[Clerk]: Councilor Falco. Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Vice President Marks. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Present. Please rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Motions, orders, and resolution. 17-036, offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved that Park Medford fix the error on the current tickets which have recipients mailing the payment to the wrong zip code. Be it further resolved that all tickets that have been given with this error be voided. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I had put on the agenda some other troubles with Park Medford and discussed it for a few minutes. Since then, I've received additional complaints and phone calls with regards to other issues that are taking place down at Park Medford. One being something that I couldn't believe a woman forwarded me a ticket where it says you need to mail your citation money to was Medford mass 0 2 1 1 5, which is a Boston zip code and payments with this mistake may very well have got to Medford mass 0 2 1 5 5. But to have this on as a mistake, I just, I thought it was, it's just a terrible mistake. And it's something that, um, I went over about six other different things that are going on with Park Medford last week. I won't reiterate them. Thankfully, I did email the mayor's office, the chief of police, and I did email the new, I don't know if he's the director down in Park Medford. I received a response from the mayor's office and the chief of police, thankfully, and this has been fixed. But I feel that anybody who's received a ticket, whether it be from a broke, another complaint I've got since last week was a broken meter down in Medford Square. The meter was broken. People weren't able to feed the meter. then receive tickets. Not only do I think the tickets should be, should be voided. I think Park Medford needs to take a week. I think maybe the, hopefully the administration may maybe may take a time out from giving any tickets at all until we figure out a way to educate those who work from Park Medford to for the rules and regulations to take place and be done correctly. Um, because the only ones that are suffering are, well, obviously we're getting the complaints, but the residents and people who are trying to traverse our business districts and use, whether it's a restaurant or a nail salon, be able to pay for parking and they're not able to, it's just not effective. Something's wrong and it needs to be fixed. And I think a week off from, for the residents would be blessing I think to and I would think I would like to amend that and actually ask that somebody from the mayor's office take the time to be present during evaluations and make sure that everything is done smoothly and effectively because the mistakes that are taking place are affecting people at the registry, they're affecting people financially, people are getting really really upset and it's probably been 20 20 or so emails or phone calls I've gotten the last month with regards to problems with Park Medford and needs to be taken care of. So I would request that we take a week off and really get it straight and that the administration be on top of making sure that Park Medford gets it straight. We have to make sure we protect those who are parking in our business districts and make sure the programs done correctly. So that would be my resolve. I don't know if my council colleagues have anything else to add.
[Richard Caraviello]: I will report to you today that, um, I did talk to Dan Nash today from Park Medford and I expressed some of the concerns that I think we've all gotten. And I am set up a tentative meeting on February 7th at the council hall. I'm just, it's not, uh, I will probably have it confirmed in the next couple of days. I want to make sure that everyone, uh, will be able to make it. But that is a tentative date that I have scheduled, uh, to have Dan, uh, someone from the police and, uh, maybe the mayor's office come and, uh, for an hour, for an hour and a half in a council poll. So I will hopefully be able to report that out before the end of the week. So you everyone will have enough time to attend.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may on that, I just want to, I want to thank you very much for setting up that meeting. I asked for it last week and I know you, you've been asking for months to meet with Park Medford and I appreciate your persistence on that.
[Richard Caraviello]: So hopefully, hopefully it'll happen on the 7th on the motion.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Roll call.
[Richard Caraviello]: Roll call has been requested.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Please repeat the subject of the resolution, Mr. Clerk.
[Clerk]: The amendment or the actual resolution? What are we voting on at this point?
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, the amendment was- The amendments.
[Clerk]: The resolution also is to fix the error of the current tickets, which has the recipients mailing the payment to the one zip code here for the result. They're all tickets that have been given would this error be voided? And then the amendment, the amendment is that the mayor's office take the time to be present at the meeting so things can run smoothly and for power backer to take a week off from enforcement to get the program going.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Get it together, yep.
[Clerk]: Correct. If I may ask for clarification, Mr. Mayor.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Does the portion of the resolution remain intact where the councilor is requesting that all tickets issued be voided?
[Richard Caraviello]: I would think that's what her intent is. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: During the timeframe where parking meters are, this is one of a few are broken. This is not accepting money and where you're supposed to mail your money to Boston. Yes, I believe. And I know I talked to the chief of police about this.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you want to hold those all to the seventh, you want to be so that with the motion, if you want to discuss that on the seventh also. Do you want to do it out on a vote tonight?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I mean, I think it's sufficient to say there are so many problems with Park Medford over the last few weeks.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I was just looking for clarification as to whether or not that actual portion of the resolution remained intact, because I personally have a problem with that. I feel as though if I was parking in a handicapped spa without a handicapped placard and I got a ticket, regardless of where the zip code said to return the money that I owed the city of Medford to go, I should be held accountable for parking in that parking spot. If I was parking in front of a fire hydrant and I got tagged and the ticket told me that I was supposed to mail my, to pay the ticket, I should pay the ticket. Um, you know, so I have a problem with that portion of the resolution, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: It's obvious is, uh, there's multiple problems with the system and my suggestion is that we all have them ready for the seventh and we'll, and hopefully we can get them all answered on that night.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I mean, I can hold that portion that they'd be voided till the seventh. I would just ask that the program be shut down immediately. the administration and oversee Park Medford and make sure that these kinks, we can't wait till the 7th to have these problems, broken meters, people, they're not registering whether or not you pay for your tickets and then you go to the registry, try to renew your license, you get turned away. They're not giving people parking permits. They're sending them away, telling them they need other things. So I would ask that Park Medford- So that would be a B paper?
[Richard Caraviello]: Please. The B paper? The B paper would be to shut the program down until all the issues are resolved.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And the people are trained properly.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: With oversight from the mayor's office.
[Richard Caraviello]: So that'd be a B paper.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Um, my question as to whether or not we have a legal basis to repudiate the contract that we entered into.
[Richard Caraviello]: I couldn't answer that. I would think that'd be something for us to solicit an answer. I don't think he's in the audience this evening. So I don't know if we have the legal. We have the authority to request it. We have the authority to request it, that's correct. All right. So, uh, Councilor Lungo-Koehn is called for a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk, would you please read back the amendments so they know what they're voting on? We'll be voting on the B paper first, Mr. Dello Russo.
[Clerk]: So the program can run smoothly, take care of park member, take a week off from enforcement to get the program going correctly and to have the park member personnel in training.
[Richard Caraviello]: All right. Roll on the B paper.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Unidentified]: No.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco?
[Adam Knight]: No.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I'm voting no. I would like to reflect that I'm voting no for the purpose of questioning as to whether or not we have legal authority. Mr. Scott.
[Clerk]: Councilor Langley-Curran?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice-President Marks?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scott-Bell? I vote no. Mr. President, I'm voting no.
[Richard Caraviello]: Two in the affirmative, five in the negative. The motion fails.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: Excuse me, on the A paper. The A paper would be the resolution to void the tickets. That can be discussed on the 7th and I think
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The issue, I did shoot out emails right away last week, Thursday, so I think the zip code has been fixed, from what I've been told, from two parties.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so we'll take that out.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So then that's it. So no roll call is necessary, no vote needs to be taken. Sure, refer to the paper. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I second the Councilor's motion to refer the paper to the Committee of the Whole on February 7th with Park Manfred, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: All those in favour? Aye. Motion passes. Okay. 17 0 3 7 offered by council Longo current be a resolve that the Medford city council be provided in update with the regards to the status of the elderly field of dreams and where we are with regards to the potential bubble. Councilor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Um, president Caraviello, I have been questioned, um, just twice with regards to what happened. RFP, And I believe we have somebody in the audience who does have an answer. So that'd be great if we could just be provided that answer and let the public know. People know that we, um, discussed it numerous times several months ago.
[SPEAKER_03]: Uh, Councilor Scarpelli has the floor next. Councilor Scarpelli. I yield to Councilors. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Um, I just question as to whether or not the answer is coming from the administration, uh, the actual entity that put out the RFP. I always thought that it was a dead issue, but... Yeah, that was my understanding as well, Mr. President, but I feel as though the answer should really come from a member of the administration as opposed to someone from the general public.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. I did talk to the administration about this, and there has been no acceptance, so the RFP is off the table, so that's what I've been told.
[Richard Caraviello]: So it is a dead issue as far as... Dead issue, yeah. ...as everyone's concerned.
[George Scarpelli]: I believe that they're also... Good communication.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, I was not aware. I was not aware, but that's what I've been told. I would appreciate put it through. Councilor Dela Russa. Councilor Dela Russa.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I would request that any communique regarding the official stance of the City of Medford come from an official of the City of Medford.
[Richard Caraviello]: You are correct, Councilor Dela Russa. Name and address of the record, please.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penta. I live at Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., a former member of this august body. In May of 2016, when this issue appeared itself before the council, I came and I spoke and I relayed information for which I will again reaffirm with you after speaking with Bond Council for the City of Medford. The City of Medford engages in a tax-exempt IRS status which provides for certain exemptions for the purposes of being excluded from tax for tax particular purposes. And there is a specific section on 2.2 called government bond status for which the City of Medford has three delineations for which it has a requirement for which it cannot engage in this type of a for-profit private business using a municipal piece of property, which would be for profit, even though some of the time would be allotted for the purposes of using the city. It's very specific in 2.2 of the section of the IRS tax exempt certificate, specifically for the city of Medford. It clearly states that a non-governmental person will be treated as using proceeds of the bonds and proceeds of each issue of prior obligation of the projects in one of three areas. One uses any portion of the projects as owner, lessee, service provider, operator, or manager, two, acquires the output of the projects, and four, section four, enters into any other arrangement that provided a special legal entitlement or special economic benefit to the non-governmental person. That would happen as what's being presented or potentially could have been presented. And accordingly, it says that the city will not enter in any contract or other arrangement after the closing date for the operation or management of any component of the project by any party other than a governmental unit in which the governmental unit is the city of Medford. The city of Medford has a tax certificate. It's an 11 page document. It specifically outlines subject matters such as this. Spoke to bond council last year, spoke to office again today, and there happens to be no re-interest in issuing this particular bond. Also, it has to have a legal review as required by the IRS on any exemption or exception. And I don't believe any exception has been offered to you by any legal writing or offering or request for one. And I would say at this point in time, uh, thank you for bringing it forward. Counsel Lungo and uh, thank you. Method school committee for being so cooperative and transmitting that information back to the council, knowing that it was on the agenda this week. It's a shame that the communication isn't much better. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to receive a place of second counts. Councilor, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Uh, there was the motion, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: And, uh, this is a perfect time to bring up an issue that, uh, I've had, uh, with,
[Michael Marks]: a particular monument that's located on Edgeley Field. And many of us in the community may or may not be aware, but that field was named after William Budd Edgeley in a ceremony in 1972. And the monument at the time was placed in a prominent area on the field itself. And it read, William Budd Edgeley, an outstanding athlete, public servant, and citizen of Method. And during the construction of the Field of Dreams, which I think we all agree was a tremendous asset to this community and to the student athletes at Medford High School, the monument was temporarily moved and placed at the entrance to the complex. And if anyone's been up there, and I'm sure Coach Scarpelli, Councilor Scarpelli can attest to this, the monument was placed in an area that's overgrown with weeds, The plaque itself is in deplorable condition, as you mentioned about some of the military plaques throughout the community. And in my opinion, it sorely needs to be relocated onto the field area, maybe between the track and the fence in the field area, have the plaque rebuffed, Mr. President, and have a proper cement setting footing so this particular stone can go on top of the proper cement setting Right now, it's actually sinking into the ground where it currently is, Mr. President. And it doesn't do any justice to the gentleman who gave so much of his life, Bud Edgeley, to this community and to the students of this community for so, so many years, Mr. President, that the city felt in 1972 it was enough to honor this gentleman by naming a field after him, which is a tremendous honor, Mr. President. So I would ask — I think this is the appropriate time where we're discussing Edgeley Field that the city, maybe we could do it through the vocational students, build a cement platform relocated between the fence and the track area in actually Edgeley Field, or what we refer to as the Field of Dreams, but actually in the field itself, and that the plaque that's on the monument be buffed out, Mr. President, And I think it's about time. 1972 was a lot of years ago. I was only a little boy at the time. I think it's about time we have a read. It was your graduate. Happy graduation. I think it's about time we rededicate this particular ceremony, Mr. President, to Mr. Bud Edgeley and have a groundbreaking up there. Mr. President, once again, for a gentleman, that did so much for this community and so much for the students of our public school system, Mr. President. So I would put that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that the stone be relocated onto the field, surrounding field, and also that a base, a cement base be built, if we can get the vocational school to do that as a community service project, that would be great. And also that we look at a rededication ceremony to honor Mr. William, but actually thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: Councilor mocks.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scott Belly. If I could thank you for Councilor Marks for bringing this up. I know that this was brought up in the past and I talked to a constituent just a few weeks ago here in the council chambers. I did talk to, um, athletic director Maloney about this just recently. And, uh, he must've been reading his mind because they've already discussed this looking forward for the spring. that the vocational school is one of their projects is to relocate that stone next to one of the benches in front of the fence and, um, built on top of some sort of cement structure. So it sits upon something. So, um, the, I, I should have relayed that to everybody sooner, but I appreciate bringing that up. And, um, I second that we have a rededication to a great man and someone who I, as you become a member of the coaching staff at Medford High School, one of only five head coaches in the history of Medford High Soccer, and understanding that the Fran Pelosi's, the Bud Edgeley's, the Joe Barletta's, the Skipperata's, and having my name along with those great names is, much appreciated. So I appreciate that to bring that up and I hope to see that this spring. Thank you. I agree.
