[Fred Dello Russo]: The 39th regular meeting of the Medford City Council will come to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: 7 members present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Justice for all, we have our tax rate public hearing, 16-768. Tax hearing, legal notice, notice of public hearing, City of Medford. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Alden Memorial Chamber at City Hall, Medford, Mass., on Tuesday, December 13, 2016, at 7 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the purpose of allocation of the fiscal year 2017 property tax. One, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2017. Two, select an open space discount. Three, select a residential exemption. Four, select a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2501 for any aids or accommodations, et cetera. By order of the Medford City Council, Edward P. Finn, City Clerk, Medford Daily Mercury, November 28th and November 5th, 2016 chair recognizes Ed O'Neill and Aleesha Nunley. Ed O'Neill, our assessor, Alicia, our, um, uh, finance director for the city of Medford, uh, to address us on the proceedings. We've met twice in the past two weeks. in committee of the whole and report it out favorably to consider the four questions before us.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Mr. President. As chairman of the board of assessors, I am respectfully appearing before your honorable board body tonight for the purpose of holding a public hearing to discuss the following items concerning the allocation of the fiscal year 2017 property tax. Number one, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2017. By selecting the minimum residential factor, percentage of the total tax levy will be shifted from the residential taxpayer to the commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. This results in a lower tax rate for residential properties and a higher tax rate for commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. Historically, the council has chosen the minimum residential factor. If this is, once again, the council choice, The minimum residential factor is .903265. Number two, to adopt an open space discount. This does not apply in the city of Medford, but a no vote is required. Number three, adopt a residential exemption. If adopted, owner-occupied residential properties may receive an exemption of up to 35% of the average residential value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the tax levy from the owner-occupied residential properties to non-owner-occupied properties. Since this shift causes a higher residential tax rate, a number of owner-occupied properties would also see an increase in their tax bills. Number four, to adopt a small commercial exemption. If adopted, commercial properties housing a business employing 10 or less people and valued at less than $1 million may receive an exemption of up to 10% of their assessed value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the commercial industrial tax levy from these eligible properties to other commercial industrial properties. Since this shift causes a higher commercial industrial tax rate, all commercial industrial not receiving the exemption would see an increase in their tax bills. As part of this hearing, it is the duty of the board of assessors to notify the council of any excess levy capacity. Fiscal year 2017 excess levy capacity is $96,627.99. For you, Mr. President, we'd like to go through the, uh, the handout that the council received, um, explaining the various, uh, parts of the tax classification hearing. Um, Refer to the table of contents. We have the tax classification hearing and the residential factor on page one. We have the tax levy limitations on page two. The LA-7 form, the minimum residential factor computation is on page three. Page four is a calculation of the lowest possible residential factor. Page five is the what-if scenario at various residential factors. Number six is the LA-4, which is the evaluation by various classes. Number seven, the seven package evaluation summary or history percent of land use change, the average assessed value of surrounding communities. Number eight is the LA-13 form, which is the new growth form. Number nine is the tax dollar difference from fiscal 2016 to 2017. Page 10 is a recap sheet, which is four pages. Number 11 is a residential exemption law. Number 12 is a residential exemption worksheet for review. Page 13 is a residential exemption detail. And lastly is the page 14 small commercial exemption. To you, Mr. President, I'd like to open up some discussion on it. Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Just for the public's information, the council met for over an hour last week and, uh, for 45 minutes, uh, this week with the, uh, assessor and a finance director and review and a consultant last week, the city's hired consultant on these matters, uh, to, uh, review these matters. Uh, we did, uh, as we, uh, tend to do, um, uh, some significant research and analysis of figures regarding the resident, uh, exception, uh, exemption issue and, uh, looked at that in, in quite, uh, a bit of detail. So, uh, if you have anything more for us, uh, Mr. O'Neill, or if you'd, uh, like to have some questions from the Councilors, otherwise the chair will, uh, await a motion. and also a reported out of the committee report. Uh, the clerk just pointed out to me, uh, we're asking for a report to come to us, uh, to learn the total amount of tax dollars that are tax deferred. And those tax dollars are, um, uh, people who are eligible for tax deferment under certain circumstances pointed out in statute. And so that was part of our committee report and we're awaiting that report, uh, for the future, but it's not, uh, conditioned upon our deliberations here. Chair recognizes Vice President Lerner.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo. Mr. O'Neill, if maybe we could go over. I know the information we have is a great deal, but there were a couple of people that did call asking what the new rate was going to be and also, you know, what the increases were going to look like. So maybe you're the best to go over page nine. And I think that's the simplest way to put it. People want to know what, what will their property taxes go up and how much will that be? Um, so I think that's an important page. That's very understandable.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sure. Uh, through you, Mr. President, uh, page nine is the, uh, if the, the council adopts the residential factor, uh, of 0.9 0 3 2 6 5, that would, um, with the existing levy of 105 million, 43,572 dollars and 1 cent. it would yield a residential rate of $10 and 56 cents and a commercial industrial personal property rate of $20 and 46 cents, both going down from last year. Um, so if he took the average single family, which is 475,910 per single family at the, at that, uh, proposed rate of 10 56, the average increase for a single would be two 79 93 cents. Um, The average condominium was $362,561 at the $10 rate would yield a $271.34 average tax increase. And that's average from last year's averages to this year's averages. Some would be lower, some would be higher. The two families, the average assessed value was 554,641 at the 1056 rate. would be, uh, two families would be $169 and 13 cents. Uh, it's a little bit lower. Um, I believe the two families increased last year, so the average was already a little bit higher. Um, so it's a little bit less of an increase this year. The average three family at 600, 672,212 at the $10 56 tax rate would be an average increase of $401 and 34 cents. Again, that's average from last year to this year. And the commercial industrial at $1,227,988 at $20.46, the average increase would be $426.58. So what we've seen a little bit is the residential rate, residential appreciation factor as a class has gone up 10 to 12%, whereas the commercial industrials are about 7 or 8%, 9%. So that's why it's less of an increase for the commercial industrial. So those will be strictly averages.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So the, um, the reason for the drop in the rate is because of the assessments being higher this year. Um, cause the rate, the rate last year was 11 19 for residential and 21 82 for commercial, but because the assessments are higher, the rate has gone down. But the properties will still see an increase in their taxes. And then the fiscal year 2016 levy was $4.2 million less. Last year's levy was $100,854,325.
[SPEAKER_01]: The levy has gone up with the 2.5% and the new growth for about 4.2, correct?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And my next question, we had a long discussion last week and then we followed up this week with additional information you provided us, thank you, with regards to non-owner occupied properties and the potential vote we have with regards to the shift. adopt a residential exemption, which in the past we've always voted against due to the fact that with the recalculation over 1,000 homes would also, if we made the shift to non-occupied, we'd also hit any home that is valued over 648,000, which totals about 1,050 pieces of property that would get hit extra. I just think that's important for the public to know because we do get a lot of questions of why we don't do the shift compared to, I think you said Malden, the breakeven point was about 450, 500,000 and they only shifted to about a hundred parcels compared to Medford that would be over a thousand. Is that correct?
[SPEAKER_01]: Their impact on the high end, the breakeven was 480 and it was just over a hundred parcels that would be affected. where the break-even point is 650, 648 to 650, depending upon the percentage of the residential exemption adopted, which is maybe higher break-even point. The number is higher. It's 1,057 at 20%, 1,057 at 15%, 1,063 at 10%, 1,084 at 5%. So what that means is anyone over the 648, 650, is seeing an increase in value anyway, and potentially an increase even with the rate dropping. If this party approves a residential exemption, they would also see another bump up because the rate would change. So they would get the residential exemption, but they would also pay more in taxes. So, um, to summarize the residential exemption, the larger portion of properties below the breakeven point would receive a tax break at the expense of the higher value properties. The non-owner occupied the apartment buildings. So that's the decision by this body. The tax policy decision, you want to treat the city as a whole or do you want to take care of a certain class of properties? And that's where the. conflict is in voting this one way or another. In other communities, they have different situations. They might not have a high-end district, a high-end value. Their primary class might not be in Medford. It's the single families, the primary class. Other communities, it might not be the case. Could be condominiums, could be two families. So there's a number of factors. That's why there's only a handful, 15 communities have adopted it so far. It's not a uniform percent for everybody. So somebody pays the burden. And you'll see that in the commercial, same thing. If you try to give a certain segment of the commercial properties a tax break, that burden gets shifted to the other parts of the commercial. Industrial doesn't, it'll come into play in that. So somebody has to pay the levy. And these are just options that you can shift burdens amongst them. There's a, Dr. Starello used to say he'd like to have a single tax rate and everybody would pay the same thing and there'd be nobody, no special class benefiting one way or another. But since classification, I believe in 1981, the city has voted to the maximum shift of 175.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And I agree, thank you, I agree with the fact that we have to increase the levy and we have to, we need the levy obviously. But isn't it true we're going to increase it 4.2 million, but on average, especially the last four plus years, we've put 1 to 3 million into our free cash at the end of the year. In essence, good to have some reserves, but we've built up our reserves. We're at a free cash of almost 10 million. We have Water and Sewer between $8 million and $10 million. So at some point, will we be giving—I mean, I've questioned that the last two years. I've put motions forward to reduce—to not tax to the max and possibly reduce the levy. So is that correct? We've put $1 million to $3 million into our free cash every year.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'll defer to Alicia on this.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Your Honorable President, through the chair. Not every year, no. Within the last three years, yes, based on the analysis that I have given you. And when doing the free cash, it is one time. It is not something that you will see every year. So I think that the city is being fiscally prudent in the way that they are generating and keeping their free cash and using it as needed. They're not just expending it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: In 2015, we put almost $2.5 million into free cash. This year, we'll probably put in close to that. 2014, looks like over, you know, $1.5 million. Isn't there a point where we should say, okay, we'd really like to put a million in each year, but anything over that, we maybe should be giving the taxpayer a little break?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: I think that the city is using it like reserves. I know that one of the Councilors put forth a fiscal policy talking about stabilization. So it's putting money aside, they're just keeping it inside free cash as reserves and used as necessary. I know the mayor has plans for some of that money, but she's very fiscally prudent, and as was the mayor before, in keeping reserves for the city.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Is there a point where the mayor wants to keep the reserves too? I think we've asked that question in the past, because one wants to build up her reserves, but there's also people that obviously can't afford their taxes. complain to us that they can't afford their taxes, senior citizens on fixed income that we probably would like to give a little break to if we can. And I think, and I questioned this the last two years, I think at this point we probably can.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Through the chair, I believe that's understandable. And this is where I would have Ed step in is it's very, if we used $500,000, it's very minor in the impact. It's very minimal. Whereas to the city, depending on what kind a project or if something happened unforeseen, they have those reserves ready. They don't need to go out and borrow.
