winthrop Street. We're beginning to have a little bit of a problem with the wholesaler that is now in that facility. And ultimately they're running an operation, Mr. President, that goes seven days a week from at least seven in the morning until at least 11 at night. And that's what their permanent hours are, but it's more like two, three, four o'clock in the morning. So what's happening, Mr. President, is that, Their delivery vehicles, which are commercial in nature, are parking on the end of West Street in a 30-minute parking area for people that are patronizing Moulton's Restaurant or the old Pranzi's location. So that parking that was really for patrons of the restaurants after hours is now turning into commercial vehicle parking, where the trucks park there. They idle for long periods of time while they wait for the product to be prepared, prepped, loaded up, and put onto the truck. And it's really causing an issue in the neighborhood. It's a quality of life concern, Mr. President. So we're asking the Traffic Commission to take a look at this address it in a serious fashion. And I'm being commercial parking on the corner of West street and Winthrop street for the time being.
[Richard Caraviello]: After 11 PM. Um, you know, I, I don't know why we have to limit it just to West street. We have a, uh, there's a, there's a commercial parking being after certain hours of the whole city. I think we should expand it to, you know, I, and I, I respect council and nights, um, for that, for those people over there. But, um, it doesn't just go on over there. It goes on in many other, sections of the city. Mr. President, then, uh, point of information is the present point.
[Adam Knight]: Um, this is a cause and effect, uh, resolution that I put forward. Um, got the phone calls caused me to put it forward because of the effect.
[Richard Caraviello]: As we look at that, if we could also look at other areas, uh, where the commercial parking, uh, ban should be in effect as amended off by councilor night for approval, seconded by councilor Caraviello.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those in favor. All those opposed. Motion carries. Offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council appoint Leonard A. Gliona to the position of Hormel Commissioner for the City Council. Yes. Councilor.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. The Hormel Commission is comprised of three members, two appointed by the administration and one appointed by the council. With the recent retirement of Jack Buckley, one of the administration's appointees, and Cosmo Bowlby, the city council's appointee, we've had a vacancy there. The vacancy has been in place for some period of time. And I'm moving forward to nominate Leonard Agliona from 86 Chandler Road for the position, Mr. President. He has a number of contacts with professional and college programs in the area. He has past leadership positions in Medford Youth Hockey, Medford Little League, and the Medford Bowl Club. And he currently works in operations in an athletic facility. So I think this is a good choice, and I'd move for approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Great sportsman. On that motion, Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Isn't he our? Oh, no, he's not our Massport rep anymore. He was our Massport rep.
[Adam Knight]: Um, if I may, Mr. President, please, um, three to the, uh, the consular, um, Mr. Glenn has served an interim basis as the mass mass port rep. Um, well may have Burke was conducting her search. Um, he was the mass port CAC representative. They meet on a quarterly basis. Um, he served in the position for a period of time that would have covered two meetings. One of the meetings was held. One of the meetings was canceled because of lack of quorum. He was at the meeting that was canceled because of lack of quorum.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And through the chair to the city clerk, do, Do we have a responsibility to put this in the paper, advertise, and accept resumes? It's good we're discussing it.
[Clerk]: Mr. Clerk, first of all, your appointment will be to fulfill Cosmophobe's term, which is expired. 2018, maybe, something like that. So I think he still has a couple more years to go, I think. It's a four-year appointment, I'm pretty sure. Three, three, yeah? So it might be next year or the year after. You have to complete his term. That's up to the will of the council, because I think the last time they did, when it first came about, they did take, they did interview a number of candidates. I think each council submitted their own and they brought them all in individually and, you know, and at the end.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just remember we made it public and then a number of people called and sent resumes in and then we discussed it as a whole.
[Clerk]: Yeah, I don't know if we made it, I don't know about the public part, but I just know that the, each of the councils did submit, back then, a person in an organization or something like that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I don't recall a public announcement, but I do recall Cosimo Fulpi's retirement from the board being very publicly notorious here. It's been quite a while, I think.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If maybe we could ask them, however the mayor's office announces her vacancies, if maybe she would, her office through you could do it for us, and then we could consider.
[Clerk]: I think just on the website, when you look at boards and commissions, it just outlines vacancy.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Okay. We have motion for approval on the floor. Counsel Max.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. In the past, from what I recall, how the council would, would handle this is that, uh, we'd set up a committee, the whole meeting and would ask each member of the council, if anyone approached them on the position or if they have anyone in mind, uh, to bring it to the committee, the whole meeting. And that's how we've done them in the past.
[Adam Knight]: so i would respectfully ask that one of our nation is to present the same for us to make sure it's also night uh... i served on the council when mister will be was appointed uh... reappointed there was no process in asking at that point in time for anybody if they had any candidates if they had any but it was interested if they wanted to put forward any applications uh... secondly is a big difference between reappointment uh... and sexually i believe that the council also had made appointments previously during my tenure on the council without following that protocol for other matters that are under the council's purview, Mr. President. So for those reasons, the position has been vacant for some period of time. It's been something that sounds like it's been not on anybody's agenda or anybody's mind. We have a candidate in there that's going to be willing, capable, and able to serve the position. Again, I'd move for approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval. That was a long point of information. I apologize. That was a long point of information. That was a point of information.