[Richard Caraviello]: We'll call a vote has been requested on the motion.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President Mox. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes. Motion of seven in the affirmative.
[Richard Caraviello]: Zero. Motion passes. What about the 1703, is that received in place of 7?
[Clerk]: I'm sorry? Yeah. Is that received in place of 5?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. All right. Offered. Excuse me, before that, on Councilor Knight's earlier motion to receive in place of file, the earlier motion. uh, that has passed also. 17 0 3 8 offered by council on ongoing current. Whereas another proposed development that is in need of numerous variances will be petitioning. There's only board of appeals on Tuesday, January 31st, 2017. Be it resolved that the city council set up a monthly set up a community meeting to discuss and obtain input in how the city should be developed going forward. Councilor Lococoon, on the advice of our city solicitor, I ask that you not mention, because we have a suit pending with the Board of Appeals, that you not mention any particular case. That's in court, yes. That's in court. It may be met as before the board, until we have advice from our attorney. Yeah, that's fine.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Anything before the Board of Appeals while... Well, this is pertinent to the President's effort.
[Richard Caraviello]: It is pertinent to that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Something that's going on, taking a vote tomorrow night, being next Wednesday, I think it's relevant.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, so just try to keep it to a general... We have a case pending in court. Council Member O'Karn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I think it's extremely important to bring up what's coming down the line next. Tomorrow night there's a community development meeting, that's at 6.30, and that's gonna be in discussion of the Salem Street and Court Street project, which is where the old pro break parcel is. Tomorrow night is the community development board, and then Wednesday, a week from when, Tuesday, a week from tonight is the zoning board of appeals meeting, where a number of variances are being requested by a developer, and nothing against this developer, I just, I think it's extremely important, number one, that this be brought to light because a lot of neighbors, you know, are very concerned about it. This is a proposed four-story development, 21 units, seven one-bedrooms, 12 two-bedrooms, two three-bedrooms, and they need a number of variances for insufficient lot area, lot depth, usable area, front, side, and rear setbacks, off-street parking, screening and buffer strips, exceeding maximum allowed lot coverage, height and number thereof are some of the variances that they will be seeking. They're also looking for four stories, which I believe, due to the square footage, only allows three. So it's really important that the city council understand what's coming forward. This is a parcel that obviously is a very large development on a parcel in a very, very highly populated area that has barely any parking available. Traffic obviously is at a high in that area, and we obviously talked about it many times about safety concerns with traffic. this council has requested a few times, I believe through my motions to set up a meeting and sit down and really discuss development with the mayor, but that doesn't seem to have been happening in the last year. And I think it's really important that the city council, we sit down, we have our own meeting and we invite anybody who's interested in development to come to a, whether it be a city council meeting or a, if we have a public hearing, we need to know where we're going, where we're moving forward. Right now we've into, you know, I feel like we've really appeased to anything developers have wanted. And I don't know if I feel like the people deserve better. We need to make sure our neighborhoods are not getting overstuffed. We, we need to make sure that our, I have another resolution coming down with regards to class size. There's a couple of schools in Medford that cannot fit another classroom. And we have 500 units coming that are actually being developed currently. We have other proposed developments. And we have a number of, I know this developer in particular is looking for other parcels currently. We just need to make the people aware. And the people in this council are really all that the community has at this point to make sure we develop correctly, smart development. We want development, we want good developers in Medford, but we need to make sure it's smart. There was a project that was denied on Canal Street, 15 units. We need some conformity, and we need smart development, and I really am interested in listening to the people from every area in this community and figuring out what the needs are, what the wants are, and obviously this is the project that's coming up next before the Zoning Board of Appeals. It's of interest to me. I have children in the school, I traversed I know what our, from having council meetings, we know what our infrastructure's like. It needs some improvement. Council Marks has discussed piping, you know, he's the expert on that, but there's just so many issues and so many reasons why we, as a council, need to be on top of this. I feel like sometimes we're the only voice for the neighborhoods on certain things, and this is one that needs some voices, and it's one that I know a number of neighbors are concerned about. We need to invite the whole community and we need to have a public meeting on it and discuss development and the issuance of variances because some like to say that it's not in the council purview, but zoning is in the council purview. And it's something we don't have time to wait, we have to review our zoning, but we don't have the year it will take. We need to be on top of this now. So I just ask that my council colleagues support having a public meeting, I ask for the support going forward and trying to get the Community Development Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to see what the people are crying out for, see where the council's at, so we can make some change and we can make some change on how things are approved and not approved and how developers come into this city and the mindset they have with regards to, oh, we can do anything we want in Medford. Well, that shouldn't be. That's not good for this community. and we need to make a stand. We need to have this meeting. We need to have our voices heard. So for, for the neighborhoods, it has to happen.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Council council night.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And I appreciate council Longo putting this resolution on. Um, so as she stated, uh, tomorrow evening, the office of community development will be having a meeting at 6 PM in room 207. Uh, I'm sorry. 308, I'm sorry, 308, 630 p.m. To discuss this very issue, Mr. President, the development of the parcel that was noted. And then one week from this evening, the Zoning Board of Appeals will be meeting to take up the question of whether or not they are willing to approve the requested variances. Mr. President, I personally feel as though the Zoning Board of Appeals is is an independent, autonomous body that should operate free from undue influence. When matters are before the Zoning Board of Appeals, they are applications. The Zoning Board of Appeals then makes a decision. As the Medford City Council, we have standing in every single decision that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made to then further question the decisions that are made and potentially pull this case into litigation, which we've done in the past. So with that being said, Mr. President, I think it's very important that the residents of the community get out and take a look at what's going on in the neighborhood. attend this meeting and express their concerns to the zoning board of appeals on Wednesday, on Tuesday, the 31st.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. And I know there's many, uh, members of the community who were unaware of the meeting. So I hope everybody watching is aware of these two dates. So please take note of that. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank council Lungo-Koehn for bringing this forward. Um, this is a very important issue. Uh, development is, uh, an issue that really is affecting every neighborhood throughout this city. No matter where you go, Contractors or developers are coming in and they're trying to build apartments. They want all kinds of variances. Once again, zoning is a major issue that needs to be looked at. And, um, you know, it needs to be looked at soon. I mean, sooner than later, because, you know, we haven't looked at it in years. Uh, but I mean, as you go from neighborhood to neighborhood, I, down in Wellington, this, uh, 500 units, uh, you go over to Middlesex Ave, it's a few hundred units all over the place. People want to develop and they want to come in and they want more and more variances. Where does it end? It's a quality of life issue because you bring a new development. And I agree with the councilor. No one's saying we don't want any development, but you want smart development, development that makes sense within the community. If you're overdeveloping, you have all kinds of other issues that come with that. Traffic and traffic related issues are a problem now with the current number of units that we had throughout the city. And you want to add over a thousand more units when you add all these different developments up, you're compounding the problems by the day. This needs to be looked at. I hope people attend these meetings. Um, uh, it's, it's vital that people get involved. It's vital that their voices are heard. Um, these, uh, you know, these, these developments, people think, well, it's just one small development here, one small development there, but as they add up, it becomes a major issue throughout this community. So I support the resolution. I thank you for bringing it forward.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. Councilor.
[John Falco]: Councilor Knight.