[SPEAKER_01]: For you, Mr. President, um, please take that a step further. I've done the analysis, uh, and distributed to the council and their package and Friday, the various scenarios. And, um, as Alicia stated, it would be the impact, um, For every $500,000, it would be 5 cents on the residential tax rate. So every million, it would be 10 cents. So $2 million decrease in the levy would be a 20 cent reduction in the tax rate. So it's a minimal impact versus having reserves set aside. And that was in your handout as well.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Thank you. I requested those numbers. Thank you for providing those to us. I think minimal to one person might not be minimal to the next. $25 for a single family. This is just a $500,000 decrease to the levy. I mean, you're still talking about $125 for each commercial property that's seeing an increase of over $300. It may be minimal to somebody, but there are businesses out there that are obviously struggling too. So that, based on the fact we have in the tax recap, fiscal year 2017. I mean, we are averaging our actual receipts for 2016 as the same for 2017, which we expect to come in for 2017. So we don't account for any increase. And the biggest one, I guess, we've already discussed it at our Committee of the Whole meetings, is the new hotel that came on board in mid-2016. So there's six months here that really isn't calculated for We have actual receipts in 2016 of $462,000. And then we're placing our estimated receipts at $462,000 as well. And I believe, you know, meals tax goes up marginally every year, et cetera, et cetera.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: So we base it on what we actually received. We didn't want to be too aggressive because if you go above what you receive, you have to justify that to DOR. And then if we didn't reach that, we'd have a problem with DOR. So we have to match. Through the chair, may I also in addition on the free cash as well, I just want to point out that the mayor also does have plans to use that for a futurely proposed police station. She wants to use free cash to fund that debt.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Has she given you any paperwork for us to submit tonight with regards to a plan on that?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: No, she just had a discussion. Excuse me. I apologize.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: You don't have to say through the chair.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: I don't think to the chair. I have had a discussion with her. She did tell me that she does have a plan for that. I don't have paperwork with me, but she did tell me that is what she's planning to use some of the free cash for us to fund the debt.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: did, I mean, we, we've got the capital plan, but it didn't look like it was until 2018 and there's really no specifics given to the council. So that might've been, you know, pertinent information before we made, took any type of vote tonight. Um, cause I'd like to see a commitment of the, you know, the police station as well. I think this whole council would, um, and I haven't heard any specific dollar amount of it's, it's always been when she met with us, it was that we were going to go out to bond for the 18 million.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: She told me her plan is for a proposed $20 million police station that she's going to use free cash to pay for that, that she's for the debt, for the debt proposed.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So she told you she's going to use the 20 million out of free cash.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: No, no, no. She said for the proposed police station that will cost around roughly $20 million. She's going to use free cash to fund some of that debt.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's my questions for now, thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello, the chair recognizes you. Thank you. Ed, Mr. O'Neill, do we have an open space tax rate?
[SPEAKER_01]: No, we don't, we don't have any open space. We have no open space in the whole city? Classified open space, no. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair awaits a motion.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President motion to adopt the minimum residential factor as proposed at a rate of 0.903265 on that motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Madam vice president.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I would just like to precede that motion and request that we reduce the tax levy by 500,000 based on the estimated receipts being, being low and the fact that we're putting millions into free cash. Um, and I was, We were, I believe I was told that the police station would be bonded after 2018-19. So I would just like to put that motion forward.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Is that SB paper? Whereas we have a paper here that's immutable.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I looked at, that's the contradict. So that paper is always called first. I've done it the last two years.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So your motion is to reduce the levy by, so I have it correctly. It's five zeros. I think there's a citizen that wants to address us before the, uh, uh, vote takes place. Mr. Citizen, please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Welcome.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. So, um, Andrew Castagnetti, cushion street, Medford, Massachusetts. You usually I'm very prepared with some sort of statement. It's the owner occupied real estate tax exemption because I'd like to see that happen here for the first time ever. However, due to family circumstances and I don't have, I'm not privy to all the paperwork on this year's proposal from the assessor's office. So therefore I'm going to have to ad lib this. Please bear with me. In a nutshell, I've been here five years, standing every December when you set the tax rate, and I am pushing for the owner-occupied real estate tax exemption. They do this in Somerville, Everett, and in Malden. And I would like to see us get the automatic 20% advantage for our owner-occupied. as long as the council votes for it in majority and also the mirror says yes and you automatically just meal it, send it into the state house and it's automatically approved up to 20% other cities around here that are bordering us are at higher than 20% they asked for a special exclusion up to 35% and maybe others are at even 37.5% Last year I made my first ever petition presentation and similar matter document. S 15-seven nine four. I made a petition by Andrew P Castagnetti 23 asking that the council to adopt mass general laws chapter 59 section five C for owner occupied real estate tax exemption. Thank you for allowing me to present that prior to your vote last year. Also in September of that year, prior to the, the great debate. And actually this finally was asked during the second great debate. And I believe I probably had this published and Escobar's method transcript. And this is a question, I wrote up date of September 30th, 2015 question for all city of Medford politics and candidates. Are you for or against the home on owner occupied real estate tax exemption? Go to Commonwealth Massachusetts website referred to mass general laws chapter 59 section five C one Massachusetts cities are already presently given this real estate tax savings to its owner-occupied homeowners. This includes three bordering cities, Malden, Everett, and Somerville. My question is, why not here in Medford? For the past 40 or more years, our real estate tax bill in Medford has increased over 2.5 percent per year. If this automatic 20 percent exemption outlined in Chapter 59, Section 5C, is adopted, the average owner-occupied homeowner, if you live on that one house, would receive a $200 savings a year instead of the usual $200 increase. That's a $400 swing times 12,000 owner-occupieds. Those are tens of millions of dollars. Again, I am asking, why not here in this city? I'm asking all city council and mayoral candidates to respond to this question before the upcoming election so that the voters have ample time to read your responses and cast their ballots for candidates who support tax relief for the citizens of our fair city. Please send your written response to the method transcript, letters to the editor, and to We the People. Thank you for your attention and your response submitted by Andrew P. To this day, I have not received any responses in writing to the transcript or to me personally. It just seems to me that this is way past due to give our middle class some tax relief for the first time ever in my lifetime that I know of. The $650,000 push valuation would be slight increases above that with the adoption of what I'm talking about. And below that, they would all save money. In a nutshell, they would save $200 to $300, not having today's numbers, of course. And opposed to the opposite direction, so you're talking like $500 to $600 swing difference, again, times 12,000 owner-occupied. That's tens of millions of dollars. It seems kind of sad to me that we cannot help the middle class, because the middle class, in my day, as a youth, dad worked, mom stood home, took care of the kids, and bought a house, saved money, Today, if both people are working at what kind of job, I don't know, whatever benefits they may not have, they can't have a hard time paying their bills, let alone saving. So if the middle class is going to continue in this direction, on one shoulder, they carry the rich that don't want to pay taxes or refuse to. And then on the other shoulder, they're carrying citizens or non-citizens who are getting checks from federal government, who can work, but maybe refuse to work. So if you collapse the middle class, I believe common sense would dictate that we wouldn't have a society worth a damn. And then? there might be the second revolution. Maybe Bernie Sanders made a good point once upon a time. He was telling me about this so-called rigged system. And I remember one astute individual once said, we can have democracy in this country, or we can have a few capitalists control most of the wealth, but we can't have both.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much, Mr. Andrew.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Simply put, why not us? The ball is in your court, in the mayor's. People need relief. Thank you if you're listening, and I have a whole box of thank yous if you do something positive, up to the 20%, which is automatic, and the numbers tell the truth. The average homeowner is gonna save 200 instead of pay $200 more for the first time ever. think of those hundred dollar bills, $20 million worth.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Knight. You might tend to stand that a, your motion is to take up the whole paper, full point paper before us.
[Adam Knight]: Um, actually Mr. President, I was going to go item by item, um, by voting yes to, uh, adopt the lowest minimum residential factor and then the next Motion would be on the open space discount, and the next motion would be on the residential exemption. Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We'll take up the B paper first. So on the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn to reduce the tax rate by the tax levy by $500,000, did I understand you correct, Madam Vice President? Roll call, please. Was I correct in my statement? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on that motion on the B paper.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Falco? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice-President Lueb and Kern? Yes. Councilor Marksley? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? No. Vice-President Dela Ruzzo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. With the vote of five and the negative two in the affirmative, the motion fails. Next. Mr. President, motion. On the main motion, Councilor Knight. One, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2010 on the motion of approval by Councilor Knight by selecting the minimum residential factor, a percentage of the total tax levy will be shifted from the residential taxpayer to the commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. This results in a lower tax rate for the residential properties and a higher tax rate for commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. Historically, the council has chosen the minimum residential factor. If this is once again, the council choice, the minimum residential factor is 0.903265. On the motion for approval on that by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President Locker? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President De La Rosa?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion carries. Two, adopt an open space discount. This does not apply in the city of Medford, but a no vote is required. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Falco? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice President Laura Curran? No. Councilor Montz? No. Councilor Scarpelli? No. President Dela Cruz?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. With the vote of seven and the negative, the adoption of an open space discount is declined. Three, adopt a residential exemption. If adopted, owner-occupied residential properties may receive an exemption of up to 35% of the average residential value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the tax levy from the owner-occupied residential properties to non-owner-occupied properties. Since this shift causes a higher residential tax rate, a number of the owner-occupied properties would also see an increase in their tax bills. This was outlined for us. And so a no to adopt would be required to follow our natural course of things. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Falco? No. Councilor Naye? No. Vice-President O'Kerry? Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Scarpelli? No.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Dello Russo? No. To adopt on that is a seven in the negative, none in the affirmative, no to adopt on 35. of the average residential value. And finally, adopt a small commercial exemption. If adopted, commercial properties, housing, and business employing 10 or less people valued at less than $1 million may receive an exemption of up to 10% of their assessed value. This is accomplished by shifting a portion of the commercial industrial tax levy from these eligible properties to other commercial indoor industrial properties. Since the shift causes a higher commercial and industrial tax rate, all commercial industrial not receiving the exemption would see an increase in their tax bills. As part of this hearing, it is the duty of the Board of Assessors to notify the Council of any excess levy capacity fiscal year 2017. Excess levy capacity is $96,627.99. Four, adopt a small commercial exemption. A no to stay the course as previously charted. It will be required here. Mr. Clerk, call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Falco? No. Councilor Knight?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No.