[Michael Marks]: I apologize. I lost track of it myself. I think you did. I think you did.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Marks, you have the floor.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I have nothing against the gentleman's name that was submitted to us, but I would say as the senior member of this council, and I'll correct my Councilor Knight that that has been the past practice of this council to get together as a council and we discuss names. And we may come up with the name that the gentleman offered. But there's always been a process in place, Mr. President. And if this was open and notorious, it should have appeared on the agenda. And that way, it would have been out to the general public that this name was being offered, not under suspension, Mr. President, at 830 at night or 9 o'clock at night. Under suspension, you're offering your name on a very important board, Mr. President, in this city. And it's a board that pays, by the way, Mr. President. And I think it deserves to be vetted out, Mr. President, And I think every member of this council deserves to take a look and see if they might have someone that may be interested or if someone reached out to them, uh, that may be interested in the position as no reflection on the gentleman that was offered. Mr. President, this is not a personal issue. It's a matter of protocol and procedure of this council, Mr. President. So I would respectfully ask that we set up a committee of the whole Mr. President, uh, to discuss, uh, the matter of the appointment of the Hormel commission. Thank you. Counsel Max.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President de la Rizzo. I also think it's important to advertise it somewhat, whether that be on our website or in the paper. I'm not sure how the mayor does it when there is a vacancy that she appoints, but I think we need to ask her to do the same because we need to give everybody in the community an opportunity to come forward and request to be appointed to that committee. It is an important committee. It's one that controls Hormel Stadium, and I think it's definitely something that needs to be vetted out.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. There's a motion for approval on the floor. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Roll call, Mr. President. Roll call has been requested. Mr. Clerk, call the roll.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I move to table the matter.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion to table, Mr. Clerk, call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Cariolo? Yes. Yes. Councilor Franco? Yes. Councilor Lange? No. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No motive. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative motion to table passes. We will. Thank you. We saw finally papers on the hand of the clerk. Um, uh, Offered by President Dello Russo on today, St. Nicholas Day, be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its sincere condolences to the family of Bernardino Bernie Stabile on his recent passing. Be it further resolved that an appropriate memorial and dedication be erected by the mayor in recognition of his service to our nation. If I may, from the chair, Bernie Stabile is a decorated veteran in our community. Member of the United States Marine Corps for over 20 years, Bernie entered the Marines during World War II. He fought his way through the Pacific, earning the Bronze Star Medal and Presidential Unit Citation. While Bernie was fighting his way through the Pacific, island to island, his brother died on the beaches of Anzio. Bernie stayed in the Marine Corps. Bernie served our nation in the Korean War. He served our nation in the Vietnam War, a war that was tough for everyone to fight in. No thanks here at home. When Bernie got out of the military in 1974, he didn't just give up. He continued to serve our nation. He was appointed to the United States Secret Service. He was a leader here in the Boston office. a legend in the Secret Service nationally. Generations of men and women who came up in the Secret Service learned from him. And there wasn't one president of the United States from his time in the Secret Service to the time of his retirement, some several years ago, that he wasn't part of their motorcade or their personal protection. Bernie is a great American. and a great citizen of Medford, a humble man, dedicated family man, and I think this community and our nation owes him a debt of gratitude. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Knight, please join us in a moment of silence. Please.
[Michael Marks]: Oh, thank you, Mr. President. This past Saturday, there was a horrific fire in Cambridge. It was a 10-alarm fire. Twenty communities, including the city of Medford, were called into action. And the fire consumed eight buildings and a number of cars in Cambridge. And, thank God, there was no fatalities. However, I would like to thank Engine 5 and Ladder 1 from the city of Medford, who went and did an exemplary job in showing what this community is all about when it comes to mutual aid and to assisting in a time of need, Mr. President. And I think if we could send accommodation to all the firefighters at Engine 5 and Ladder 1, Mr. President, thanking them for their assistance in that horrific fire in Cambridge.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Knight, Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, in lieu of the upcoming holiday season, I'm asking the residents of this community to reach out to the many organizations within the city of Medford that could use some help during the Christmas holiday, whether it be toys for some family or food for families during these times. We've got three food banks in our city that are always looking for food around the holiday time. We have the women's shelter on Central Avenue that has families that need toys and clothing. And there's many groups around town that could use some help during the Christmas season with gifts and other things for the children and families. I'm asking everyone in the community if they can reach out to someone in the community to find a family, or if they call me, I'll give you an, I have families that are looking to be adopted. I've already got a couple of families adopted by a couple of businesses that are taking care of them. So again, try to make everyone's holiday special this year and just reach out and try to help somebody during the Christmas season, Mr. President. Thank you for your kindness, Councilor. Chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make a quick announcement. Uh, tomorrow night is the monthly police meeting, uh, community police meeting. This month is at the Andrews middle school. Yes, it's at the Andrews middle school. 7 p.m. Everyone is welcome. Doesn't matter what neighborhood you're from. Everyone is welcome. Tomorrow night, 7 p.m. Andrews middle school.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Isn't there a big meeting here? Thank you.
[John Falco]: There is, yes, economic development.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The Bedford Square Revitalization Committee at 6, 6 p.m., 7, 6, tomorrow night, here in this very chamber. You are correct. Same night. Same night. Conflict. The records, the table records of the meeting of November 22nd, 2016 will pass to Vice President Lungel-Kern. Madam Vice President, did you have the opportunity to inspect those?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, and I move approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the move for approval by Vice President Lungel-Kern, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The motion carries. The records of the meeting of November 29th will pass to Councilor Marks. Councilor Marks, how did you find those records? All those in favour? All those opposed? All those in favour?
|
total time: 27.77 minutes total words: 2197  |
total time: 7.63 minutes total words: 743  |
total time: 6.29 minutes total words: 559  |
total time: 10.34 minutes total words: 1092  |
|
total time: 7.93 minutes total words: 733  |
total time: 26.46 minutes total words: 2086  |
total time: 3.09 minutes total words: 325  |
total time: 13.74 minutes total words: 595  |