[SPEAKER_03]: Move approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Move approval. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank council Lungo-Koehn, uh, for bringing this up. Uh, zoning is probably the first, the second most important role of this council. So don't let anyone tell you otherwise that, uh, there's a zoning board and there is a zoning board. And I realized it's created by state statute, but it's this council that creates zoning ordinances. And it's this council that dictates, uh, what the audiences will be. Mr. President, uh, I attended a meeting on a project that I won't name on, uh, Salem street. And there were a number of residents in the room at the time. And the developer was going through and says, I want to build five stories. I want to do this and that. And the neighbors turned to the developer and said, Why do you want to build so high next to a two family home and block out our sunlight? And he said, well, that is the direction we received from the administration that they're looking for high density development. So I think when you have the administration sending out one message to developers, Hey, we're looking for high density development like we see on locus street. And then you have residents that are actually in the community saying, wait a minute, uh, that might be appropriate for certain areas, but certainly not next to my house. Uh, and I think they have a valid, valid concern, Mr. President. Uh, another thing, uh, as was mentioned, uh, variances, variances, uh, meant, uh, to, uh, help, uh, potentially develop a, that has a hardship. Now, a hardship is not the fact that, I want to make this project as dense as possible so I can make the most money as possible. That's not a hardship. A hardship is possibly a lot configuration, how the lot is configured, if there's groundwater in that lot. There are a number of hardships that have nothing to do with having a developer make the most he can from a particular lot. And from what I'm seeing in the community, and this is what troubles me, is that variances are being given out based on hardship that really isn't a hardship. And, you know, we're not in the business because someone bought a lot and they can only build up three stories, but they'd rather build 10 stories so they can put in another 45 condos. That's not a hardship in my opinion. The lot was what it was, the ordinances were in place when you bought it, and that's not a hardship. You didn't find out after the fact you can only go up three stories. You knew about it. So that's not a hardship, Mr. President. I would ask again this council, if we do nothing this year at all, Mr. President, which I hope we don't, but zoning is one of the most important issues we have to meet on. And we've been saying it over and over again, and we have to get together. I agree with Councilor Falco who brought up a suggestion of bringing in a consultant. I know the MMA was brought up before and so forth. But I think we do need some guidance on this. Zoning is a very complex issue, and I don't think we have any zoning experts behind this reel, and I certainly don't claim to be one. But I think we have to do this sooner than later, Mr. President. And then, once we get some guidance and start the process, then I agree with public hearings. I think we should have a ton of public hearings. But I think we really should get our feet wet in it first, sit down with someone that's a zoning expert that does zoning consulting, and see what direction we want to go in as a council, and then move forward. So I would ask under your leadership, Mr. President, that I know you have a lot on your plate for Committee of the Whole meetings. We have one for the police department, because a lot of backlog from the last council president. But I would ask that you move forward on the zoning, Mr. President, because it is the lifeline of a community, and we have to move forward on that, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Miles. Councilor Lococo-Kern.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll yield to the residents that want to speak.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address on the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, my name is Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street, so I'm fairly close to the project that we're discussing. I'm going to, pardon me as I'm going to read, but I think that the city council has a lot more control over zoning today than they actually believe. According to the Massachusetts law, chapter 40, section 10 on titled ordinances, the permit granting authority, which in our case is the ZBA has the power to have a hearing. And I'll skip through a little bit after they notify all in to right. such permaculture owing to circumstances, so they're only supposed to give us circumstances, variances for circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures. and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which is located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellate, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. So, Right now, that's not how our variances are being granted. As you can see, this parcel is fairly rectangular in shape, so the topography is okay. He's allowed to build three levels. There's a reason why we have space around people's houses, because somebody else's house shouldn't be in the shadow of a building. It has to be not developer-centric. It has to be people-centric. So I encourage people to come to these meetings because this is happening now on Salem Street. I was at the same meeting where the developer told us he was encouraged by the administration. He said that he was told that they were hoping to build 10 to 12 buildings on Salem Street. So this isn't just one building. So imagine if we built 10 to 12 buildings, each with 21 units. We're talking about an addition of 210 to approximately 250 units on the overcrowded Salem Street. The surrounding streets in this area are so overcrowded with cars. They're coming in and they're looking for residential parking permits. Everett Street has residential parking. Parts of Tainter have residential parking. Court Street has parking on one side. Park Street at that location has parking on one side. There's a school that's the largest in the entire city, elementary school. It doesn't have room for any more children. So at some point, we have to start considering that These variants being granted are not for the good of the city they're only for the good of the developer. The developer who will cash his check and walk away and leave us hanging on trying to figure out how we're going to cover the extra infrastructure costs that have suddenly been thrust upon us as these people are welcome if they follow zoning. But we can't just keep overbuilding and pretending that the infrastructure costs aren't real, that the cost to people's quality of life aren't real, because they are. So I hope people will come tomorrow to the community development meeting at 6.30, and most importantly, come to the zoning board meeting next Tuesday at 7 p.m. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address of the record, please. Robert M. Penta, Zero Summit Road, Method Mass, former member of this board. You know, one of the things that are interesting on the petition that's before the Community Development Board tomorrow night is the fact that the gentleman who was making the petition owns the property. He didn't buy the property on any contingencies. He came in there originally, because I went to the meeting in August, I believe he came in there originally looking for a five-story building. Then he's now downsized it to a four-story building, and he secured through the neighborhood another piece of property for which, I don't know if he bought it, it's under a P&S agreement. But the fact of the matter is, it's no more than a three story allowance on that piece of property. The then Medford City Council made that discretion that three stories would be it. And if we keep breaking these rules, so to speak, without having a public hearing or a discussion as to why it should go from three to four to five, whatever it might be, then you've lost your impact, you've lost your legislative authority and your ability to understand why you need to change zoning and for what particular purpose. If you let this, or if they let this go through tomorrow night, through the Community Development Board, and subsequent to that, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, what you're gonna be doing is you're technically, you're spot zoning the entire city over there, and if you allow one, come in, the past practice has already been established, and it's just gonna keep going on down the street. As Cheryl just alluded to, you have the Roberts Junior School over there, the middle school, the elementary school, for kids that are going there, they're already maxed out, the parking is horrendous on any one particular day. Unfortunately for the developer, he probably should've sat down and thought this thing out first. But as it was said, this administration, as I've heard it said myself, is looking for high density because the more they bring in, it's the more money coming in. And what you're doing is you're ruining the neighborhoods of the city of Medford. And you just cannot continue to do that. Locust Street is the perfect example. The council has stepped up to the plate. You've gotten your own attorney as well as the neighbors. Don't let these little inconsistencies bog you down by making you feel sorry or bad for the person because he's spending the money. If a person is going to be that foolish to spend his money and buy a piece of property not knowing that the zoning is not in hand, then the problem is on his hand, not yours. And I really think, Mr. President, this would be the year to have a complete zoning review. I think it hasn't been. since the 70s that has taken place, I think now's the time. You couldn't have any better of examples, whether it be Locust Street, whether it be here, go on the Felsway on the corner, I think of the Felsway, I can't think of the name of the street. They're building an apartment building where there was a two-family house. It just continues to go on and on and on. City's not meant to be made out of bricks and stones. Medford is meant to be made of people living in a neighborhood that they get along, it's compatible, it reflects the zoning, And it reflects the temperament of the day. It doesn't reflect big business coming in, sucking up the money, and then leaving. You couldn't get a better example of that than Lumineer on Locust Street. They build 160 units. He was there for less than one year. He sold it for $160 million, and he's gone, and he's out of town. And that's what we're getting, people coming in, taking advantage of the property, building it up, and then leaving. That's not what Medford's all about. But if that's what this administration wants, well then shame on her. She should understand, and she's lived in this community long enough to know that that should not be the direction of how this city goes. Building is not always better. Better is being smarter. Thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I was just going to point out one more thing. I know I discussed the overcrowded schools, the infrastructure, the neighborhoods, the neighbors. Sunlight was brought up. There's so many different things. But when Councilor Marks brought up the fact that our administration wants high density, with the fact that we have an understaffed police station, understaffed fire station, police cars, police station, I won't go there. We need some balance. Not only do we need the community's input, but we need some balance. We may have standing to file suit against the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I think why even get to that point when we can be discussing it now and making the changes now? We have a committee of three people on the Zoning Board. This is probably something that should be done in Committee of the Whole, although it's going to take many meetings, but it needs to be done. And I think a community meeting has to happen first so we know how our residents want to see their streets, their community developed. That needs to happen now. So I asked for a roll call vote that a meeting be set up, whether it be one potentially at a city council meeting at seven o'clock, we designate two hours to listen to the people and let's see who comes and let's see who wants to tell us how they see their neighborhood, their streets and their community developed.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. On that point, Mr. President, something that's happened very recently that's been very successful. And, uh, it's been the taking of the monthly police meetings to the neighborhoods. And I think that this might be a perfect opportunity, uh, to do that relative to, uh, committees of the whole focus.
[Richard Caraviello]: You are chaiming of zoning boy, focusing on, uh, uh, councilor Russo and councilor Falco. This may be a tax that will be assigned to you to, to get out to the neighborhoods.
[Adam Knight]: And that's something that I certainly don't have a problem with Mr. President. And I've, I've stated it, um, continuously and consistently, uh, this whole entire term. I have no problem with doing the zoning. I have no problem bringing an outside consultant to review the zoning for a purpose. What's that purpose? What direction are we going in? Is it to develop an affordable housing plan? Is it to develop an open space plan? Is it to create economic economic development zones? What, what is the purpose and what direction do we want to go in? Once we figure out what direction we want to go in, then let's bring, let's bring the consultant in. But I think the council Longo is correct.
[Michael Marks]: One information Councilor Marks. I think the basic premises to review our zoning ordinances, And then we can decide if there's a particular direction we want to go in. But in my opinion, what we have to do is sit down with someone, consulted, and just take a look at all our zoning ordinances. And then we can maybe go into different directions, or maybe appoint certain committees to do different things, because there's hundreds of pages of zoning ordinances. So I agree, but I think we don't have to make this any more complex than it is.
[Adam Knight]: I'd agree with you. That's why I was going to agree with Councilor Lungo-Koehn that we need to go to the community first and hear what it is that the people want.
[Michael Marks]: Right.
[Clerk]: Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I also agree. I think that, um, you know, you took the police meetings out to the community and that's worked out really well. I think it would be great to, uh, take the zoning meetings out as well and, and, uh, to hear from each of the community, uh, each of the neighborhoods. But, uh, last year when I offered the resolution with regard to zoning, I still stand by it, and that's that we should have someone from the outside come in. Because, like Councilor Marks mentioned before, really none of us are qualified to look at zoning. We really don't have the background in zoning. So really, we should have someone come in. We should also have, the mayor should also be giving us her plan. What does she want, what is her plan for this city?
[Adam Knight]: You know, I think, I believe, I- Point of information, Councilor Knight. I do believe at the third meeting of 2017, this council did pass a resolution asking for a meeting with the mayor to discuss development and her vision for what direction the city of Metro will go.
[Richard Caraviello]: You are correct, Councilor Knight, as that has not happened.
[John Falco]: Exactly, but have we got a date yet on that? I'm sorry? Have we got a date yet on that meeting?
[Richard Caraviello]: We do not.
[John Falco]: Okay, if you could please reach out to the administration.
[Richard Caraviello]: I will do my best to talk to the mayor tomorrow and get a date. That would be greatly appreciated. Point of information, Councilor Locario.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: it would be great to have her input, but at the same time, this is city council prerogative and we need to, we need to take charge now cause it's going to take a year to do. And that might even be too late. So a community meeting has to come first. We need to figure out what we want and then hire a consultant to say, how do we get it done?
[John Falco]: But thank you. Absolutely. Absolutely. I agree. But I, but I also believe that, um, you know, we need to, kind of get everybody on board. But I honestly feel, I still believe it today, that we need to have someone from the outside take a look at this. You are correct. Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Again, I know that some of my fellow colleagues don't believe this is the way to go, but when you're talking about a consultant, I agree a thousand percent, but what always comes back from administration is cost and cost and what can we afford, and that's something that we should make a priority. But I'm gonna make a suggestion again. Something that has already been paid for, by becoming a member of the Metropolitan Planning Board that we are actually part of their board. We can actually ask them right now to come in now to ask for their guidance, because this is what they do. They're already working for us. We're using them at Medford Square, and they're leading us in that way. Why wouldn't we ask them to come to these meetings and give us some guidance? I believe the attorney that we hired actually told us this is, when I spoke to them, that this is the way we can go. So I know some members don't believe in it, but, um, because one of the, I'm going to guarantee everybody here, we're going to know that the first thing to say for a consultant, the budget, the money, it's just going to delay everything. And I agree with all of my fellow colleagues, but it would, it hurt us to ask someone from that board to be here in our corner to lend advice because this is what they do. We don't. So again, I, I, I, I strongly suggest that I agree with bringing an outside consultant, and again, that's going to take time. We're talking about pending issues that are affecting our neighborhoods every single day. And we can reach out to a board, a metropolitan board that we've actually worked with, that we have evidence that they're working with that, that we move on. We ask them to come in and lend some advice so we can have a vision, a direction, where to go with our audiences that haven't been looked at in over 30 years. So thank you. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, uh, I agreed that community input will be very helpful to guide us. And as a starting point, I think we've had a great deal of community input with regards to development in some of the commercial districts when the transition team, uh, last winter undertook various community meetings. So by accessing the committee on developments report on the city's webpage, we can have at least some baseline of what some people are looking for, many residents are looking for in our commercial districts. But one of the areas that has become greatly irksome to all of us is the development in residential neighborhoods. and the impact it's having on where people live. And we need to be conscious of that and we need to move forward. And I agree a starting point would be a community meeting. And I further agree on Councilor Knight's suggestion that those meetings be conducted in neighborhoods where people live and where they're affected by this development day in and day out. I want to set the record straight, Mr. President, I am not opposed to the influence, assistance, in fact I welcome the influence, assistance, and direction of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's resources that we pay for. My point in adding caution to them is that their interests are not always necessarily for MedFed in particular, but for the metropolitan area as a whole. So as we engage their assistance on any project, I just hope that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you for those words of wisdom, Councilor Dello Russo. Name and address of the record, please. Thank you.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Honorable Council, Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street, Method Mass. I'll try to be short, concise, and hopefully mathematically, uh, correct on a common sense basis. First two questions before I go on, I believe it's 21 units of staff for Salem street. And how many parking spots? I didn't catch that. I don't know. Unknown.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah. The application has been submitted at school council along. Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I read, I went to, um, city hall and, reviewed the plans. It looks like there's 40 parking spots which would bring it from the one they proposed in August up to 1.5 per unit, and our zoning requires 2.1. So there would be a need for a variance.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: That's where I'm getting at. Thank you, Councilor Brianna. It seems on that side of town, East Medford, it's in high demand from a lot of developers for various reasons. And my concern is since parking seems to be a problem and is at a premium for most of us in that area, I can understand as Councilor Marks mentioned quite perfectly that are variants asked for under hardship to change, whatever, so they can go for the longest dollars. But hardship is not an issue when it's purely capitalism. So I would think if you're going to issue a variance as far as height, setbacks, et cetera, that's one thing. Although I don't have to live next door to it. And some people behind me too. But I'm speaking again, common sense, mathematically speaking only, although it affects me when I go to the bicycle store across the street. Seems to me it's at a premium in certain sections, at least two of these on the compass roads, the South on East side. And so I would say to a board of appeals, please, The 2.1 parking spots per unit should not ever be negotiable. And you have that tune and tool and weapon in your arsenal as we speak presently without worrying about zoning changes down the road.