[Clerk]: Vice President Leonard Kern? No. Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Scott Belli? No. President De La Rucia?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. With a vote of seven in the negative, none in the affirmative. The adoption of a small commercial exemption is declined. Therefore, we have completed our tax work for this year. Congratulations to the Councilors, uh, for the debate and, uh, for their hard work on this matter. And certainly, uh, congratulations to, uh, Ed O'Neill and Elisa Nunley.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm going to get it, Alicia. It's coming. Fellow Councilors, thank you. You guys did beautiful work. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for coming in, in a couple months for all the advancements you've made. Uh, you're a true professional. Thank you. Motion to suspend Mr. President. On the motion to suspend the rules to take something. 16804 offered by Councilor Knight. to take 16-804, communications from the mayor. To, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Communications from the mayor, December 7th, 2016, to President Frederick N. Dello Russo Jr. and members of the Medford City Council, from Stephanie M. Burke, mayor. Reacceptance of a grant from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the National AL Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund for improvements to Riverside Plaza and to appropriate the funds necessary for the implementation of this project. Dear President Dello Russo and members, esteemed members of the Medford City Council, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the National Park Service have awarded reimbursement grant of $250,000 in federal land and water conservation fund assistance to the city for reconstruction of Riverside Plaza to serve its residents. Acceptance of this federal grant requires that the property remain open to the general public and prohibits any use other than outdoor recreation at the site in perpetuity. The land must be dedicated to Chapter 45, Section 3. Conservation of the property is non-recreational use requires that the Parks Board to abide by Article 97 of the Article of Amendment to the state constitution as well as the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund project agreement. Implementation of the project will cost an estimated total of $550,000, and this sum will be appropriated and allocated to the project by the city prior to the execution of the grant agreement. I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honourable Body adopt the attached resolution to accept the grant and to appropriate the sum of $550,000 for implementation of the project the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant will reimburse $250,000 on completion of the project. Mr. President, motion to waive. Signature on file, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. On the motion of Councilor Knight that I waive the rest of this tedious reading. All those in favor? All those opposed? Thank you very much. And we welcome our OCD Director, Lauren DiLorenzo, to the podium to share with us synopsis of this project.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: Thank you very much, Mr. President, members of the council. I am happy to say, as the president has said, the city has been successful in receiving a grant of $250,000 federal land and water conservation grant funds that are actually administered through the state. So we're very fortunate to be chosen because of our successful track record, really working with the state on various public spaces. This project is a renovation of the Riverside Plaza. It's that land area where the bus shelter is off of Riverside Avenue and River Street and Medford Square. Mayor Burke has worked with residents, as I know many of you councils have also, to identify the desire for people to be able to have a location in Medford Square that is vibrant, where they can exercise their cultural interests, their artistic interests, and create some type of a recreational resource that allows people to gather, congregate, and have activities. It's the main focus of this renovation is to really bring vitality back to Medford Square. And of course, that's not all that's going to be needed in Medford Square. We've been talking about the renovation plans and the master plan for Medford Square, which is underway with MAPC, working with the mayor's office to identify the other guide guides and the infrastructure improvements and things, business development, things that we need in order to make Medford Square more competitive. But this is something that's a little bit more fun, but it's necessary also. The idea to have a place where people can actually socialize at Medford Square, be safe, be well lit, to be attractive and to be a place where you can now, you know, be yourself and socialize, whether it's teenagers or young children with their families, people who are working in the downtown area just want to go get a sandwich at Medford Square and sit down at a bench and eat their lunch. So I think this is a great project. I hope you agree with it. The paper before you asks that these are all necessary as part of the grant application. Ask the council generally, I won't go through all those things that the president did, but they require the acceptance of the grant and appropriation of the $550,000, which is the budget, the project costs. The council has received a presentation on this project. It's in schematic, which is basically, it's generally an idea. It's not completely designed to the level of specification of construction documents, but it's enough to give you a sense of what the components of the project will be. Components of the project will have seating, fixed seating and movable seating so that there could be some congregation of people for various activities. There will be areas where there could be some tents that people could put up in order to sell their wares or have some things like the farmer's market or sell people who are selling jewelry or things that they've perhaps made. There'll be a little stage area for some small performances by people who have more talent than I do in order to perform music. And there will be some components that are park-like, but it's not really a park. So perhaps it'll be a musical instrument that a child could go up and touch and just make some noise and express themselves in that way. And there's been requests to add some fitness-related recreation equipment that will be included also. So I think I've touched on each of the key components of that. It's a lot to be programmed in a very small space, but we think that it will be successful. This application also requires that this land be preserved in perpetuity. There was questions about what that meant, which I believe the city solicitor did answer, and the committee of the whole meeting, and that that park be placed under the care and control of the park board. The final is the authorization for the treasurer to do the borrowing and to utilize the money that is received under the bonds in order to fund the project costs. So that's generally what's before, excuse me, before the council tonight. We are supposed to get this grant approval from the council into the state by the 31st. I know it requires several readings. I think if they have an indication that the council's moving forward in a positive manner on this, that they would accept that this paper came in in the first week in January. So I ask you for your support.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And as Lauren mentioned, uh, we discussed this in two committee of the whole meetings and we had a number of our, uh, concerns addressed. And we also had, uh, by way of a special visitor from the office down the hall, the city solicitor, uh, wonderful and clear discourse on the concept of, uh, uh, perpetuity as applied within this document, as opposed to, other applications of the word.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, over the past year, I've attended many, many meetings in this, uh, in this building, uh, with the revitalization reference square and other parts of the city. Um, and what I hear is that the, uh, the businesses in the downtown area are looking for something, uh, to happen and happen soon. And I would hope with the implementation of this project, maybe this will be the catalyst to hopefully get the project moving at maybe a quicker pace and to let the business people see that the city is serious about doing something. I was able to talk to the developer last week that was here from, I should be the gentleman who was running the meeting last week. And I expressed some of my concerns to him about how, The businesses aren't coming to these meetings because they don't see anything happening and they want to see something happening. And like I said, hopefully with the start of this, maybe this will send the message to them that, uh, this is the start of something and maybe we could, uh, train it up a notch and get, and get the project moving a little faster. So, um, I would support this, uh, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And Ms. DiLorenzo, thank you. And Ms. Crosby, if she's still here, thank you for your presentation. The last couple of weeks really appreciate it. This is an interesting project, Mr. President, and I think that it's a good approach for us to take in a way to address a need in our downtown district and also begin to revitalize Medford square. When we look at this project and this plan, it falls in line with some of the goals that are outlined in our open space and recreation plan. Um, it also allows us to take an underutilized and underdeveloped portion of our downtown district and put it under the control and jurisdiction of the parks commission, which allows us the opportunity to better control the use at that area. Mr. President, right now it's just an open public space, a public sidewalk. Uh, there's no anti-loitering ordinance in the city of Medford. I'd question is whether or not that would even be something that the city of Medford could implement as being legal. Um, however, when we have a public park in the downtown, We can put restrictions around that public park. We can say that people can't be in the park after dusk. We can say that this area cannot be congregated in for certain times. We can permit the area for use, for certain specified uses, Mr. President. So I think that this is a great approach to addressing several of the issues that the community is facing here. We need some passive recreation areas in our downtown district. We have an opportunity to now connect the nice sitting area in front of Century Bank, with a nice sitting area in front of the Salem Street Burial Ground, with a nice sitting area in front of the Senior Center. With any luck, the Clippership Connector is going to come through and we'll be able to traverse right into McDonald Park. So I really think that this is the beginning of the city creating its own Emerald Necklace, similar to that of the pathway system that the DCI has established, Mr. President. So with that being said, this is something that I'll be supporting this evening and I move approval.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of approval by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Lauren and her office for working on this proposal. It was roughly a year and a half, two years ago, I offered a resolution before this council that was unanimously supported to repurpose the bus shelter that is at the existing site currently that was dilapidated and falling apart. So I'm happy to hear that the officer community development has worked on this particular project to revitalize an area that I admit is a tough area, a tough location where it's nestled between a busy, too busy streets and a cemetery. And I can appreciate all the work that went into this. The one concern I do have, which I've raised, at the committee, the whole meeting is the funding mechanism. And, um, this project is a total cost 550,000 of which, uh, the city has applied for a federal grant of 250,000. The, uh, stipulation of the grant is that, uh, this property can only be used for recreational purposes, open outdoor recreational purposes. And it does say in perpetuity. So we had the city solicitor, uh, attend our meeting tonight. And, uh, he gave an answer, which I think, uh, caught some of us by surprise, uh, cause, uh, in perpetuity to me means forever. And, uh, I still believe it means forever. And, uh, in order to receive the grant from the federal government, uh, we have to assure the federal government that this property will only be used for that purpose. And I, as one member of the council, knowing that, Uh, we have a $9,709,000 in free cash on hand at this particular time that, um, I don't want to see any restrictions on the reuse of that particular parcel. And, uh, I think, uh, allowing, uh, the use of the grant, which is great. I'm all in favor of getting grants and I wish the city would seek more grants. Uh, but the stipulation of, uh, having a piece of property that's centrally located in our business district in the midst of, um, the, uh, method working metropolitan area planning, uh, commission working on a master plan with the city to revitalize our downtown business district. I think that we have to be more prudent and, uh, in my opinion, uh, using free cash to pay for this particular project would be prudent would be a way that we could see this come to fruition. and would be a way to accomplish all our goals as the director of community development mentioned about creating open space, creating a gathering spot. If you look at the 2005 report that was issued that the city commissioned for the revitalization of Medford Square, it outlined a need for a gathering spot in the downtown business district. And I think this addresses that particular need. So I support the project. I think it's a great project. However, the funding I do not support and I don't think we should handcuff ourselves on any type of language that talks in perpetuity. Um, we heard tonight, uh, the city solicitors say, well, perpetuity doesn't really necessarily mean perpetuity. Uh, if need be, you may need to only pay back the original grant amount if you want to change the reuse. So, uh, you know, I, I don't feel comfortable as one member of the council, uh, accepting the grant. um, and feel that we should use free cash. Mr. President. Um, I would also, uh, ask that, um, in addition to, uh, looking at that parcel, uh, Mr. President, and I'm sure the, um, master plan committee is also looking at the parcel here located behind city hall, uh, which is in the parking lot of the hotel, but it's the parking lot of the hotel, the old roots parking lot and the parking lot directly out here behind city hall. uh, for potential growth within our community. And, um, so, uh, based on that, Mr. President, based on what I heard from the director of community development saying, well, this is the mayor's proposal and this is what she's pushing through and this is how it's going to work. Otherwise it's not going to happen. Um, I believe that it's up to this council, uh, if we see fit, uh, to use free cash, uh, in order not to restrict ourselves on the land use of that particular site. I think that's the way we should go, Mr. President. You know, it's great to say Parkland, and we're going to put it under the Park Board. The Park Board has a whole 20, 30-page document, what restrictions on Parkland. And we're going to be opening ourselves potentially up to, if someone wants to go down there and use the particular piece of property for a short period of time, that they need to reach out to the Park Board and get a permit and pay for a permit to use a particular piece of open space within the heart of our community. And I, as one member of the council, do not favor that, Mr. President, and would ask my colleagues to at least consider the option of using $250,000, Mr. President, in free cash to pay for what the grant would have paid for, Mr. President. So that means our total would be $550,000. uh, in moving this worthy project forward. So I would offer that in the form of a resolution, Mr. President, that, uh, the council as it be paper council. Yes. The council, uh, use, uh, the appropriation of 250,000 from free cash to offset, uh, the grant that, uh, uh, would have been used, uh, for the purpose of, uh, building this particular, uh, parkland, Mr. President.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: Mr. President, may I? You may.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: On that, on that, uh, item there. First of all, uh, what I had said was the mayor's put forth the proposal that you hear to the council tonight, which is a request for her, a bonding of the full amount of money with a 50% reimbursement money that is not repaid unless of course the city were to do go ahead and decommission that as Parkland somewhere down the road. Usually anytime you take a grant, if you don't, live out the life of that public improvement, you're required to pay those things back. So that $250,000 that the councillor is suggesting can be used for other purposes in the city. This is a 50% reimbursement grant. I just want to be clear about that. And the paper before you is with the funding as I proposed it. I hope that's what you vote on.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Chair recognizes Vice President Ogunkar.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dela Rousseau. My question, I understand Councilor Marks' point and it was cleared up to me by City Solicitor Rumley who said the use could be changed. Now, if we change the use in five years, do we have to pay the federal government back?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: It's very likely that if you didn't live out the purpose of the park and the perpetuity that you would have to pay. And federal grants with CDBG funds, if somebody is borrowing money for us, the public improvement is five years. So it's some reasonable period of time they would require you to do that. But I mean, I think the intention here really is clear. And that is an open space. It's a small space, as I said, in the Committee of the Whole. The idea is to create more spaces and to protect them for this kind of purpose, for recreation, and open space and cultural purposes. I mean, I think that's clearly an important part of this project is that we make a commitment in Medford Square to these components of what we think is going to be important to create a vital downtown area. And I really don't think that there may be things, uses on that park that you may wanna change. Maybe you wanna change equipment. Maybe you wanna permit somebody to do some type of consumer sales for a certain period of time. But the idea of creating a space and having it there, I don't really see as a five-year commitment. I think that's a commitment of this council. And I think that as you make this vote, that's what you say. You say you're making a commitment to public recreation and cultural spaces in Bedford Square.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, and then with regards to the $550,000 grant, was there ever any discussion with regards to accepting the grant but taking the $200,000, going out to bond for $300,000 and then taking $250,000 out of free cash and then reimbursing free cash?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: The mayor proposed that it go off a bond. I did not have any discussion with her about other sources of money. I assume that she had the bigger picture of the budget and that this is what she was recommending. So I accepted what her recommendation was and I did not question it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just ask because, again, I believe with regards to the police station, that was mainly going to be a bond, and the reason why, and I'm not quoting the mayor, but when we were in our meeting, the reason why it was several years out is because we're waiting for things to come off the books so that we can put the police station on the books with regards to the bond books. this is, is a great project, but it concerns me that we're going to, if we're going to get additional projects before we get the police station proposal. Um, so that's why I asked, I think if it, if we had 250 come out of free cash and then reimburse, you know, mandate that we reimburse free cash, that might be a way to put less money on the books bond wise and eventually hopefully do the police station sooner than later. So that's why I didn't know if that,