[Richard Caraviello]: Just thinking out loud, hopefully attend the meeting and make those, uh, uh, concerns.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: No, Ricky, I hope to make a God willing, but on the other hand, This is a great city and a lot of what in a lot of ways really is by we live here. Location is incredible. However, we're an underachiever by far. I can agree with that. We got to cut this stuff out. One side of Mr. Gav should all be 25 stories high. 35 years ago. One side only with a ring road. Keep them off main street. They don't want to go to the old deepest qualities. If you worked here, you'd be at work now. As Sloan took my idea 10 years ago for his billboard. The location is incredible. Councilor Baxter was right. Why would you want to put that kind of a Springstead building in front of the city hall and block our view? Why don't we have phase two from the Green Line if the squeaky wheel Tufts University ever gets their subway stop? Or why don't phase two, instead of redundantly go to the west side of town, The squeaky wheels already have the commuter line. Malden Center has downtown subway. Winchester Center has it above ground, mind you, in the town of Winchester. Well, why not have it come from Tufts when they eventually get it? If it's not double over the budget and underground as the crow flies three quarters of a mile and no eminent domain at all. And You have Emerge right behind you, Councilor Rick, at the Redbrick Building, that I would take by eminent domain, because I don't go to the dentist there. And I would have a subway entrance right there, and this is not Andrew Castagnetti's idea, this is Mr. Dick Ober's idea, retired electrical engineer, and he used to take care of Chevalier, like the Phantom of the Opera. It's his idea, it's not Andrew's idea. And furthermore, I would add a tour clipper ship on the river, and you could chauffeur in tourists from all over the world. 10,000 a day with pockets full of Japanese yen, euro, whatever, and put us back on the map, because we built clipper ships. Over 50 was longer than Edgley Field of Dreams. It's incredible. So, and who would pay for this subway underground? Not Mexico. Have Tufts pay for it. Good night.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_01]: My name is Rosalyn Machado. I own the property at 10 court street, right up behind where he wants to build. I can tell you this developer has no regard for what anybody wants. I have had phone conversations with him regarding parking and fumes because now my whole My home is going to be surrounded by parking. Um, I asked him what he planned on doing about that. He's going to have stacked parking, which apparently he's never been in a garage before because he seems to think that they're not going to make any noise. My bedroom windows are all along that side of the home. How am I going to have my windows open at night on a nice day? Because all you're going to hear are cars coming in and out. You're going to hear the garage, the lift going up and down for the stack parking that he's proposing. Um, the fumes from these cars are going to come in my home. His solution to that was these are going to be very expensive units, so they will be able to afford nice cars where fumes will not go into your home. I don't know what planet he lives on, because no matter how nice your car is, fumes are going to come from it. And when my windows are open, my property from my house to that house is from me to you. If you have a bunch of cars lined up out there, cars idling in the summertime, to keep them cool before people are getting in, cars being warmed up in the wintertime, all that's going to come into my home. All those fumes are going to be in my home. What about me? What about my kids? He has no regard for that. He told me that he will put up some more trees, some lattice if I want. That really has not a solution to the problem. He told me that he would see about putting in signs that say no idling. I said, okay, and who's going to monitor that and what's going to be done about it when they are idling? And he pretty much told me that that's the city's problem to deal with. So he has no regard as to what's going to be done or what's going to be built around us. He told me pretty much that I should be thankful that he has dropped down a level and set back on my side where the other side will be four stories straight high and on mine it will be set back a little bit because I had complained about the height being right on the side of me being so close to us. look from my window into the house that's currently there and see, which we did because I called him like a nice neighbor in December to let him know that his pipes burst because I could see the water in his home. And we had a discussion. He told me that, uh, when the plans were ready, we would actually, he would bring them to us and discuss them with me before he submitted them, which lo and behold, he did not do because we found out from a neighbor that he purchased the property behind us on Everett street and will now be surrounded by his parking. So I came and viewed the plans. I called him. I sent him an email. He called me back. He had no, he just blew off everything that I had to say and was concerned about. And I think he's pretty confident that this is going to pass and he doesn't have a care in the world or doesn't seem worried about what anybody else wants. He doesn't care that my house is going to be surrounded by parking. He wouldn't, I was at that same meeting on Salem street and I believe if I'm not mistaken, the reason why he told us he needed to build five unit, five stories and keep the units that high is because there was a problem with the property at the break shop. that there was some contamination or something there. Whether that was to make us feel guilty or not, so that way he could build as many units as he wanted, but nothing that I know of or that anybody has told me has been filed about contamination there. And what does he plan on doing about that if there is? I live right next door. There's a school up the street. What's going to happen when they start digging things up over there? What's going to happen when he starts digging into the ground? trying to build this big building here. And my little house, if you look at the building and his plans, this thing is monstrous and my house is about yay big compared to it. So what's going to happen to my foundation? What's going to happen to my house while this is all being built? He doesn't care. And when we bought that house 22 years ago, that was never a thought in our mind. There was a two family house next door. It's never been zoned for this monstrous building to be next door to us. And I don't think it should be now.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. We'll urge your neighbors to come to the meeting.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_11]: Frank Neary, Everett Street, Medford Mass. I am one of the director butters right on Everett Street across from where this project wants to go. And I'm thankful for the council for understanding that he bought this property knowing that he could go three stories. Right now we've got a block of stores there and two houses. And this big developer wants to come in take the house and back, take the property and back of the building, abutting the other house at 17 Everett Street and build this now instead of five stories, four stories. I'll never see the son in front of my house. He doesn't care. He's going to spend his money, build the complex and run out of town. I've lived in the city all my life. I bought the house to stay there and I'm hoping that the council and the board of appeals understands that These 50 or 60 more cars coming up and down the street to visit a parking on the weekends or weeknights that it's all the local residents that are going to suffer. I've talked to many of my neighbors. A lot of them didn't see it in the newspaper. A lot of them didn't get the notice. I made the notices. I gave them to all my neighbors on court street, Everett street, Revere place. I will continue to give them, and I want this developer to know that the people that live in the community care what they're looking at, and not just him building a building, selling the condos, and running out of town to leave us looking at a brick building. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, sir. On the motion of Councilor Langaud-Guerin, roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll?
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: President Caraviello? Yes. The vote of seven in the positive and the negative. Motion passes. 17-039 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council be provided with a block chart showing the Medford Public School class size throughout our city by class and school. We had further resolved that the same as the one in the school's budget book be given to us every June. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I asked this obviously in conjunction with, it has a lot to do with the development that's going on in the city. So we are provided with the block chart based on, it's broken down by school, by class, how many children are in each class. We received one in June, actual numbers obviously changed tremendous, they've changed since then. So I ask that we be provided a new block chart, same as the one in the budget book, so we can see where numbers have changed. I would also amend this and just ask for a report from our superintendent of schools just outlining which, if any, schools are at capacity so that we have a better understanding of where we're at. From what I understand, from what I've been told just by talks within the community, two of our schools of the few are at capacity. So which schools, if we could get a formal written update with regards to which schools are at capacity so we have a better idea.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Lange was amended. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank Councilor Lungo for bringing this forward tonight. As a former member of the school committee, I always found that this is very valuable information. Just because you know where the hot spots are, if class size is getting too big or not. I know when I did talk to a member of the school committee back in, I think, December or November, class size seemed to be reasonable. class size changes a lot throughout the year. And that's something that a lot of people don't realize. So I think it would be great to get that every June, but if I may amend the resolution just to see if we could also get a copy of this every October, November as well, just to see how it's growing throughout the school year. It's very important information and it is important to look at this on an ongoing basis. So thank you. Councilor Longo-Kurtz.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just would back that up. Sometimes we're given updates and it's based on averages. So that's why I asked for a block chart. The blocks tell you which schools are kind of running over those classes. I mean, they're allowed by contract up to 26, 27, I believe, children per teacher. But we obviously want much lower class size than that. And from what I'm hearing, some classes are 16, 17, 18, where you have other classes that are at the 24, 25 mark. And we need to, we need to have a better understanding of that for our community meeting and, and just in general so that we can see where we're moving, where, how we're going to move forward. Um, so I, I appreciate the council support.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion as amended by council, I'm going to occur in council effect. Falco roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo. Councilor Falco. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Vice President Marks?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. 7-0, motion passes. 17-040, offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved that the Medford City Council be updated with regards to discussions on charging a sewer connection fee for new construction. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. The issue come forward tomorrow night and next Tuesday. You know, there's been a lot of discussion. I've received a lot of input with regards to how people feel about the development on Salem Street. And one thing that I've been able to discuss with a number of residents is because residents feel like we cater to developers rather than, you know, do what's right for the community. One thing that did come up is a sewer connection fee. The city of Cambridge is a good example. And they established a City of Cambridge sanitary sewer connection fee. And if you don't mind if I take a read, I think it's something important. And I think it's something we can send to the administration to see if it's worthwhile implementing in the community. We have every department. I mentioned fire and police understaffed, DPW. I mentioned that previously. But we also have almost every department in City Hall understaffed. We met with John Babuso tonight, our code enforcement officer, with regards to enforcing an ordinance that we're going to implement from Councilor Falco, Scarpelli and I, our ad hoc education committee, and we're going to be getting, it's not really relevant, but we're going to be getting updates from Tufts and the education communities, and we're going to be able to find out which units are housing more than three unrelated people. And when we tried to ask John if he could start enforcing that, his head was spinning. Like, no, I'm just going to use this as a tool for complaints. Well, no, no, we want your department more staff so we can enforce the ordinances we have. We need, you know, obviously need money coming into the community for certain things. And this sewer connection fee is an example of something that will help us with our infrastructure problems. And it's something that I think the city of Medford should, if we, I tried to look, I could not find that we've ever implemented it. I don't recall ever implementing it in my 15 plus years. So I think it's something that we need to move to the administration. The city of Cambridge says, whereas much of the sewer system must be carefully reviewed for approval because of the environmental effects of adding to the sewer volume overflow potential, potential of undesirable waste products. And whereas much of the sewer system of the city of Cambridge was built when the pressures for connections were not as great, and whereas the city must expend time, money, and effort in determining the need and suitability for additional sewer connections, it is hereby established by the Commissioner of Public Works, under their authorization granted, that the following one-time sewer connection fee charge shall be in effect as of the dates of this order. And then it charges a certain amount of money per units that are being built. And it does increase by each additional unit. And I think it's something that's necessary. When I was at the engineer's office speaking to, I believe, an assistant engineer, just reviewing the plans takes time from our OCD office, our engineering office. And our engineering office has to evaluate all these sewer lines and make sure we're capable of taking on 21 units or not taking on 21 units. And it's something that could go the funds collected from these connection charges in Cambridge shall be deposited to that portion of the city accounts used to finance sewer maintenance costs. So not only is it gonna boost up the general fund, it's gonna help with the issues we have. We have sewer issues, we have piping issues, and those need to be corrected. We need money to do it. I think this is a no-brainer and something that should be implemented, so I would ask my colleagues to support this being looked at by our engineer, by our administration and something that move forward as soon as possible. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I find this to be a creative way to generate non-tax revenue. I think it's a great idea. I think it's something that's feasibility needs to be examined. I move for approval and request a roll call vote.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it was probably about three or four weeks ago we were discussing water and sewer. uh, we had a presentation, uh, at a meeting that, uh, the mayor held regarding, um, uh, the water and sewer system. And at the time I brought up an issue that I happened to have a discussion with someone, uh, very knowledgeable in the community and that, uh, it's possible that the water, uh, and sewer board, um, is looking at, uh, potentially a connection, a sewer charging every resident, whether it's new construction or existing construction, a sewer charge. And I haven't heard the full facts or figures on it, but I would be, and I know what Councilor Lungo-Koehn's going after with this, I would be very hesitant myself, and I can't support this tonight, going forward with any type of connection charge, because that may lead to a connection charge for existing homeowners, you know, to be hooked up, because the way I understand it, there are other communities that have a connection fee. So there is a connection fee, and not for new construction, just a connection fee. I understand that. I understand that. And it might be a foot in the door to lead to residential and existing construction. And I'm not saying that's what Councilor Lungo was going after, because I know it's not what she's going after. But I heard from a valid source sometime back that they're looking at a connection fee for all homes in the city. And I am adamantly opposed to that, Mr. President. So I don't know if we want to hold off on this, but I can't support this tonight, even though in theory, in concept, it sounds great, Mr. President. I'm very concerned about a potential connection fee for all residents of this community, which concerns me, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Martz. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I just want to point out that Cambridge doesn't have a linkage fee and we do for development.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you for that information, Councilor Dello Russo. On the motion of Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Roll call vote has been requested by Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Martz.