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: I didn't realize she was still here.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. Be my guest.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Through the chair, I don't understand what you mean about reimbursing free cash. What I see here is a $250,000 grant being awarded that she wants for a $550,000 project. So about half the project would be funded through the grant. Right, but we have to fully fund $550,000. Correct, and I think she put in the bond, and as you stated earlier, she has that capital improvement plan. in addition to the capital improvement plan, she also has planned that police station and to pay the debt on the borrowing of the police station, she's going to use free cash.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Maybe on a side motion, if we get clarification with regards to the plan on how we're going to, um, what the plan is, even if it's not for another couple of years, per the mayor's proposal to us, what that plan is. Cause I'm, hearing two different things in the last couple of months with regards to how we're going to move forward on the police station.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So if we get clarification from the administration's office, that'd be great paper to, for the mayor's office to clarify to the city council, uh, regards to funding mechanisms that she anticipates will be used to, uh, deal with the police station project for the 20 million.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, please.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And my question, Mr. Clark, thank you. And your motion. Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If we go out to bond for the full 550, do we have a commitment that once we get reimbursement, it's going to go towards that bond?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: I think that's part of the paper that's used for the proceeds and I think that was at the end of it. Number seven, does that address your concern at number seven?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Maybe applied.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: So you want the $250,000 reimbursement to go toward the cost of the debt?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, I would make that a recommendation.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: I think you can make that recommendation.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Once we get the reimbursement for the $250,000, we pay down the bond immediately. We don't use that for the general fund and keep the bond open $550,000 because we are going to need to be able to go to bond. We're not going to have $20 million in free cash. We're going to have to go out to bond for some portion of the police station. I thought it was going to be the full, at least $18,000. So maybe once we get clarification, we'll know more.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So we have a motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. As a B paper, we have a motion by Councilor Marks that $250,000 for this project be taken from free cash. And we have a C paper before us. by vice president Lungo-Koehn, uh, that the mayor report back to the council, uh, as to the, uh, details of the funding, uh, mechanisms she uses, uh, intends to engage, uh, for the purpose of construction and design of our anticipated, uh, new police station. And that it is further resolved. And I forget that last distinction you made that the $250,000 being immediately reimbursed upon reception from the state and federal authorities.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And while I have the floor, I don't know if Councilor Caraviello is going to speak, but I think it's extremely important that it be heard loud and clear with regards to police presence in all our parks. He made that point in our Committee of the Whole meeting, and I think it's extremely important. And with regards to maintenance, we've had an issue for years with maintenance. And I hope that if this does get approved tonight, that we not only the Crystal Campbell Peace Garden, but we make a commitment to upkeep this piece of property. And the last comment I'm going to make is the safety of our children. There is a daycare that may be using this piece of property. And I think it's seven toddlers to one adult. It's a lot of people. We want to make sure that they're away from the street and well protected. from the traffic that is in the area. But otherwise I think the project is going to definitely be an improvement for our square and be very, um, used by all.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Counsel Caraviello. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the vice president for bringing up that point about the police. I mean, I know I can't add it into this, but, um, during the construction of this, uh, and before I get sent, I am going to insist, uh, that, uh, uh, that we have a police presence, there on a full time basis during the hours of operation. But we have, we have three sitting areas now. And, um, again, there are some, if you, if you're in the square on a regular basis, there is some, uh, quite a bit of undesirable element there at the moment. And your remarks are part of the committee report that will be reported. And I hope that the mayor would take that into consideration next year. Very good. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the seat paper Councilor,
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, at the public hearing I attended, um, there were many residents that were interested in particular from the art community of building a small structure, uh, on that particular site that could be used year round for art events to host, um, indoor and outdoor art events. And apparently that was not, um, part of any other discussion, uh, other than that particular night. Also, Mr. President, it was raised by many people that actually perform and do functions that pavers, the ground, pavers are not adequate for such an outdoor space. And there was many concerns about trip and fall hazards and the maintenance of pavers and so forth. And from what we were told, I guess the designer prefers pavers I think that's still as part of the proposal, because we haven't seen a formalized plan yet, but is that still part of the?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: So two things, if I can respond to those. Number one is we did look at a building structure that was looked at in the plan, and it was not included for two reasons. One is that a building would take up the entire space, and there would not be any room, open space for people to perform in. And the second was because of cost, the budget. The landscape architect is preferring the idea of pavers, but she does have to test has to still convince us that they can be constructed in a way that are not going to create an accessibility issue or, um, create some other issues, but they are preferred usually for a textural elements is what she's looking at. So they are in there currently is in the estimate for papers, but that may change as we move into actual design development beyond schematic design.
[Michael Marks]: Also, Mr. President, at the committee, the whole meeting, uh, I brought the fact that, uh, this area will be used by, uh, a lot of different, uh, residents. Uh, and, uh, it's geared in my opinion towards, uh, younger children, uh, for many of the activities that will take place there and many of the potential uses. Um, and, uh, I would ask that where Riverside Ave is such a very busy traveled, uh, road, and is a place where buses queue up waiting to take off, that some type of perimeter roping or fencing, similar to what was done across the street at the Crystal Campbell Park, Mr. President, be placed around the perimeter of that particular area. And I realize it's not going to stop people from exiting or entering, but it will act as a deterrent, Mr. President, potentially for young children not to run into a very busy street of Riverside Ave. The second question I have is regarding the grant itself. And typically in grants, they'll ask for a maintenance plan and what the expectation is of the community to maintain this particular site. And I was just wondering if Lauren can shed some, um, light on what our maintenance plan will be, uh, knowing that, uh, our DPW staff is at bare bones currently. And, uh, we've added over the last couple of years, several new, uh, open spaces and park areas. Um, and I'd like to hear from the director of community development on what, uh, was put in the grant as in regards to maintenance. If there was any commitment on behalf of the city, and what the actual maintenance plan is if there is one.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: They have not asked for a maintenance plan. We have not developed a maintenance plan yet. That will usually be done as we move forward to design, depending on the materials and the type of equipment that we do have, but clearly does, uh, add additional responsibilities on DPW, which I think, uh, uh, you know, there'll be an evaluation as to whether they're able to do that themselves or whether that's going to require additional contract labor, but that will be developed as we move ahead.
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, you're saying the grant did not ask for any type of maintenance plan?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: It did not ask for maintenance plans.
[Michael Marks]: So, so we're getting a $250,000 grant. Uh, the federal government, and maybe that's why the federal government's in the shape it's in, is not concerned how the city of Medford is going to maintain the money that they're putting forward for this grant. Um, Mr. President, um, you know, That should have been part of the proposal that was submitted to us on how this particular property will be kept up, Mr. President. And I'm disappointed to see that, even though the federal government didn't ask, that there's not a plan in the works to show how we're going to maintain this particular piece of property.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: Well, I'm sure we can develop a maintenance plan. First, we have to get the funding approved and move ahead with the project. So first step is first. And I don't think I'm beyond first step yet.
[Michael Marks]: Well, you know, if the city of method had a great track record on maintaining its properties, I'd say, you know what, that's probably not a bad idea, but all you need to do is come into this building and look at the roof that's leaking. Uh, go down to a condemned DPW yard, go into a police station that, uh, the firefighters are actually picketing out front of city hall. Uh, I'm sorry, the police are out front picketing at city hall. Um, You know, a library roof that's leaking. Um, you know, so a lack of maintenance has been a part of the history in the city.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: Mr. President, we can develop a maintenance plan.
[Michael Marks]: So that is a concern, Mr. President, that I think we should see up front before we spend $1, Mr. President, uh, of any money. Um, and you know, free cash is a bud. Uh, all it is is a buzzword for taxpayers money. That's all it is. So, Don't let anyone believe that there's free cash lying around, that there's no such thing as free cash. This is taxpayers' money, Mr. President, and a thorough report should have been submitted to this council regarding what the maintenance plan would be before we take any vote, Mr. President. So I explain my vote on this, Mr. President, is based on the funding and the tying of the city's hands, not just for this council, but for future councils and future generations in this community. I don't think it's as easy to back out from the federal government as we're hearing tonight. Don't worry if you decide to use it for another purpose in a few years from now, five, whatever it is, just pay them back.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: I don't think it's that easy. I don't think anybody's making a trite statement here. Nobody's making a trivial statement here about maintenance or about the investment of public money. the art, the, the, the, the, what the paper is before you is to actually save 50% of the cost by accepting a grant instead of using the free cash. So, I mean, that's, I understand your concerns. You have some legitimate concerns and I think that they can be addressed.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Well, they, they can't be massive. We can't. Well, Mr. President, if I could, they can't be, they can't be addressed if we're going to use a grant that in perpetuity, uh, says the land can only be used for a particular use. So that doesn't address my particular concerns. Um, and, um, so that, that, for that reason, I will not support this tonight, Mr. President. Thank you. And, uh, I, I do believe this is a worthy project. It's one that I brought up, uh, like I said, a year and a half ago, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And I do believe it's a worthy project. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Marks on the seat paper. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The seat paper is for council Lungo-Koehn. It is, oh, I'd love to, Councilor. The C paper is that the funding of the police station mechanisms be explained to the City Council by the Mayor and that further, that the $250,000 be paid back into the bond immediately upon receipt, which will happen at the completion of the project. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. We're in the motions Councilor. You've had time for your comments the role Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President. It's council rules. Mr. President's Mr. President, it was a couple of weeks ago that we had the police department out here before us, and the Patrolman Association President, Harold McGilvery, spoke before this council asking for the need for not only the woman's locker room, but also for a new station, Mr. President. And this council voted unanimously, 7-0. to meet with the mayor regarding the police station. Now it's what, three weeks later, we haven't set up a meeting, Mr. President, and we're putting out requests that we get bits and pieces of information from the administration regarding what's happening with the police department. So I don't know where we stand, Mr. President. Where do we stand on it? Are we gonna meet with the mayor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: The mayor's getting back to us. Thank you. The mayor's getting back to us. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice-President Long and Kern? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. The vote is six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. The B paper offered by Councilor Marks that the, uh, money of the amount of $250,000 rather than bonding be taken from free cash. On that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Madam Vice President. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Sorry, Mr. President, just through the chair to Misty Lorenzo, do you have any bonds coming forward besides this one in the next six months that you're aware of? Okay. Thank you. I mean, I think that's one thing we have to make clear to the administration, whether it's this bond or the next one, you know, maybe this is the last bond we're going to support before the police station, but obviously we need four or five strong to be able to do that. Just a suggestion. But I think that's something we need to send a message that if we keep bonding and we're never going to be able to bond whatever we need for the police stations, just not going to happen. We need to take some bonds off the books to be able to afford the 20 million. And we need to make that statement loud and clear.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the BPAPER motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Falco? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice-President Long and Kern? No. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? No.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Dello Russo? No. With the vote of six in the negative, one in the affirmative, the motion fails. Now on the main motion before us, offered for approval by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Councilor Marks, if we could get that motion, if we can get a report back from the administration regarding the, uh, maintenance plan, uh, Mr. President, the, uh, director of, uh, community development has made that clear to us that that is a priority for her to develop. Do you want that as a D paper?
[Michael Marks]: Oh, if it's a priority, then what do we need a paper for?