[Michael Marks]: If I could be recorded in opposition based on the fact that I think I would like to see a response back from our water and sewer commissioners, whether or not they're looking into a sewer connection fee for residential and business entities, if they are reviewing that right now. So that's why I'm opposed to this right now.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Lango-Curran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But they wouldn't be responsible for the sewer connection fees for new development. or they're just proposing it for residential and business? Is that what you've heard? I haven't heard any of that.
[Richard Caraviello]: So that's why I... I think we shouldn't talk on things we don't know about until we know about them.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, I'm looking to maybe... We always talk about things. No. Well, I'm looking at the possibility of maybe amending this somehow to get input. I mean, that's what we're looking to do.
[Richard Caraviello]: We can get input from the Water Commission if you so like.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But I definitely think... new development should be, it should be looked into for a connection fee for new construction of whether we put it as five units or more. I mean some, something, some sort of connection fee for the heavy burden. These large developments are put in on our infrastructure.
[Michael Marks]: I don't think it's a bad idea, but back two years ago we created a rate system. So any large developments like Budweiser or Lawrence Memorial Hospital, they pay a higher rate for their water and sewer. So right now, and that's a burden on the infrastructure. And I'm not opposed to this. Like I said, I just, you know, from the conversation I had a while back regarding that connection, and that's all it was, was a conversation. I'm not too happy with that. So that's, I'm not going to support anything right now that talks about a connection fee, whether it's new construction or not.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Um, Mr. President, as the debate wages on and I read the language of the resolution, it says, be it resolved. The city council will be updated with regards to discussions on charging a sewer connection fee for new construction. Um, I think Councilor Marks has pointed out that there have been discussions about charging sewer connection fees for also, uh, residences that wouldn't be under new construction. Um, I think that we're all on the same page that we want to be updated as to whether or not they are talking about sewer connection fees in one way or another. If we strike the language for new construction and we ask that the administration update us with regards to discussions on charging a sewer connection fee, I may be so bold as to suggest that that might satisfy all parties and we'd be able to get an answer from the administration on this and I'll show a unified front.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm fine with that. I think it would appease everybody and we can talk about new construction down the line. Maybe you can get an update from the administration and from the water and sewer commission. Yeah, I'd like to know any discussions that are taking place if we're, if it's coming down the line, cause we need to.
[Richard Caraviello]: So the motion will read, be it resolved that the Medford City Council be updated with regards to discussions on the charging of water, charging of a sewer connection fee for all construction.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just, just charging a sewer connection fee from, from the water and sewer commission administration period.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, on the motion, excuse me, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I think that was it, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Roll call vote has been requested by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor De La Russa?
[Clerk]: Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. 7 in the permanent motion passes. 1 7 0 4 1 offered by council and go current. Be a resolved that the Medford city council receive an itemized breakdown of how chapter 90 funding has been spent over the last four years. Councilor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. President Caraviello. Um, within our time during budget during budget, hearings, especially we hear bits and pieces of how chapter 90 funding is being where it's being applied. And we also hear how it's going to be applied down the road, but we've never actually got a breakdown with regards to how much has been brought in per year and where exactly those funds have gone that I can recall. So if we could get an update broken down over the last four years, how much has come into the city, maybe amended to ask how much has come in, each year, where it's been, and which projects, just listed out by project, where it's been spent. I think it's important for the council to understand how much we're getting each year and where it's being spent.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilwoman O'Kurin. On the motion of Councilwoman O'Kurin. Move approval. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. 17-042. offered by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the city upgrade all street lights citywide with new improved energy efficient LED lights. This will not only enhance the lighting in many of our neighborhoods and business districts, but will provide a great savings to the city's electric bill. Councilor Marks, if you notice in our package this evening, there is a letter here from the mayor explaining that. So, and I had the opportunity to speak to National Grid on Saturday at the MMA show. And the gentleman told me that they do have a program to upgrade all the lights in the city to LEDs. So, Councilman, Councilman Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I offer this resolution, Mr. President, because we all know we're moving forward with the LED lights in the square, which has been a long and arduous process, upgrading the lighting in the square in our business districts. throughout the community. The next logical step is to look into major thoroughfares in our neighborhoods. And I would ask anyone to go into any neighborhood, and you'll see poorly lit streets right now, Mr. President, of which a very small percentage. From what I spoke to the head of wires recently, we have maybe 1 or 2 percent LED lights throughout the city. in total. And the LED lights, as we know, sheds more light down onto the street, where the current lighting is more focused at a higher level, which doesn't help the street light. And it also lasts a lot longer than the regular lights that exist right now. There are over 5,000 street lights in the community right now, and our yearly electric bill is about $900,000 a year. From what I've been told, and this is somewhat of an aggressive estimate, if we were to change over to LED lights, as a community, there's a potential savings of up to 70 percent in our yearly electrical bill, which would amount to about $630,000 savings, Mr. President. If you told any resident, if they changed over in their home to LED lights, which I would recommend, and they could see a savings of 70 percent, I think everyone would say that's a no-brainer and we have to move forward. Additionally, the benefits, like I said, is extra lighting on the street level, which we can use. It helps with crime prevention. It helps with public safety. There's a number of reasons why you want to change over to LED lights. We did receive, as you said, Mr. President, a response January 24th regarding my paper, 17042. And it looks like the city has started the process in August of 2016. They submitted RFPs. They started the process going, Mr. President. And I would say this resolution is just to go on board, because I haven't been privy to any of that information. Maybe members of the council are aware of this initiative that the city's moving forward. But I certainly have not heard anything. And over the years, I know Councilor Penta that's here tonight in the audience, We've brought up these issues year after year after year, and I never once heard the administration say, hey, wait a minute, we're moving forward. We have a program right now. We're sending out an RFP. We're moving forward on the issue. So I'm glad to hear the city is moving forward, Mr. President. It's long overdue in this community. And I would ask, Mr. President, that we send by a roll call vote, Mr. President, a communication back to the administration that we're wholeheartedly in support of moving forward on this. I think we all have to keep in mind, too, that right now, when we call for a light that's out, National Grid comes and changes the light. Under this new program, when we change to LED, no longer will National Grid be responsible for changing those lights. It would either be the city or a contractor hired by the city. So that's a major change, Mr. President. You know, National Grid is not in the business of providing cheaper electricity. You know, you hear a lot of talk from, you know, the governor's office and all the different environmental offices. If National Grid wanted to take a step forward, this should be their initiative for local cities and towns to change over to LED. And let me tell you, LED maybe in a year or two will be outdated, but it's where everyone is going now. So National Grid's not gonna try to save us money on our electricity bill, and I think it's prudent of the city to move forward, Mr. President, on this initiative and provide a cost savings to the taxpayers of this community, as well as enhance lighting throughout our entire city, not just in the business district, but in our neighborhoods and on our thoroughfares.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion by Councilor Marks, roll call vote has been requested. Councilor Marks has requested a roll call vote. Name and address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_13]: Jay Griffin, Adobe Glen Lane, Bethune, Mass. One question. It is a good move to go to LED. At one time in the Royal Park, there were two lights shining on the Royal Mansion. When they did the energy measures, they cut the lights. There are no lights at all shining on the Royal House from Main Street. A, it's a security problem. The fence is in tough shape right now. The city saw fit to cut off the two gates because the right pilaster made of brick is actually going to fall eventually. So some attention has to be paid to the park. But putting two LED lights to shine up the most architecturally important building in the city of Medford is something that was done in the past. And I think we're derelict not lighting it up now. That building is worth more than any other building in the city.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Griffin.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: You make that part of the committee?
[Robert Penta]: Name and address of the record, please. Robert Pantaleo, Summit Road, Medford, Mass. A quick question. The contract that the city of Medford has with Republic has an inclusion there on an annual basis of $250,000 is supposed to go back to this.
[Richard Caraviello]: It does not have an inclusion of $250,000. Pardon me? It does not have an inclusion that 250,000 goes back to the community. That was a one-time payment.
[Robert Penta]: I think if you read the contract, it says it.
[Richard Caraviello]: That was a one-time payment put in by then Mayor McGlynn. Right. It doesn't say one time.
[SPEAKER_05]: It does not carry forward. It says the word is annual, Rick. It does not say the word annual.
[Robert Penta]: Well, I would question the fact whether it's annual or not, so we won't dispute that. The fact of the matter is $250,000 was supposed to come back to cities and towns.
[Richard Caraviello]: And it is there in accounts.
[Robert Penta]: But what's it being used for? It can be used for the lakes, the Council of Lakes is alluding to.
[Adam Knight]: If we look at the papers that remain on the table, I believe that was one of the papers that remained on the table from the 2015 session. It has not been decided what to do with the $250,000.
[Robert Penta]: Councilmarks, can it be recommended to Councilmarks, since it's gonna cost us money to save money, that that money come from that particular account, since his resolution, I'm assuming, is a citywide, has a citywide impact?
[Richard Caraviello]: I don't know if, that money was not, I don't think that money was earmarked. It's earmarked for the squares. It was earmarked for the business areas.
[Robert Penta]: For the five business districts. And they have a right to be included in the LED approval. All right, thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, just one quick point. Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. Just talking about lighting, I'm hoping that we're gonna have some softer LED lighting for the neighborhoods, that we're not gonna have the harsh lights of the square in people's residential areas, just something to consider, we don't wanna add noise pollution to the neighborhoods.
[Richard Caraviello]: I don't know what kind of lights they are going to be putting. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Marks, roll call vote has been requested. As amended.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dela Rousseau. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Lococo. Yes. Vice-President Marks. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar. Motion for suspension by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Motion passes. Motion passes. Hands of the clerk. Offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that Medford City Council rescind Council Vote 17-0-22. Be it further resolved that the following language be included in the committee report under section 90-34, where it says, those owning or operating More than five taxi cabs shall own or operate at least one taxi cab that complies with the definition of an accessible vehicle as defined in chapter 90 dash 31 of the committee report. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, this is a paper relative to the work that our subcommittee has done in the committee of the whole has done to transfer the licensing authority from the city council to the police department relative to taxi cab licensure. Um, The matter was vetted through subcommittee process and through committee of the whole process, and there was much discussion relative to the issue of providing accessible vehicles to individuals in the community when seeking a taxi cab ride. And this was an issue that was championed by Councilor Marks. We had much back and forth on the topic. We proposed a resolution, I'm sorry, we proposed an ordinance change, and the ordinance change was included in the committee report. That committee report was adopted by the council. The administration received a copy of the committee report and has proposed a recommendation to make an alteration to the committee report. It's a veto on a paper that hasn't made it to her desk quite yet, Mr. President. The paper hasn't made first reading. So this amendment in the committee report would require all taxicab companies that own or operate more than five taxicabs to purchase an accessible vehicle. The language in the proposed ordinance change right now says that all taxi cab companies have to file a paratransit plan with the office of, uh, diversity and disability to ensure that those in our community that are disabled have the ability to access a paratransit. Um, this goes above and beyond that. It says that anybody that has one will be required to put the paratransit plan on file. Anybody that has more, five or more will be required to purchase the vehicle. Um, this is something that really council max, as I remember it, was something that he was supporting through the measure, and it died on the table and came back. Now it's going to be facing a veto of the administration. There was some discussion back and forth. It's something that I believe in. My mind's been changed on the topic, Mr. President. We have about 13 to 14 percent of our community self-identifies as disabled, and if those individuals can't get access to a taxi cab, then I don't think we're doing our job. So, with that being said, Mr. President, I move to rescind the vote to include this language so that we can pass the ordinance change, and we can do it absent a veto from the administration.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Um, but Mr. Claire, in my reiteration, I don't want to speak for Councilor Marks. If this is, this is in fact something that he does support. I don't want to put words in his mouth. That was my reiteration of how I recall it happening. Um, however, if the gentleman does want to speak on the topic, uh, by all means be my guest. I apologize if I feel as though I did put words in your mouth. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, I'm not a member of the subcommittee that worked so diligent on this, Mr. President, but I think it was less than two weeks ago we had, a pretty lengthy discussion on this. And I wasn't a voting member. There's only three members that sat on that committee. But the language that was reported out was unanimous at the time of the three members to send this paper out. And from what I recall, Mr. President, originally, the language stated that it was only a paratransit plan was needed if you had planned if you had five or more vehicles. So someone that had one vehicle wasn't required to file a transit plan. And at the time, we said, and I think the clerk agreed, that we had no taxi operators in the city that had more than five vehicles. So we were passing a city ordinance that doesn't really help those that need the help of assistance in getting a cab that's handicap accessible, Mr. President. So that's why I think the members of the committee did our due diligence that night. We went back and forth and we agreed to remove the number of five and state that anyone that had a cab had to submit a paratransit plan. And I think we asked that it be sent to Diane McLeod, uh, in our office of, um, diversity, um, and compliance and, uh, or the police department, uh, one or the other. And that, That plan would require taxi operators that were unable to accommodate someone with a specific disability to have a company that they use that they could say, I'm sorry, I can't accommodate you, but if you call this number, they can accommodate you. Rather than just saying, sorry, I can't accommodate you, and hang up. And the language that was in there said you had to have more than five vehicles to have a plan, and none of our carriers had more than five vehicles. So I think that was the reason for the move. So I don't support the language that would state that cabs over five vehicles have to get, because we were told that it's about a $40,000 expense. You might know $50,000 expense.
[Richard Caraviello]: Right now, the T is running a program that would hopefully reimburse these companies at 80 percent.
[Michael Marks]: Right. And at any time, we can amend our ordinance, if that's the case, Mr. President, to include it. But I don't support that language right now. I think the language that we thoughtfully considered at the time of the many, many subcommittees. And I want to thank this committee because this has been an issue that's been lingering around the council for many, many years. And I want to thank the council. I think this was a real step in the right direction to put some ownership and the taxi licenses with the police department where rightfully, uh, is, uh, deserves to be.
[Richard Caraviello]: And excuse me, excuse me, Councilor Marks. Mr. Castagnetti, we can't hear if you could sit down, please. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Council marks.
[Michael Marks]: So, so Mr. President, um, so, I don't support, first of all, I don't think the mayor has the authority on a committee report to veto a committee report. I'd never heard of that before, but that might be a new parliamentary procedure that.
[Adam Knight]: And I checked into that very same issue, because that was my question. And ultimately, when the committee report went out, because Ms. McLeod was involved in the process, she had a copy of it and made its way to the mayor's desk. I believe at the last meeting that we had, we adopted the committee report, but wanted to wait to act on the proposed ordinance change until we saw all the language included in the committee report. The city clerk has since provided that documentation to us. Um, so you're absolutely correct. Councilor Marks, I rest.
[Michael Marks]: So, so Mr. President, if I can remember, Diane McLeod was at the meeting and when we asked that every person have a plan, I think, and I don't want to speak for her. Uh, she stated in the meeting, uh, you can't dictate that people have plans and so forth. And now to come out the administration, come out with something that requires these cab companies to buy a $50,000 vehicle, I think flies in the face with what the department had said at the meeting. Furthermore, Mr. President, and you know, I'm not going to step back from this issue. I've asked why the mayor's new liaison to the council That position was created a year ago, Mr. President, over a year ago, has not attended one city council meeting. And this is the reason, not because I want to see her face at the council meeting, Mr. President. But this is the very issue, Mr. President, when we have subcommittee meetings, and we get together with department heads, and we get together with business owners, and we sit down and have meetings and discuss issues and throw around city ordinances and discuss how it's going to be crafted, and not to have someone from the administrative office present there, Mr. President, after multiple, multiple meetings, and then come in at the last hour and submit a veto to a paper she can't even veto, I mean, shows the fact that that position is not currently effective, Mr. President. It's not effective, Mr. President. And this is a perfect example why. If that person was at the meeting, Mr. President, at any time they could have went back to the mayor and said, Madam Mayor, they're discussing X, Y, and Z. What are your thoughts? But to wait to veto something, Mr. President, and you can't even veto a committee report, I think shows that there's no interaction with this administration and this council. And the fact that they even created a position to do so, Mr. President, flies in the face of this council voting for that position to allow the administration, which at the time was a great idea. The administration says, I want to do something a little different than the previous administration. I want to have a council liaison that will sit there and work with the council. Do you see any council liaison here, Mr. President? And this is the exact reason, the exact reason, Mr. President. I will not support that, Mr. President. When we do call for a first reading of this, Mr. President, I will call for an override. If the mayor vetoes it, all you need is a two-thirds vote of this council, an override, Mr. President, because what we put in the plan addresses every aspect of providing handicapped accessibility in this committee. And I am comfortable with that, Mr. President. And the dialogue and discussion, I think, was worthy. We had the chief of police, we had heads of the traffic division within our meeting, and I think we vetted it out properly, Mr. President. So I will not support that mayor's veto, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight, will this language be in the report along with presently that's already there.
[Adam Knight]: So this will be, this is just adding that sentence, just adding, just adding that italicized sentence that was included in the paper that the mayor sent.
[Richard Caraviello]: So I say the, the paratransit plan will still remain in effect.
[Adam Knight]: That is correct.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Counsel Scott belly.
[George Scarpelli]: That was my, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that was the same question I had. Cause I thought that was a great idea at that meeting. I think a Councilor Marks as a, as an outside member was there and mentioned that putting in that plan. And I do remember, um, um, human diversity director talking about, the issues with the cabs. I don't know if something has changed since then, but I don't, I can understand your frustration, but I think that, um, something that we did try to work on and that was in our original plan. Um, and adding that, I don't think that that would hurt, but I, I, I do, um, I do want to make sure that what was structured that evening and add it in as a working document. That will stay. That will stay. I want to make sure of that. That will stay. That is correct.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Just if I could. And I agree with the original language. I think the intent was there. However, I think what we're speaking of right now is first of all, we don't have any cab companies that have over five vehicles. So that's a moot point. So no one's going to have to go out and buy one of these vehicles. The ordinance that we implemented, or that will eventually be implemented, stated that every cab company will be responsible for an alternative plan. Now, if that doesn't work, we may want to resort to saying, that plan didn't work, now we're going to have to require a cab company in our city, maybe the larger cab companies because they can afford a $50,000 expense. to purchase a vehicle, but we haven't seen that yet. And I think what you're going to do now by putting a number on it, you're going to have every cab company that potentially may want to grow and provide additional service in this community say, you know what, once you meet that five maximum level, I'm not going to six because it's going to cost me $50,000. And if we're already providing a service, And able to capture that through the existing companies being able to, you know, tell people where to go to get this service, I think we're solving it all. I hate to put a number on it. I can't support the number. I don't think it will be good for business in this community. I think it will restrict the cab business. And we haven't seen yet if our original paratransit plan will work. If it's successful, why do we need to put a five cap on it?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, I don't have the benefit of having been on the subcommitting of zoning and ordinances for the length of time that you were in Councilor Knight.
[Richard Caraviello]: It was almost, it took us close to two years. Licensing. It was the licensing. It took us quite some time.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And I only came in when we were in committee of the whole last week. I think it was on the tail end of this is someone who would be partial to be putting an undue the burden on a commercial enterprise. Um, I I'd be cautious, but I also see the intent is, uh, first of all, that we wanted to be sure that, uh, uh, people have a parapet transit plan that was going to be placed on a cab companies over five, uh, cars, which is now going to be, uh, according to this language, uh, placed on all cab companies and that, uh, a cab company, Should one arise in this age when cab companies are going the way of Hackney carriages? Should a road to have five cars? I don't know. I think it's a, I find as I observe over the years, you know, some people might be grandfathered in certain things, but people more and more have an expectation of access in travel.
[Richard Caraviello]: And it might not be a bad thing, Mr. President. And especially with the T possibly coming out with a program, the subsidize of an 80%, you can get a $50,000 vehicle for not a lot of money. It may, that may be a great incentive for these cap companies to go out and buy one. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Um, so now Mr. President, um, may the main question be put. On the motion by Councilor Knight.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just want to make sure I, I understand cause are we taking a vote on the ordinance tonight?
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. What we'd be doing tonight would be rescinding the vote to adopt the committee report, replacing, inserting the recommended language from the administration into the committee report, then we can take a vote to adopt the committee report, and if we'd like to take the vote to move the paper to first reading, we can do that too. Alternatively, we don't have to vote to rescind, we don't have to take the vote to rescind, and we can move for first reading this evening based upon the way we did it. And then we can shift the burden back to the administration to make a decision as to what they want to do.
[Richard Caraviello]: That language was in the original proposal from the committee. That was right.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then it was changed. So if I understand it correctly, Councilor Marks, you want to keep it as every cab company has to have a para transit plan and take out the five language. And that will definitely stay in there. And the mayor wants us to add, if you have five or more vehicles, you have to provide.
[Richard Caraviello]: That is correct.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks it just, if I could, And that was originally in the proposal also. Right. So the subcommittee, which I wasn't part of, voted unanimously to push this language out. Now, you know, maybe some members have a second thought two weeks later when the mayor says, what about this? I mean, what about what information Councilor? Right.
[Adam Knight]: Um, it was the intention of the subcommittee, if I remember correctly. that we had a working document. There was some areas of the ordinance that were, um, unable to be resolved at the subcommittee level, but we had a great working document and we felt that it was appropriate to send it to the committee of the whole for further discussion and deliberation at that time.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor. Mr. President, the subcommittee voted unanimously to send out that language. Now, within two weeks in a response from the mayor on a paper, she had no right responding to, If they want to change their vote again, Mr. President, that's up to them. That's up to the committee. I don't sit on that committee, Mr. President. But I thought we ironed out the details. If I was on that committee and I wasn't comfortable with the language, I would have not gave it my support. So I would think that members that were on that subcommittee were comfortable with that language. But hey, everyone's entitled to change their vote, Mr. President, or get additional information.
[Adam Knight]: One information, Councilor Nice. I do believe that the language that the subcommittee reported out was not the same language that was reported out by the Committee of the Whole because through the legislative process, other members that became members of that committee, other members that didn't serve on the licensing committee that were on the members of the Committee of the Whole made changes to it, Mr. President. With that being said, I have no horse in the race. I was comfortable moving forward with the language that we had put together, Mr. President. However, in my presentation.