[Fred Dello Russo]: All right. Thank you. Please. Very good point. Councilor. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is for the, for the main motion. The main paper before us offered for approval. First reading offered for approval by council Caraviello, seconded by councilor night. Councilor Caraviello.
[Clerk]: Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Vice president.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Marks. No. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Del Rosario?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. With a vote of six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. It's first reading on the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn to revert back to the regular order of business. All those in favor, please say aye. All those in opposition? The ayes have it, 16-794, City of Medford. Notice of a public hearing. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and Howard F. Alder Memorial Chambers, City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, on Tuesday evening, December 13th, 2016, at 7 p.m., on a petition of Medford Associates, LLC, owner of the Meadow Glen Mall, for a special permit pursuant to Chapter 94 zoning ordinances of the City of Medford, section 94 to 9148, subsection D, .48, keeping or raising of livestock, including animal stables or kennels, for a retail pet store comprising of approximately $20,000 square feet of ground floor space at 33850 Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford, Mass., located in a industrial district. Petition implants may be seen in the city clerk's office, city hall method, et cetera, et cetera. By order of the city council, Edward P Finn, city clerk, we declare the portion of the public hearing and ask those in favor to present themselves to the podium and declare. So those in favor of this, are you the petitioner? Please state your name and address for the record.
[Brian Dugdale]: I'm Brian Dugdale from Goulston and Storrs, 400 Lane Avenue in Boston, here with my colleague John Tuig, and this is Paul Sincotta from New England Development. Thank you. Are you in favor of this? We are in favor. We're here on behalf of the owner of the Meadow Glen Mall, Medford Associates LLC. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Anybody else in favor? Anybody else in favor? Hearing and seeing none, we declare that portion of the meeting closed. Anybody in opposition to this measure, please present yourself to the rail and state your name and address for the record. Are you in opposition?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, I'm in opposition.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Marie Mazzio, 6 Cudworth Street, Medford, Massachusetts.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Marie. Anybody else in opposition?
[SPEAKER_10]: Hi, my name is Elaine Nazaro, 38 Bradley Road in Medford, and I am in opposition.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Anybody else in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, I declare that portion closed and recognize Councilor Knight, Chairman of Licensing. And Mr. Zoning and we asked the petitioner to come up and tell us about their project.
[Adam Knight]: How you doing, sir? Thank you for coming this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, in looking at your application, it appears that the paperwork's in order. It looks like, um, what you're petitioning for is to open up a commercial, business in an industrial sector, uh, an industrially zoned sector. It's looks like it's about a 20,000 square foot facility. Um, looks like you're requesting hours of operation from 9am to 9pm. Maybe you guys can just go from there and kind of fill us in a little bit as to what it is you're trying to do over there.
[Brian Dugdale]: Sure. Thanks. Thanks very much. Uh, counseling Councilor. And, uh, thanks for your time here tonight. Um, we have a tenant coming in Petco, which is a general pet store, uh, general retailer, uh, to be clear that we, we, are here tonight. We, after we had the tenant approach us, uh, we met with commissioner Moki. We've been in touch with commissioner Moki in connection with an ongoing redevelopment of the, of the metal Glen mall. Um, the metal Glen mall for those familiar with it, we've got a Coles at one end and a Marshall's at the other end. And the interior space, what had been the interior mall space is being renovated. One of those spaces, which about 20,000 square feet would be occupied by, uh, this retail tenant Petco. Uh, we, when, We spoke with Commissioner Moki. We went through the proposed use and looked at the history of the Meadow Glen Mall. There had previously been a pet store located at the Meadow Glen Mall. And this is a technical requirement that we're seeking to fill here. To be clear, there's no overnight boarding of dogs or cats or anything of that nature. We're only talking about small animals, things of the nature of fish, small birds, small mammals, things of that nature. No overnight boarding of any dogs or cats whatsoever. I want to make that just clear for the record.
[Adam Knight]: Um, as a pet store, um, can you explain to us whether or not you fall under the local control about border health or, um, as a pet store like this, uh, governed more by state regulation and state code?
[Brian Dugdale]: It's governed by both actually. So there'll be licensing at both the state and, and the local level. Uh, one of the requirements or the special permit, which, uh, we'd submit that we meet will the, the actual pet store operator will have to comply with all local board of health regulations. In addition, they'll have to be approved and licensed and approved on an annual basis with annual inspections by the Department of Agriculture. Okay.
[Adam Knight]: And how many full-time jobs are going to come with the approval of this facility?
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: Paul Sincotta with New England Development. They'd be about 25 or 30 full and part-time jobs.
[Adam Knight]: And can you tell me what an average annual salary is for someone that works in a Petco? I mean, are we talking that? It doesn't seem like this is a facility where people are going to be able to make a living wage and still reside in our community. We have an industrially zoned property. We're trying to change the use to a commercial use. And we have, I mean, quite frankly, if you look at there, it's a large parcel of land. We have coals on one end, marshals on the other. We're putting in a supermarket. Now we're going to put in a pet store. I don't think there's any jobs in that entire facility other than the manager of the supermarket that's going to get paid more than minimum wage.
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: I think that we would disagree. Wegmans, the supermarket operator themselves, stands out as one of the more outstanding employers across the supermarket industry, certainly in terms of wages and benefits. The retail jobs within the center are at least consistent with the retail jobs that have been there historically. All of these companies do provide benefits, and we think that they are consistent with what's been there in the past.
[Adam Knight]: So this employer does provide health benefits to its full-time workers?
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: Yes, to both, I believe, yes.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Can you just explain a little bit more in detail? You said no overnight boarding of dogs and cats. So does that mean there will be no sale of dogs and cats as well?
[Brian Dugdale]: That's correct. Petco has an adoption first store, so there will be no sales of dogs or cats whatsoever. And there will be no adoptions through actually located at the store. Typically what Petco does is they partner with local shelters to try to work to try to bring potential pets that could be adopted to potential pet owners, make that connection, but there will be no sales whatsoever at this store in terms of dogs and cats.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Great. We have an organization in Medford that works for pet adoption, so hopefully we can connect the two.
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: Just briefly, some of the other services that Petco will offer They will offer grooming services, vet services, vet services that provide vaccinations, flea and tick screening, and those types of services that are on an appointment basis. But again, as Brian indicated, there's no boarding that's made in connection with those veterinary services.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. A quick question about the grooming services and whatnot. Are those going to be during the same business hours nine to nine or is grooming stop at a certain time or I'm fairly certain that they occur throughout the entire operating hours.
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: OK. The vet services I do know do not vet services are a little bit shorter than their normal retail operating hours. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Madam Vice President. Sorry.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you for the chair. I'm just. where the Petco and Woburn, they don't sell dogs or cats, but they do board them overnight, almost like a daycare. Will there be any type of daycare in this Petco, day or night?
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: They will not. So no daycare whatsoever? Correct. They will offer training services, but there will be no overnight boarding.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And no daytime daycare?
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: I'm sorry, and no daytime.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So it'll just be grooming of dogs and cats, dogs, I'm assuming, and the sale of, what's the largest animal you'll be selling? A guinea pig at times?
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: Guinea pigs, they don't even get quite to rabbits. There are rules within Massachusetts that actually limit the size. It's really classified as a beginner or an intermediate pet. Birds, fish, small reptiles. Are you with the mall developer? I'm with New England Development, yes. We're the owner and the redeveloper. What is the construction they're going to end with? There's another big retailer going in there. So the lineup starting on the Coles end would be Coles, Wegmans, Dick's Sporting Goods, the Petco store, and then on the far left, the existing Marshalls. Thank you. We're hoping for a fall of 17 open. Madam?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: you here tonight, can you say that again?
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: Fall 2017. Fall of 17.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Fall of 17, for everything.
[-8Uy-JvGvpg_SPEAKER_30]: Correct.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I know there were some citizens that wanted to speak on the matter. You're welcome to come up and state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: My name is Marie Mazzio, 6 Cudworth Street, Medford, Massachusetts. And I'm here making sure that what we don't want to see is cats and dogs being sold in a pet store. We definitely don't want that. I know that in the city of Medford with grants that we have gotten in working with Pat Hogan, that Medford really has come up a long way on spaying and neutering and we've really have brought down the number of cats that we have gotten telephone calls in the past of stray kittens and abandoned animals. They're still out there but we certainly, there are too many animals being put down every day and we don't want to see people breeding like puppy mills just to sell dogs and encouraging people to have their cats reproduced so that they can make $10 or whatever selling pets to a pet store. So we are familiar with Petco, Kitty Connection, the organization that I founded does network with Petco and WUBEN and as long as there's no dogs, cats, or animals being exploited for sale, Um, I don't see there being any, any problem with the pet go. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Anybody else? Thank you all share.
[Michael Marks]: Wait, some ocean Councilor Marks. Just if I could, I want to personally thank Marina lane for their advocacy on, uh, for, uh, animals in this community. And they've been working at it a long time, Mr. President. And you're absolutely correct, Marie, that they've made a lot of headway in this community to make sure that, you know, the pets that we do have in the community are safe. And if there are any pets that are on the streets, that they too are sought after and put in a home. So I want to thank them for their work. It's a tough line of business. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That phone rings, and I want to thank them both for their work on behalf of pets in this community, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor. Madam Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Briefly, thank you, President Dello Russo. I just want to echo the sentiments. I think Marie explained how far Medford has come. Obviously, we have Pat Hogan, who works really hard, but the majority of the reason why Medford has come so far is from Kitty Connection, and all the work Marie does. going into homes and rescuing all the cats. I've heard the stories and the work she does on a day-in, day-out basis with her team is something that we need to be very thankful for. And I hope while we do have the two parties, maybe we can exchange some business cards. It would be great if Petco would work with Marie. She works very close with Pat Hogan from City Hall. I know you have the truck, the mobile truck that spays and neuters. So hopefully we can create a good bond tonight. That would be great.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President Emeritus Mayako is your biggest fan. Chair awaits motion.
[George Scarpelli]: Motion to accept.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion for approval by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. It's to be recorded in opposition, Mr. President. Councilor Knight wishes to be recorded in opposition. All those in favour? Aye. All those opposed? Aye. In favour?
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion for Councilor Caraviello for suspension of the rules. If we could take 16-801 for licensing.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for Councilor Caraviello that paper number 16-801 be taken. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion granted. 16-801 petition for a class 2 auto dealers license by Tiago Messidiano of 30 Chelsea Street. Department Number 810, Everett, Massachusetts, for Inman Motor Corp, 357 Mystic Avenue, Medford. On file, business certificate, building department papers, approvals from fire, police, health, bonding, treasurer, letter of compliance, tax ID, workman's comp, petition, and corporate papers. Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello, Chairman of our licensing.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, if the gentleman would give us a little detail. It looks like you have a lot of paperwork here, and I've reviewed them. If you can give us a little overview of your project, what you want to do.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_03]: My name is Anselmo Silveira, Jr., and I'm one of the owners with Tiago Mauriciano of Inman Motors. Basically, what we're looking to do, I don't know if you are familiar with former Harley-Davidson motorcycle dealer in Everett. We took over that about two years ago. And current now, we have EMA Motors over there in Everett. being serving the community for the past two years, it's been perfect. Before, Imam Mothers is in the market for about 13 years. Before, we had two stores in Somerville that when we moved to Everett and we opened a big store, we closed those two stores. What we're looking to do is exactly like we're doing in Everett, we sell between three to almost new cars, like with very few miles. And the store in Everett currently has now about 170, 180 cars. And we are applying for a license for 157 cars on this current location in Medford. Will be basically the same operation, will be the same deal as we're doing in Everett right now.