[Fred Dello Russo]: May I further point out that there was significant, significant, while in the committee of the whole, input and changes made by a member of the Metropolitan Police Department.
[Richard Caraviello]: Officer Brooks was very instrumental in helping us out with that.
[Adam Knight]: With that being said, Mr. President, when I presented the resolution, I said that we would move to amend this document only to prevent a veto down the line. If it's something we can all agree on, that's great. If not, then so be it. The process is the process, Mr. President. Either way, the reason that I put forward the paper was to working as a homogeneous body, moving forward with the administration, taking their recommendation into consideration and determining right now through deliberation whether or not it's a good idea.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, at no time should we as a council ever deliberate with the intent that we have to worry about a veto from the administration. At no time should that ever even come up as a topic of discussion, first of all. And secondly, if the Administration was so intent on providing language, they should have had a representative from her office there, Mr. President, to take part of the discussion. We don't keep tabs on who's coming in and out. We don't preclude anyone from coming in. It's an open public meeting. And, you know, I just am a little troubled that within two weeks that someone that votes on something all of a sudden has a major change of heart, Mr. President. And to say this strengthens Don't fool yourself. We don't have a cab company that has more than five vehicles. So right now, how is that strength in access to disability? How is that strength? We don't have a company that has to provide that. So this language means zero. The big goose egg. So let's not let people believe that if this language is not in here, that people won't have the ability to heal a handicapped vehicle in the community. What we did during that subcommittee was create a power transit plan for every cab company in this city, whether it has one vehicle, two vehicle, or three vehicle. That strengthened the ordinance, not this fake number. That's why we removed it, Mr. President. And now if members have a change of mind, good luck to them. If that's how they want to do business, good luck to them.
[Adam Knight]: I do believe that I was the member that authored the paratransit plan language at the subcommittee meeting. I put it forward. It's something I support. As I said, this is an effort to work with the administration and take their recommendation under consideration. I have no horse in the race. I move for a vote, Mr. President. Move for a vote. If we want to rescind the vote, we can. If we don't, we don't have to. We can move the legislation forward as adopted by the subcommittee and as adopted by the committee of the whole.
[Michael Marks]: That wasn't your original comment. Your original comment was to rescind. Now you're changing your mind again. Point of information, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. Procedurally, we need to rescind the vote. Or, to amend it, to send it to the administration. We don't have to rescind our vote. We don't have to rescind the vote, then we can move for approval on the paper, one or the other. You asked to rescind the vote. And to prompt the discussion. I really, like I said, I have no horse in the race.
[Michael Marks]: I don't mind debating. I don't mind debating. You've got to stick to what you're debating about. You know, it's very difficult to debate.
[Adam Knight]: As I stated, when the paper came forward, this was an effort to take their recommendations under consideration and move forward in concert, Mr. President. If the member doesn't feel it's a good language, all he has to do is vote no. You felt it wasn't.
[Michael Marks]: You felt that language. You were comfortable with the language two weeks ago. And I'm still comfortable with that language.
[Adam Knight]: And like I said, it was an effort to work in concert with the administration. That's all, no more, no less. So now the paper can go through first reading, get vetoed, come back to us. We can override the veto and go through the process. That's fine. Well, then what's the motion? Mr. President, motion to withdraw. Motion to withdraw. The question to rescind.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to withdraw. The question to rescind.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, motion to move paper 17-022 to its first reading.
[Michael Marks]: If the mayor wants a veto, let her veto.
[Adam Knight]: Let her veto then.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's right.
[Michael Marks]: Then we'll decide then.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's right. On the motion by Councilor Knight to move to the first reading. Councilor DelaRosa, did you want to say something?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Do we have the paper before us that's been repaired?
[Richard Caraviello]: It's not going to be repaired.
[Fred Dello Russo]: No. When it came out of committee, we added some language to it, I believe, in the last committee of the whole.
[Richard Caraviello]: And that language was vetoed by the mayor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: It was not. It was not vetoed by anyone.
[Adam Knight]: It came to the Medford City Council's floor. The Medford City Council adopted the committee report. If you look at the minutes from the January 10th meeting, the language is included in the minutes from the January 10th meeting. Okay. So we all said, okay, let's adopt the committee report. We're going to hold off on first reading until we get a copy of the draft language with the changes that were made by the council and that were recommended also by officer Brooks from the traffic commission. So it's, it's attached in the official minutes of the council right here that I have beside me.
[Fred Dello Russo]: My apologies.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. So procedurally this paper has never made a first reading. That's correct. The committee report was reported out favorably by the council. The administration got a copy of the committee report. The administration gave us recommendations as to what they'd like to see happen. I put a paper forward to rescind the vote so that we could have the discussion on this. Mr. President, if we don't want to move forward on it, that's fine. I made a motion to withdraw that, withdraw that paper now and to move forward for a first reading on the paper as committed out of the, as reported out of the committee of the whole initially. We'll shift the burden back to the administration to take what steps they need to take.
[Richard Caraviello]: Second by Councilor Knight. Roll call. Seconded by Councilor. First by Councilor. That's both papers in the committee, correct?
[Adam Knight]: Excuse me?
[Richard Caraviello]: The rate. There's a rate sheet in there. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Adam Knight]: To move towards first reading. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. 7-0, motion passes. Motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn that we revert back to regular business. Petitions, presentations, and similar matters. 0-746. petition by Robert M Penta zero summit road method mass to address the city council regarding the proposed G I C health care changes. Name and address for the record please. Point of order. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, in my hands here, I have a opinion from the city solicitor dated February 23rd, 2015. Um, at that time I had requested that the city solicitor provide me with an opinion as to whether or not it would pose to be a conflict of interest if I participated in discussions relative to the Group Insurance Commission, Mr. President. Whereas I'm a member that receives health benefits through the Group Insurance Commission, Solicitor Rumley has given an opinion that I should recuse myself from all discussions relative to the Group Insurance Commission and the rate setting thereof, Mr. President. I have a copy of this letter in my hand, and I'd like to give it to the city messenger to give to you to place on file, Mr. President. I feel as though the city solicitor has given an opinion, which I'd be happy to read into the record.
[Richard Caraviello]: Are there any other members that share Councilor Knight's opinion and would want to be recused?
[Adam Knight]: It's not my opinion, Mr. President. It's the opinion of the city solicitor.
[Richard Caraviello]: And it reads... Are there any other members who ask to be recused from this discussion because of the reading there? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, Councilor Knight, Councilor Longo Kearn, Councilor Scarpelli. It's a conflict of interest.
[Adam Knight]: I'd be happy to read it into the record. Okay. It says, um, actually what the question says is does general law chapter 268 a permit you to participate in discussions at the Medford city council that pertain to the GIC insurance rates in light of your being subscribers to the health insurance covered provided through the GIC. In my opinion, you should not engage in discussions at the many Medford city council that pertain to GIC insurance rates because under the provisions of general laws chapter 268 a you are considered a municipal employee and municipal employees may not participate in any particular matter in which he or she has a financial interest as elected of the members as elected members of the Medford city council. You are considered a municipal employee for the purposes of the Massachusetts conflict of interest law section 19 a thereof provides except as permitted by paragraph B a municipal employee who participates as such an employee in a particular matter, in which to his knowledge he, his immediate family or partner, a business organization in which he is serving as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment has a financial interest and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a jail or house of corrections for not more than two and a half years or both. A financial interest may create a conflict whether the financial interest is large or small, positive or negative. It does not matter if your participation would result in money coming to you or additional money being expended by you. If you have a financial interest in a matter, you may not participate. Participation can be as simple as making a recommendation or rendering advice or otherwise. As rate-paying subscribers and health insurance policies offered by the GIC, you have an undeniable financial interest, and therefore you should not participate in the discussion of proposed rate increases. Furthermore, please note that the rule of necessity does not provide an avenue to allow you to discuss this matter. The courts have established the rule of necessity to allow public officials to participate in official decisions from which they are otherwise disqualified by their bias, prejudice, or interest when no other official or agency is available to make the decision. See the Mayor of Everett versus the Superior Court, 324 Mass 144, 1 5 1 1949 in Moran versus the school committee of Littleton 3 17 mass 5 9 1 pages 5 93 to 5 94 1945 in this case before the council, the G I C makes the decision regarding insurance rates. Finally, the filing of a form to make a full disclosure of financial financial interest is set forth in G L 2 6 8 a section 19 B is only available to appointed or non elected municipal employees as defined in GL chapter two 60 years. Yeah. I just wanted to be thorough.
[Richard Caraviello]: Let it be noted for the record that Councilor Knight, Councilor Lungo-Koehn and Councilor Scarpelli, if you could recuse yourself from behind the rail, it would be appreciated. Does anyone else belong to the GIC insurance? They should recuse themselves from behind the rail.
[Robert Penta]: They don't have to participate in the conversation.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's what it is. Does anyone else have the GIC insurance that has a problem? Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'll let the record show that I do not participate in the GIC. Councilor Falco. May I further inquire though, Mr. President, if we have sufficient amount of Councilors for us to be in business.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello does not employ himself with the GIC. Councilor Falco. Councilor Falco does not.
[John Falco]: I do not have GIC insurance.
[Richard Caraviello]: I do not have GIC insurance either. Councilor Marksley, you have GIC insurance.
[Michael Marks]: This sounds like an inquisition.