[Richard Caraviello]: Are you planning on keeping the store in Everett also? Okay. And like I said, I've, I've seen your reference store. It's a, it's a very clean store and your property always seems to be well maintained there. And I would hope that you would maintain, um, uh, the same, uh, uh, standard of that. Um, I was a little concerned about if you had the capacity for 157 cars there. Uh, yes, we, um, Are you taking over the whole thing?
[SPEAKER_03]: The whole thing, the front and the back, yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Is Grava moving out of there?
[SPEAKER_03]: Grava is moving, yes. Okay. We actually have the plan for everything here. I have a few copies if you want to take a look.
[Richard Caraviello]: I have the plan.
[SPEAKER_03]: I wasn't sure if Grava was moving out of there.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm a little more comfortable now with that, but now that I know Grava won't be in back there.
[SPEAKER_03]: We comply with the measurement for each car and everything. So I think we are fine. I mean, that's why if you need more copies, we have here. Do you plan on doing any renovations to that property?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, we do.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes. Before we move it in, it will take about three months to move it in. We're going to do like we did in Everett. We're going to renovate the whole building. We're going to do inside, outside. We're going to do the lines on the asphalt. exactly like it looks in Everett, it's going to look imaginable.
[Richard Caraviello]: Like I say, I've seen your store in Everett, and from the outside, it looks very nice, the property. Every time I go by, it's always well-maintained, and I would hope that you do the same here. Mr. President, I've reviewed the papers, and they appear to be in order, and I motion for approval. On the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight, chair recognizes Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, I'd just like to share the reputation that you have. and those local communities. I know that, um, working in Somerville and what Inman auto sales has done in both Everett and Somerville, um, and giving back to your community, being part of that community, not just being an auto dealer, but, but really being part of that community and, and supporting youth organizations and being, being positive to our, our community and growth. So, um, I'm excited about this, this partnership. I think that, uh, I hope that when, uh, when it's time that the Inman is there to help our community as much as you're out helping the communities in Somerville, Everton, what you're doing for them. So thank you for all the work you do there, and hopefully we welcome you to Medford.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you very much. And it will be a pleasure to do whatever we did in the other communities. It will be a pleasure to do here. We like to be part of it. So you can come with us with anything you guys need. Thank you. On the motion for approval, last seconded. One last question, Mr. Chairman. Are you buying the property or are you leasing it? We're leasing it. We have five years with option for another five years. And we have the option to buy as well. We are the first one in line to buy it. If he wants to sell it, it would be a pleasure. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. Thank you very much. On the motion for council tonight for suspension of the rules to take the paper off the table. All those in favor. All those opposed. Mr. Councilor, 16 deck seven 79. Am I correct? Thank you. Uh, is off the table national grid and Verizon at Boston Avenue conduit underground chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Uh, Mr. President, thank you very much. Uh, this paper came up last week and it was tabled, um, at the request of council Scarpelli and myself, um, based upon the historic, negligence that National Grid and their contractors has given to our public roadways, Mr. President. Ultimately, there was a permit that was before us, and I picked up the phone and spoke with National Grid last week, and I explained to them the reasoning for my vote and the reasoning for not supporting the permit, at which time the individuals from National Grid explained to me that what they were doing was pulling a permit for the developer, and the developer was going to be performing the work. They put me in touch with the developer. I had an opportunity to speak with the developer and Mr. Shea is here this evening as well as his project manager. And they explained to me that this proposal came forward as part of a redevelopment proposal with the location at 630 Boston Avenue. This is a project that's gone through the variance process at the Zoning Board of Appeals and is a move from a taxi cab stand to some residential rental units here in the community, Mr. President. Earlier in the year, it's my understanding that public utility came in and replaced all the underground utilities for water sewer from the roadway in Somerville, which would be called Broadway, along Boston Ave, Medford Stretch to Harvard. So that whole entire underground utility has been replaced. And it's also my understanding, Mr. President, that come the spring, that entire stretch of the roadway is going to be repaved from curb to curb for the entire length. So it's very important that we take a look at this permit and allow these individuals to go and do the work that they do. Because if we do not, and they come back at a later date, Mr. President, we will have a road that was just recently paved, brand new curb to curb from the Somerville line to Harvard Street. that is now going to need to be cut up and dug up and patched. And, um, I think that, um, I'm very glad that I had the opportunity to speak with, um, Mr. Shea and, um, Mr. Klein, the two people that are working on this development here, as well as the gentlemen that appeared before us last week to clarify some of the questions that I have, Mr. President. But, um, it's my understanding that Commonwealth contracting will be resurfacing Boston Avenue. Um, they're looking to start that work in the spring. And, um, my questions and concerns relative to whether or not the public contractor is going to be accountable have been answered. Um, the developers have agreed to stay in contact with me and provide me with a monthly update, um, a look ahead as to what's going to happen down there in a monthly update, Mr. President. So, um, with that being said, I'd move to take the matter off the table and move for approval based upon the fact that, um, the concerns and questions that I raised that held the paper up have been addressed. Um, I can't speak for my colleague, councilor Scarpelli.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. On the motion for approval, chair recognizes Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I, uh, to be redundant, I won't bore everybody with such an eloquent statement from my colleague, but, uh, I too talked to Mr. Shea, Mr. Klein. I think that, uh, uh, talking to, to national grid, um, uh, the message has been sent and, um, my, my, my, uh, address to them is that this will, at least with this councilor, every time project comes forth, um, I will, um, table it until, um, we see some action and what they've done and past and past work and make sure that we have their commitment moving forward. So I too support, uh, moving this forward and, uh, uh, wishing Mr. Shea, uh, good luck.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good luck, Mr. Shea on the motion for removal by council and I seconded by councilor, uh, uh, Scarpelli chair recognizes council night again.
[Adam Knight]: Um, I also, Mr. President, I think it's very important to point out that the reason for the, um, tabling of the matter wasn't because of opposition to the development, but more or less it was opposition to the work and national grids doing in our community and the followup that we're doing on the city side to make sure that they comply with city standards and restore our streets to the condition that they deserve to be restored. And so, I mean, it had nothing to do with the project or the scope thereof. Mr. President, it was more or less the relationship between our public contractors in the city here and what we need to do to have them do a better job. Thank you. Councilor Marks is now recognized.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. During that meeting, I also believe we asked for a list for the last three years of all street openings and any permits that have been pulled. And also to see what the follow up was from the city. And I think what we're going to find, Mr. President, is a lack of oversight on behalf of this city. So I don't fault the different contractors. I don't fault the different utility companies. I fault the city, because the city is there to safeguard us as a community, Mr. President. And they are the ones that should be held their feet to the fire to make sure that when these utility companies do come into the community, that they put back uh, the road in the same condition or better condition than they found it. And that sign off and check and balance is not currently taking place. So I asked Mr. President once again that we received the report that this council voted unanimously on for, I believe it was the last three years of a street opening permits and any follow up by this city on those permits.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, now that this paper is on, off the table and coming towards some action. Once that action is taken, the amendments will be sent out to the appropriate people, and I'm sure we will quickly receive our responses. So on the motion approved by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Guys have it, congratulations, the motion is passed. Do we have a motion? The motion to return to regular order of business. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion granted 16-799 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Administration share any information they might have with the City Council in regards to the Langwood Commons development site. Whereas the development being discussed in this location will result in negative quality of life issues for the residents of Medford, but more so for the residents in North Medford. Chair recognizes Councilor Scott Peli and Councilor, where is this being offered for development?
[George Scarpelli]: It's the hospital site. Oh. And I think that with our ad hoc committee, that's been working very hard with trying to figure out the Malden site and what's happening there and thanking our traffic supervisors, the police department and Sergeant Hottnett and Brooks that um, doing performing that study and now finding that, um, it looks like that development at Lang Langwood has now passed its final hurdle with, uh, the fells, um, petitions that now they're going to start, uh, uh, moving forward with their development. So with what's going on, what's going on in that area and the fear and, uh, what's going to happen, with traffic and congestion is, is, um, something we need to make sure that we act, um, a more aggressive manner with our city administration. So I'd ask the mayor to, um, to, to reach out if we can, uh, have the mayor reach out to, um, uh, every, every and any department we need to, to see where we stand with this project. and what effects it's going to have, uh, in our neighborhoods. Um, it's, it's just when we talk about the Malden site, the Malden hospital site, it takes you back. And, um, now with this piling on it, uh, the development that's being proposed in those areas are frightening to our quality of life and Medford and especially, like I said, um, North Medford. So thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you on that motion chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Also thank you to Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this forward tonight. Um, this is definitely a quality of life issue that is going to impact North Medford and Fulton Heights. Uh, like a Councilor Scarpelli said him, uh, Councilor Longo and myself have been working diligently on the, uh, Malvern hospital ad hoc subcommittee on, uh, the issues, uh, surrounding the Malvern hospital. This is very similar in nature. Um, It's an impact on quality of life. The traffic is going to be out of control. We're already talking about hundreds of additional trips from Malden Hospital, potentially, and you're talking about, I mean, many, many more than that, I believe, up at the old New England Memorial site in Stoneham. So this is a major concern, a major quality of life issue. So far, with regard to the research that we've done in the Malden Hospital, had Sergeant Hartnett and Officer Brooks go out and do traffic counts on Murray Hill Road. We'll be getting that report soon. So what I'd like to do is if Councilor Scarpelli wouldn't mind, I'd like to amend the resolution that we get traffic counts on Highland Avenue, Elm Street, and on Fulton Street in the interest of public safety. We need to be proactive with regard to this issue. Like Councilor Scarpelli said, this is a major quality of life issue. We need to be out in front of this. And in talking to Sergeant Hartnett, we cannot get traffic counts. We're not gonna be able to get them soon because of the weather. I guess the traffic counting machine doesn't work well in inclement weather and in the winter. So probably in the spring, we will be able to get those counts. But I'd like to amend the resolution that we get traffic counts on Highland Ave, Elm Street and Fulton Street in the interest of public safety.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Falco, Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, I'd also like to ask that we bring in the DCR into this because the DCR is, uh, I was involved in this project a couple of years ago and I know there's going to be a lot of roadway changes up there. Uh, so we can see what roadway changes are going to be made. Uh, especially I've heard talk of the rotary being taken out, uh, and the, and widening of some of the, that, that historic roadway. Uh, so if we could, uh, maybe get them in to give us a report, uh, on what's going to be happening with the roadway and with all that parkland up there, uh, and the impact that's going to have on that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. So on the motion of council Scarpelli, as amended by council Falco and council caveo chair recognizes councilor night.
[Adam Knight]: Um, Mr. President, I'd like to further amend the paper and request that we reach out to the friends of the fells as well and ask if they can provide us with any data that they have. I know the friends of the fells were, um, spearheading the effort to combat the development there at this location, um, because of the impact that it would have on the ecosystem. So I think that they may have a lot of that traffic data and stuff. It might be a little bit outdated, but it might be a spot for us to start off with.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And further amended by Councilor Knight on that motion as amended. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for offering this. Uh, this is a major, major issue. uh, for the North Medford Heights area. And in addition to, uh, which I think is a worthy, uh, additional study, uh, for the traffic volume. Uh, I would also like to see Mr. President, uh, a study be done by DCR regarding a pedestrian crossing and pedestrian safety, uh, along Fulton street and along Elm, Mr. President. Uh, I just read somewhere, uh, online that the city of Malden sat at the table with DCR and they're in the process of doing hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovation to a rotary in Malden, with the likelihood of DCR picking up the entire tab. And it surrounds vehicular safety as well as pedestrian safety. So I don't think it's a lot to ask, Mr. President, that we ask for these particular reports and also get feedback from DCR on the potential to additional traffic, which we already know Elm Street is a major cut through into the city of Medford and our neighborhoods.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion for approval by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilors Falco, Caraviello, Knight, and Marx. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes 16-800. Offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the city arborist send the city council report on what type of trees are being planted on city property. Whereas the trees that have been previously planted are beginning to raise newer sidewalks causing dangerous surfaces. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I received a few phone calls both from, uh, uh, neighbors, um, on, uh, not only just, in my, my neighborhood in North Medford, North Medford, but also in, uh, other, uh, neighborhoods that, uh, had their streets and sidewalks done over the last 10 to 15 years. And what they're, what we're seeing is the type of trees that were planted at the time, um, were at the time, uh, those residents that accepted those trees and were told that there, they weren't going to be the same type of rooting trees. that as the trees grow, the roots then raise the sidewalks and, uh, traverse into homes. Unfortunately, we're seeing that that's not the case. And, uh, relatively newer streets and sidewalks and our residential areas are now popping up and causing a very dangerous, uh, and hazardous situation. So there's nothing we can do about that. But as we move forward, um, I'm hoping we can make, uh, make the motion that, uh, we, we, meet with the city arborist to make sure that as they're preparing to purchase their new trees in the spring and what they'll be proposing for new construction road work that we're using the proper trees that will not affect the sidewalks and the roads in such a negative manner. We'll also be talking about this process again in the next 10 years. I also, if we can, as I was traveling talking to different uh, constituents. One of the questions came about is where we also stand. Um, we can amend that is where we stand as tree city USA. And as we're losing trees, how we're replacing them and, uh, throughout our community. So thank you for the opportunity this evening.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Uh, the motion of council Scarpelli as amended to, uh, uh, figure out where we stand to make ourselves a tree city USA again. Thank you. Sure. Recognize this council Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, I thank council Scarpelli for bringing this forward. It's an important issue. Um, but I'd like to also, uh, if we could amend the resolution further, I know during the past year we've talked a lot as a, uh, as a committee about stumps, trees and, uh, sidewalks. And if we could get a report back from, uh, the DPW with regard to how many sidewalks have been replaced this year, how many trees have been planted, and how many stumps had been removed.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So in the calendar year of 2016? You are correct, year to date, please. Year to date report as amended by Councilor Falco. On the motion for approval by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carried 16-805. Offered by Councilor Knight. Whereas Massachusetts Municipal Association has established a fiscal policy committee to establish a series of best practice recommendations. And whereas adequate funding of municipal reserve accounts to mitigate budget risks from extraordinary and unforeseen events and maintain fiscal stability over time has been deemed a best practice. And whereas it is widely recognized that those local governments who have established and funded reserve and stabilization accounts at sufficient levels have been well served because these reserves allow localities to sustain services in times of economic and fiscal distress and limit the risk from extraordinary and unforeseen occurrences. And whereas sound policies and practices, along with adequate levels of reserves, can also have positive impact on credit ratings and reduce the cost of borrowing and capital project spending. And whereas the DOI's Division of Local Services advises that a good reserve policy will establish target balances for the local stabilization fund and other reserves and will establish a schedule of annual appropriations designed to reach target balances gradually over time. And whereas the government finance offices associations executive board recommends local governments establish a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance that should be maintained in the general fund. at a suggested level of no less than two months of general operating fund revenues or expenditures, and that various parts of the fund balance be specified, each of them, for the purpose of working capital, budget stabilization, and responding to extreme events. Be it therefore resolved that the Medford City Council request the city's administration to establish a reserve stabilization account and policy for the use or drawing down off reserves and for the replenishment thereof. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Um, last term, the city council, um, by way of resolution, uh, brought forward by Councilor Camuso voted to establish a stabilization account and, uh, At the time Governor Baker was just elected and there was some discussion about whether or not stabilization accounts were going to become a mandatory practice across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at the municipal level because it's been deemed the best practice, Mr. President. So we here in the city of Medford do have a stabilization account, but after my conversations with Ms. Nunley last week, it appears that there is no money in our stabilization account, nor is there a policy to take money out of a stabilization account or a policy to replenish our stabilization account. So I think that it's about time, Mr. President, that we ask the administration to take a look at establishing a stabilization account. Now, the Government Finance Office's Association's Executive Board does recommend that a formal policy be established and that an unrestricted fund level be maintained that should be no less than two months of operating revenue, Mr. President. Now, if we take a look at the fiscal year's budget that we're in right now, we're looking at a $162 million budget, and two months of operating expenses thereof would be The equivalent of $13.66 million that right now would be deemed a best practice to be set aside into a reserve account, Mr. President. So I'd like the administration to establish a policy as to what functions and purposes that these funds can be used for. to set a target as to how much funds are going to be appropriated annually, and then we can begin to establish a real rainy day fund or a real reserve account, Mr. President, so that we run into situations like the police station, it's a catastrophic event, we're in a better position to deal with it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just have questions with regards to how we're going to fund 13.66 million a million. I'm going to take some money out of free cash or are we going to, how, how are we going to, you know, do it? Um, I have questions with regards to this resolution. I don't feel comfortable voting for it tonight until maybe a prop. We understood it more. We have 10 million in free cash. We have reserves in our water and sewer enterprise account. We have reserves from rate payers for the cable franchise fee. Now we want to establish another $13.66 million. I just don't see how we're going to be able to do that unless we were going to take from, you know, whatever certified free cash we have at the end of the year and put it into it. Is the recommendation to put a portion of that into the reserve fund so that in years down the road we can eventually create a point where we're comfortable? Are we looking to, you know, continue to tax or Proposition 2.5? What's the proposal?
[Fred Dello Russo]: So if Councilor Knight can respond to that.
[Adam Knight]: The proposal is to establish a policy to begin to fund our stabilization account as well as a policy to initiate withdrawals thereof and mandate replenishment thereof.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think we would just need a meeting on it before we actually vote it. I mean, I'm not in agreement. I just can't see where the $13 million would come from and I
[Adam Knight]: It can be built up over time.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Kind of set guidelines ourself and say, Madam Mayor, this is what we're proposing rather than, I don't know if my council colleagues have any other questions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have a motion for approval, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, if we could refer this to the Auditing, Finance and Budget Taxation Subcommittee, maybe discuss this before we vote on it this evening. Maybe everyone else will feel a little more comfortable knowing where we're going to get the $13 million. I think that's a pretty a large sum of money to come up with out of, you know- Point of information, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor, and I- $13.6 million is based upon the recommendation that's made by the government finance offices associations executive board that recommends that the formal policy that's established should set aside two months worth of general operating funds. It doesn't have to be the end all, be all. That's just what the standard that's recommended by the professionals that are in the industry, Mr. President. Um, I certainly have no problem with the paper going to subcommittee if the subcommittee is going to meet and vet it, but we just set the tax rate tonight and that subcommittee hasn't met since as long as I've been on the council. So, you know, although I have no problem with the paper going to subcommittee provided work is going to be done there. I think that this is something, Mr. President, we're asking the administration to put a policy in place because last council, we asked them to create an account. They created an account. The account has zero dollars and zero cents in it. So if we're asking them to create a stabilization account, for the purpose of providing us with reserves in the municipal bank account so that we can deal with catastrophic events, but don't put any money in it. I don't, I don't think it makes sense. So I have no problem sending the paper to the audit and finance and taxation subcommittee, provided that it meets council coffee.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm sorry. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think when we, we would, when we talked with the consultant last week when he was here, he said that, you know, we were the money that we had, he thought was, um, not great, but compared to other cities, we were in fairly decent shape. To take that and to single it out for one particular purpose right now without any discussion, I think It wouldn't be prudent enough, so let's say- Point of clarification, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Either through a council- Point of clarification, Mr. President. I'm not looking for $13.6 million to get transferred from one account to the other tomorrow by the mayor. I'm asking for the mayor to develop a policy and a procedure so that we can define the level of funding that we want. It could be one month, it could be a half a year, it could be two months, it could be two bucks. But we have to have some sort of policy in place if we're gonna have a stabilization fund. We have a stabilization fund, we have no policy. Motion for approval on the floor.
[Richard Caraviello]: Council Caraviello would like you to go to a council of the whole or to the subcommittee for a little discussion before we vote on this. We have a motion for approval first.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So do we take that as a deep breaker? Chair recognizes councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: I think it's a good resolution. I think it makes fiscal sense. I think it, I think it's a good resolution. I think it makes good fiscal sense. And I have, um, I have no problem with it going to subcommittee, but I think it would be nice to actually get a draft policy first that would come to subcommittee and then we can discuss it because then we'll have something to work with. So I'd like to, I'd like to see a draft, you know, Paul, I think if we pass this, have it, or maybe it's amended. So it's a draft policy that comes to us with a plan and then we can meet in subcommittee. And I mean, I've, uh, you know, I've only been on the board for years, years. So, um, I'm on this subcommittee and, you know, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it with my, I believe Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Marks around this.
[Richard Caraviello]: Myself, other thing is Councilor Falco, Councilor Marks, myself, and that's it. That's it, so it's the three of us. Councilor Marks was on here twice.
[Adam Knight]: He's got two votes. He's got two votes.
[John Falco]: So, I think it, So Mr. President, I think it makes sense to actually move this to subcommittee, but I think it would make more sense to have a draft policy come to us with the administration, how they would like to handle it, and what they would like the policy to be. We can review it and vet it, and at that point make a decision, OK, do we want changes to this? Does this make sense? Or is it something we can live with? Or maybe it's not. But I think that we need to have something to work with. We need to get something from the administration first.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, it's, it's not, uh, under the purview of this council to create policy that's done by, uh, the executive branch. And if the mayor chooses to create a policy around that, which I agree with council on that, I think it's a great suggestion. and I think it should be looked at. I prefer, I'd rather send the paper to the mayor asking whether the mayor thinks this is a good idea, whether this would be a policy she would need to create. Maybe the mayor, I mean the mayor's a CPA, maybe the mayor in her wisdom doesn't see a need for it. So I don't see why we as a council should spin our wheels on something that's an administrative function. And if the mayor sees fit, the mayor sends us notes all the time, I support. This resolution, I support that resolution. I didn't see it with this one, but, uh, you know, maybe we should ask the mayor if she's in support and would you like creating a policy, madam mayor, rather than, you know, a legislative body that doesn't create policy, uh, dictate Mr. President. It doesn't make any sense to me, but I, but I think it's a worthy idea. I think having a policy is a worthy idea.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And thank you all Councilors. So I can straighten out this. We have a motion for approval and we have a motion for it to go to committee. And a motion to send to the mayor. So you're going to change your motion?
[Michael Marks]: You withdraw your motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Caraviello. Which was Councilor Falco's that the paper be sent to the mayor for rumination and opinion on that motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Councilor Marks, what did you say? I assumed that they were both the same. My apologies. So that was the motion of Councilor Marks. Mr. Clerk, let the record show it and stand corrected.
[Clerk]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: 16-802 petition by councillor Jean Martin, 10 Cummings Street, Medford Mass, to address the council on police staffing. Ms. Martin, you know you've addressed that to us on within 90 days.
[Jeanne Martin]: What's that now? Oh, okay. First of all, thank you very much. Jean Martin, 10 Cumming Street. Police staffing. I have a solution that will both satisfy police staffing shortages and black equity. However, this policy needs to be carried out to the letter of my recommendation or it will fail as an integration tool. My point is not to diminish other racial groups, but the slightest dilution waters down the real intent behind this initiative and the black man will once again be left behind. We currently have 107 police officers and we need 130. I propose we develop a policy whereby 10% of the police department constitute black men. Of the 10% black males hired, at least 7% of them must be veterans of military service. If we require a supermajority of the 10% to be black veterans, there will be less resistance from the veterans groups who also have a valid complaint. Since the goal is 130, then 13 will be black men, and of that, nine must be black male veterans. leaving the general population to account for the other four black men. I will discuss women in a minute, but there can be absolutely no substitution, not even a two-for-one black woman veteran. Black men are a unique subset of society, and if our goal is to obtain racial justice for the black men, then no substitution can water it down. Black men need role models on the street through the police department, and I dare say that white people also need to see black men in blue. This is a hard reality, but needs to be said. There's a difference between the atrocities we have committed on black males and the general discrimination other races have gone through. The first requires active steps by our government to correct a past harm, and the latter only equal treatment, not corrective action. Awareness, yes. Extra steps, no. This distinction must be understood and accepted by all of Medford. Otherwise this plan to integrate the city will fail. Yes even Hispanics cannot be accepted as a black minority unless of course he or she is black is he is a black Hispanic not because he is Hispanic but because he is black. If we include Hispanics we start to go down the rabbit hole. The policy will fail to address the number one racial objective. So what if you're a Hispanic veteran? You are placed under the general population outside of the black category, and I will personally advocate that you succeed over a non-veteran white nation.
[Adam Knight]: police officers are selected through the civil service hiring process.
[Jeanne Martin]: That's correct. But I do have a right to have my opinion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please continue citizen.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you very much. Okay. So anyway, I will personally advocate that you succeed over a non-veteran white man or the general population because you are a veteran. The math so far is 107 plus 13 equals 120 officers. Now, for the other 10 officers, I would like to see women hired. Why? Because women bring something different to the table. They should be trained exactly as their male counterparts, but they are not men. We need women officers for the obvious, domestic violence, rape, and to transport women detainees to higher level prisons as women do commit crime. One black woman and one white woman should be assigned to a racial task force for issues regarding profiling, example, that of an Arab-looking person who may be being harassed right now. They can also be used as detectives in cybercrime and other investigative and intelligence roles. Women have a soothing effect on overjacked male testosterone. And this can help in many ways on the streets. But like black men, there has to be enough of them to make a difference. Tokens do not give us the same result. So I would recommend no less than 15% and no more than 20% female. I do not want to emasculate the department. Men are the majority of offenders and require equal response. Women veterans should be encouraged, but not mandated. Now for the mandate. At least four black women must be hired. Why? Because black women are black. She is often treated more harshly by law enforcement because she is perceived to have attitude. When I was 34, I was the first woman never kicked out of the JPVA women's clinic, and they wanted to prosecute me. The police chief, who looked like he was in his 50s and a veteran, paternalized me and calmed me down. And he and I worked out an agreement. And while I was not allowed to go back to the women's clinic and put on the terror watch list, I was not arrested. I know a black woman in another VA who did the same thing that I did, but was arrested. A double standard does exist. And at least four black women are required for them to have a real voice. This is a plan that, if not deviated from, will work. My fear and warning is that should you start substituting just any black male for a black male veteran, the problems we see in society will not be alleviated. If you say that we cannot do this, Gene, because it is discriminatory, I feel sorry for society. Because the original intent on the anti-discrimination laws were designed to advance black men, period. And everyone else has co-opted his justice. Political correctness is then interfering with black justice. If you really want to see racial justice for the black man, you will make this happen. Even if it takes more money to seek out a black male veteran by casting a wider net the size of New England or the Eastern Seaboard, they are out there. And if this is against the law, which is what Mr. Knight's indicating, then the law needs to be changed because the group that needs the most protection is not protected under the current law. Thank you very much. Thank you. And because this is the Mayor's initiative, I want to speak on it. If it was just a citizen, and I do understand that it was disposed of, but if it was just a citizen.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of clarification, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: The conversations initiative is a group of 28 community organizations that got together and started this. It didn't start across the hall in the administration. It didn't start at city hall. It started through the community, through grassroots effort. Thank you.
[Jeanne Martin]: Excuse me, sir. But the resolution was by the mayor, and that's the key here. It's a measure that I have to speak on because it's a city document, and it's a city-sponsored document. And I found out why. Anyway, mayor's conversation initiative. I am not in any way trying to bash the mayor, but I figured out why her conversations initiative didn't sit right with me. This initiative is an official city document, and therefore I have the right to speak on it. It should be rescinded and rewritten. The mayor's premise is wrong. The strength of our nation is not derived from our diversity, but from the strength of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, not from our racial and ethnic makeup. How our diversity is held together is through the power we continue to give the U.S. Constitution by upholding it. The Constitution encompasses a form of government which allows for the dissent of the minority from the majority. Because of this ability, the dissent from the majority, diversity of thought and ideas can hold, can add to our majority culture. And yes, tolerance of differences and ethnic groups enrich our nation as a byproduct, not as a fundamental belief, as stated by the Mayor's Conversation Initiative. Our nation was not founded on the fundamental principles that all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. It was founded on heterosexual white male supremacy, who committed genocide on the original peoples because they happened to be in the way of the land the white man thought to be his rightful possession. At first, our forefathers tried to enslave the Native Americans, but their spirits died under bondage, and so it was not profitable. and there was indentured servitude of white peoples as well. But they were often given their freedom after seven years of service, usually their most prime years of good health. Do I need to then state the obvious for Africans? Once the colonists who were white males of the landowning class were themselves placed in the one down position by the royal class of England. Taxation without representation, they revolted and earned their freedom while still subjugating other peoples of race and gender. Equal protection of the law was not earned or given to others until much later and was not codified in its founding documents. The opposite is true. Slavery and native subjugation was codified. What is true is that it was given to the following generations whose forebears earned it through their blood, often to the death, sweat, and tears of those two specific racial categories. Because they learned how to apply our founding documents, to their advantage, and the Native and Black peoples were still denied after that. It was not only the Bill of Rights which provided this justice to happen, but the actual process of putting forward resolutions to change the law provided for in the main body of the Constitution. It is only through the continued application of the U.S. law that protection for these two primary groups see any semblance of justice. You cannot start a conversation on race without including the Native peoples, and the Native peoples were not immigrants. Leaving the Native American experience out of the base premise is intentional, and black people did not come here as immigrants groups until much later. The main focus of this resolution, while admirable in some parts of its intent, is a form of subterfuge to include illegal immigrants. And that is why the non-immigrant group, known as Native American, was intentionally left out. The problem with this premise is that it assumes all oppressions are equal and they are not. I served under a possible five-year federal prison sentence in the Army for being a lesbian. And I still knew better than to equate that with being black. I used other rationales to change the law. I argued that a gay man could be blackmailed and divulge military secrets. I argued my own and countless other honorable discharges as proof that we have already served and with distinction. I argued that it made straight women, as well as myself, more susceptible to rape. And I argued that it cost the army money to train and kick me out. But I never once used the black civil rights argument. I knew better. Not all oppressions are equal. While they may overlap, they are not equal. So I do believe we need to talk about race, yes, but not under this framework. I agree that if you are an Arab-looking American today, we need to make sure you do not receive a backlash. But this wording is not about that. This wording is couched to include and protect illegal immigrants with legal immigrants, and that is not the same justice under the law. If you want to talk about documenting illegals, say so openly. We can talk, but not on the backs of Native and Black peoples. Therefore, I believe this resolution, which is an official city government document, needs to be rescinded and rewritten to include the original peoples and African slavery as a prime example of inclusion as a result of how powerful our Constitution is, that it can fix its own structured abuses. still questionable with Native Americans. And then and only then, how other groups thrived off of their struggles. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Whereas that during the holiday season, residences tend to generate an increased amount of recyclables than usual, be it resolved that the city administration request that waste management increase recycling pickup to once per week, through the second week in January, be it further resolved that the city administration advertise the Christmas tree pickup schedule as soon as reasonably possible. Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I'm on trash day. As you drive around the community, you'll see the blue-topped recycling bins all overflowing. As the Christmas spirit comes into our homes and the holiday cheer permeates our residents and we begin to buy presents for our kids and our friends and our family, my house has turned into a bad episode of hoarders at this point. I have so many boxes in my house, Mr. President. And I think that others in the neighborhood are feeling the same crunch. So I'd ask that the administration reach out to waste management and see if there's any potential to increase the recyclable pickups to a weekly pickup between now and the week after the new year, Mr. President, so that those people that are battling the boxes and wrapping paper and so forth have an opportunity to get that stuff in the recycle bin. And I also ask that when They are in their discussions with waste management that they begin to publicize the Christmas tree pickup schedule as soon as reasonably possible because, uh, every year at the end of the Christmas season, we usually have a street or two that puts the Christmas trees out a day or two after the Christmas tree pickup occurred. So, um, I think it would be good to get that word out there for everybody to, um, know what steps to take. to get rid of some of the debris that they have, Mr. President, and when the Christmas tree pickup is going to happen.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On that motion, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. Seconded by Councilor, Vice President Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Passes. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to take papers under suspension, offered by Councilor Scarpelli that the meeting of December 27th of the City Council be canceled as it's consistent with academic calendar and supports and encourages the cohesion of families and goodwill in the season thereof. All those in favor? All those opposed? City Council will then reconvene after that the first Tuesday of January chair recognizes Councilor Scott Paladin. All set, thank you. You're all set?
[George Scarpelli]: Yes, sorry.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Was it? What else did I have? Is somebody needing to speak? Madam Vice President? I'm sorry.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just briefly remind everybody and their families that the Polar Express and the Christmas activities begin at four o'clock at Metro High School on Saturday.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Christmas chair. Do you have for us? Councilor?
[Michael Marks]: Uh, I have, uh, some chair about inaction on behalf of the city administration. Oh my heavens.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho. Council, please.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could, two weeks ago I brought up an issue with Aflac, which is a secondary insurance. that many city employees have in this community. Yes. And the fact that Aflac, uh, canceled employees policies due to, uh, nonpayment of, uh, the policy by on behalf of the city. And, um, I asked that, uh, five questions be sent to the administration on the impact it had on city employees for the nonpayment. and a number of questions. And we received tonight on our desk, dated December 9th, from Anne Marie Irwin, the treasurer-collector, a letter stating more or less they didn't answer the five questions, but apparently it was a billing error that took place. So for the past six or seven months, employees would cancel their AFLAC insurance because of a billing error, and they are going to create a policy now, this is the city, rather than send in monthly payments, they're going to send them in weekly to AFLAC. So hopefully that won't happen in the future. But we still didn't receive a response, Mr. President, to the five questions that were asked. And I think we still need a response from the administration.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I believe we received a letter, Councilor, on our desk this evening, and in the flurry of activity and votes we had, I haven't had a chance to examine it, so I'm saddened to hear that it might be considered deficient.
[Michael Marks]: It's extremely deficient, but, Mr. President, when this council votes on issues, whether you agree with the issue or not, we deserve a response from the administration, a thorough response, and not just a brush-off, Mr. President, saying there's a billing error. So I'm very concerned about that. Also, Mr. President, Alex Ruperthal, someone that covered this community for the Medford Transcript as a reporter for the last, I think, maybe a year and a half, two years, three years? Did tremendous work, Mr. President, on bringing up issues, enlightening the community on issues that confronted this community. And he did Yeoman's work, he's moving back to the windy city of Chicago, and I wish him well on all his new endeavors. He's a big Cubs fan, a great person, and we all wish him well, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The records of the meeting of December 6th, St. Nicholas Day, 2016, were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor, how did you find those? I found these all in order and accept. On the motion for approval by Councilor Scarpelli, all those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. On the motion of Councilor Falco, that the meeting be adjourned. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 29.07 minutes total words: 2144  |
total time: 13.13 minutes total words: 1409  |
total time: 5.24 minutes total words: 504  |
total time: 12.4 minutes total words: 1069  |
|
total time: 19.79 minutes total words: 1199  |
total time: 3.88 minutes total words: 404  |
total time: 5.05 minutes total words: 437  |
|