[Richard Caraviello]: Just asking if you want to be
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we've had members of this council vote on their own pay raise. Talk about, talk about a conflict of interest. I'm just going by. Mr. President, that does not apply to me. Mr. President, I don't think it applies to anyone. That's fine to be quite honest with you.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address for the record, please. My name is Robert Penta zero summit road, Medford mass, former member of this August body who did engage in a conversation as it relates to this. At that point in time, I was a member of the board of directors of the mass municipal association and I brought the message back to this method city council. as it related to the new changing of GIC insurance to cities and towns. Quick history. The reason why I'm here tonight, I was edified by a union representative as it states, as this gentleman stated that on February 1st, there will be a public hearing in Boston as it relates to these new GIC changes. And he was, he was encouraging his membership, which includes city of Medford employees to go there and to participate. Um, I'm speaking in behalf of all City of Medford employees and retirees, as well as myself, Mr. President. Quick history, back in January 14th of 2015, before this Medford City Council, it was shown and it was presented to you that GIC, for which the City of Medford became a member on January 1st, 2012, was at a deficit of approximately $160 to $190 million in deficit. And that was a result of three prior years of not being funded by the state legislature to meet the needs that GIC needed to have. That presented, at that point in time, a $120 million deficit that was below the, at present then, funding level. And that was due to the statewide underfunding, and it was also due to the misprojected increased claims costs regarding health care here in Massachusetts. So what happened at that point in time some two years ago? Rates increased, deductibles increased, and office visits increased. When the city of Medford went from bargaining from a PPO to a POS, for cities and towns required union support. And the union support came from the city of Medford as well when they signed that contract in August of 2011 by 14 signatories of people, representatives here in the city of Medford. Now we have a GIC proposal that is pending before the legislature and it'll be pending before GIC. Strike that, it's before GIC, not the legislature. And the proposal is going to make a request that a unilateral implementation for an additional cost shift and plan design be proposed. We here in the city of Medford are under the GIC plan. And under the GIC plan, we agreed by subscription and definition and signatory signing off in August of 2011 that we would accept whatever GIC was going to present, whether they be for the cost, whether they be for the, for whatever the costs were, that people chose in their health plan. Now, if we go to this unilateral change, the question, and the question still hasn't been answered, and GIC has yet to answer it, does the unilateral change mean that the manager or the mayor of a community can unilaterally make that change, or do they need the confirmation support by the local legislative body? In this case, it would be the city council. That's what we had to do years ago when Mayor McGlynn accepted GIC. It was presented before the Medford City Council for a vote of support. Now, the ludicrous part about this whole thing is you're asked to vote on something, but you can't discuss it. That makes no sense at all. Absolutely no sense at all. And again, I don't know where you're going to be going, but I think those of you that aren't on GIC and have an opportunity to speak and make your representation known to the employees and the retirees of the city, this is going to be huge. And the reason why it's going to be huge, because the state's use of this increase is projected at approximately 3.6%. But it also provides that these costs are running at large because of MassHealth. MassHealth is a $14 billion item in the state's budget. It represents approximately 40% of the state's budget. And because it represents 40% of the state budget, whatever those cost overruns have been over the past two or three years, they are now being shifted over, as in the administration and finance report the other day came out and said that everyone's going to have to bear the cost. Well, I don't think everybody should have to bear the cost. I don't think an active working employee and more importantly a retiree should have to pay for that cost. They didn't cause that cost increase to take place. I think the legislature on Beacon Hill, they need to do their work and they need to get into reading what's going on. They need to understand that the cost of health care and drugs and prescriptions is huge here. We are the most expensive country in the world, and we are the most expensive state in the country as a result of health care costs. In January of 2017, this month, there was a Freedman health care report that came out that so describes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. in the position that it's in. We pay an awful lot for health care in Massachusetts. Yes, we do have probably the best hospitals in the world, but that should have nothing to do with how we in cities and towns went out of our way six years ago to negotiate our health care costs. As of January of this year, according to the contract and the memorandum of understanding between the city of Medford its retirees and its active employees, as of January this year, we have until January to October 1st to make a definite decision whether we stay in the GIC plan or not. And if we don't stay in that plan for GIC, we have between October 1st and June 30th of 2018 to make that final decision where we go, whether we go back to competitive bidding, other insurance companies come in and what have you. The contract that Mayor McGlynn signed brings us to 2018, that's six and a half years. The city of Medford was told we would be saving over that six and a half year period of time approximately 25 plus million dollars in health care costs and the rates that were set by GIC would be the rates that would be set for those people who are members of GIC. This change to go to a unilateral decision, if GIC were to accept it, and the city of Medford were to engage in a unilateral decision, could have an absolute financial devastating effect on retirees and active employees. That's not what it was meant to be. This proposal, unilaterally, is going to shift the cost to GIC employees, because if GIC employees go to a unilateral determination, those people who don't have GIC, as compared to those that do, will bear the additional cost as it relates to making the bill be paid here in the city of Medford. The other part we should take into consideration is the question, how do we get this question answered? You folks, those of you that are out there right now, that are not sitting here, but are members of GIC, I think you need to ask the question. because it's not expressing a financial interest, it's expressing a need to know whether in fact the city of Medford is going to continue on with GIC. And if the city of Medford is not going to continue on with GIC, you as a legislative body, I'm assuming we'll have to make that decision by choice of change. And the mayor should be making this type of representation before you, this type of consideration before you as to where and what effect it's going to have here within your budget. Let's see. Okay. This brings us to the matter of how do we pursue section 13, 14, and 15 and the memorandum of agreement between the city of Medford and its retirees and and it's retirees and everyday workers, regular workers. These action alerts coming from the Commonwealth of Mass, coming from the Office of Administration and Finance, participating municipalities such as we, and the memorandum of understanding that we have over here, it's very important, it's very important to know. And it's very important to understand that by June 30th of 2018, you folks are gonna have to know where you're gonna go. But it's the retirees, who are the important component of all of this. Because they should not have the shifted burden of having the increase in cost for medical services through the insurance company for which they are represented by people who negotiate here with the city of Medford. You know, we talk about a lot of things around here. But this is equally as important as maybe to zoning, because we're talking about our municipal employees, we're talking about our school department employees, we're talking about union and non-union members, because they all come under this insurance situation. But when you think about the increase in cost, your cost in your food, your cost in your taxes that just went up, your water and sewer rates that have just gone up, you have a Community Preservation Act tax that went up, okay? All types of insurances that have gone up. And most recently, since January 11, you have people concerned over whether their employment as it relates to vacation time was going to be an issue. That's gone back and forth as to what it's all about. It's making it harder and harder for our municipal employees. They don't make an awful lot of money. They work for their job. They're good employees. 99% of them are good employees. But they have a right to know where they're going and to shop around, if need be the case, to pick out a health care provider. But the city owes it to every single municipal employee and retiree to let them know whether they're going to be on board or not. So Mr. President, through you, I would respectfully ask that, since you're not a member of JIC, that I would respectfully ask that you ask of the president administration, however the answer needs to come in, whether the unilateral proposal, if approved by GIC, empowers the mayor of this community to make independent decisions, that for which GIC, for which we are presently under, would not, I mean, that's the whole issue. February 1st, there's a huge hearing. They're asking many, many people to go. Last time when this issue became a fact, 80,000 emails, 80,000 emails were sent to GIC. And unfortunately, they didn't listen to them and they didn't adhere to them. But I would hope in this situation... Excuse me, Council Member.
[Richard Caraviello]: Gentlemen, could we respect the person on the rail, please? Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: At this particular time, Mr. President, this is an important issue, but this is an issue to talk about now, well in advance. As the memorandum of understanding indicates, it indicates here as of January, I believe January of this year, 2017, between January and October 17th, the city has to make its decision. They should be talking right now with the bargaining units of all 14 signatories that signed up on this memorandum of understanding. So I would hope, Mr. President, that when February 1st comes at 1230 p.m. at 19 Standover Street in Boston, we can get as many people as we can there to tell them we do not want to go to this unilateral this unilateral allowance because that's going to basically cost shift, cost shift, whatever the deficit is running in mass health as part of it over to the GIC people. They didn't cause it. They're willing to pay their fair share, but it's going up and it's, and it's just not right. And it's just not fair. And just as a side note, and I don't mean to be humorous, but Christmas is over, correct? It is. Is there any reason why the Christmas lights are still up on the building outside? I do not have that answer. That's not the main to the question. I understand that, but we got to move on unless they're up early for next year. I don't know. Maybe. But the question is simply this. I would hope you folks and through the chair, Mr. President, you get that answer. That's an important answer. And if you can get it before February 1st, it would be great because somebody has to have that answer as it relates to your, well, it's not yours. You're on your private one, you know, but those who are retirees, those who are employees. And I want to thank that union representative who put that out there on Facebook, who made the request. Cause that's what got me on this particular kick to go forward and make this presentation.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: You're welcome.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by councilor Falco. Oh, excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry.
[SPEAKER_13]: Name and address of the record, please. Jay Griffin, 8 Aberglund lane, Methuen. The last time I addressed the city council, A GIC had $150 million deficit. The Group Insurance Commission laid the burden of the debt on the backs of public employees, Medford's teachers, police, fire, and municipal workers. As you all know, retirees live on a fixed pension and cannot absorb drastic increases to the healthcare costs every single year, which has happened. Governor Baker, GIC Director, is proposing significant cost shifting in our GIC plan starting July 1, 2017. The changes being proposed for adoption by GIC would allow cities and towns to unilaterally implement additional cost shifts in its plan design. The Governor's Office of Administration and Finance issued the following statement. MassHealth now costs more than $15 billion a year, nearly 40 percent of the state budget. As a result, all state agencies, including GIC, must trim their sales. I don't know about you, but I'm not a MassHealth. I paid for health insurance every year I was working as a teacher in Medford for 35 years, and I continue to pay thousands of dollars every single year. So for us to shoulder the burden for MassHealth doesn't make sense. Also, everybody leaving, how did you ever approve being on mass health, I mean being on GIC if everybody has to leave the room? The other changes, increasing the yearly GIC deductible to 500 per individual. It was 250, then it went to three, then it went to three twice a year, so now it's 500 per individual, 1,000 for a family. Fallon Health, 550 per individual, 1,100 per family. They added a prescription drug deductible of 100 per individual, 200 per family. What's next? The Group Insurance Commission will conduct a very important public hearing February 1st at 1230 on the sixth floor of the Charles Hurley building at 19 Stanaford Street, Boston. The room location hasn't been assigned because they're anticipating a large crowd. This hearing presents an important opportunity for the members to speak out against the unfair cost shifting changes because the commissioners will take a final vote before their next meeting, which is scheduled for February 9th. It's always in the winter. The last time they changed everything, there was a blizzard and a snow advisory, and you weren't told to travel. And that's when everything was changed. We need to do all we can to defeat these increases to health insurance for all public employees and retirees. Wake up, Medford. February 1st, have your voices heard at this meeting. If you don't have your voices heard and you don't participate, don't complain later when the changes occur. Wake up. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Mr. President. Name and address of the record, please. Bob Pinter again, Zero Summit Road. A quick question. He just jogged my mind. I asked you, and hopefully through your chair, you will ask that question. The second part of the question should have been as follows. If, in fact, we go to this unilateral, if GIC goes to unilaterally, does that mean the local legislative body has to make an approval on what the mayor, the executive officer would do. Cause that's going to be extremely important. That was the requirement back in 2011 when we accepted it. But now the six and a half year contract is going to be over. Nobody knows what that language is going to be. So I think it would be incumbent, hopefully upon you, Mr. President, to ask both of those questions. If GIC goes to a unilateral program and if the city of Medford were to go in that direction, does the mayor unilaterally do it or does she need support? from all 14 union people for approval before the council.
[Richard Caraviello]: For what I understand on February 3rd, the mayor will be meeting with the city unions to discuss the GIC options and other possibilities of possibly going out.
[SPEAKER_05]: But the meeting is February 1st. I'm told it as being a February 3rd with the city unions.
[Robert Penta]: So could you ask that question? Could somebody put that question forward? The question is if the city, if GIC adopts the unilateral program, does that mean the chief executive officer of a city be in this case of mayor? Can she independently make changes which could possibly be cost shift changes to retirees as well as employees if the city opts out to go to a different union type of a different healthcare provider? Hopefully we'll have all that information for you.
[SPEAKER_05]: Unless you know something I don't know. I don't know, I don't have GAC. My deductible is $2,500. for a person.
[Richard Caraviello]: So I love the FGAC. So will you ask those questions? I will do the best I can for you on the motion by councilor Falco to receive and place on file. Oh, excuse me. May I? Yes, you may.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. Councilor. President Caraviello, Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing street, Medford. Um, this insurance stuff for the lack of a better word is way over my head. And I can understand why they have the tallest building in Boston and Hartford, Connecticut, and stable of attorneys working in their buildings. I don't know what happened here, but if I'm not mistaken, I had read a political leader's statement in the local newspaper, the transcript, some six years ago, thereabouts, saying if we select the GIC insurance versus what we had, what I have from my wife, we're a school teacher and was tough total health. I believe that we was, we counseled Dello Russo. I believe the top leader was quoted in six years ago that we were going to save $5 million annually exalted. Well, the 5 million seems to be exalted also per annum. times 6.5 years, maybe. I don't understand what's going on. If we save $5 million a year, first of all, I told my wife, I don't need her master's degree to figure out for such a great deal in savings through the Corporation of Massachusetts, GIC, that I said, you watch. The co-pays, the doctor's visits, And the monthly costs will be going up again after the 6.5 years. But I don't see the $5 million savings. Did our real estate taxes go down? No, probably went up $2.5 million per year for the last five years, approximate. So, that's a lot of money. $5 million savings, not having to spend the extra $5 million on health insurance, for the city itself, yeah, that's $32 million totaled at the end of this year. And our real estate tax is going up in that time span, probably at least 2 million times 6, 12 million. So that's like a lot of money. It's like $50 million we're talking, but yet we don't even save a dime in real estate taxes. And furthermore, our new growth is never applied to offset the Prop 2.49% increases. So what good is this new growth? It doesn't help our city.
[Richard Caraviello]: I've always said I am not- Mr. Pesce, we're talking about health insurance.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Exactly. Not real estate. And the cost. Okay, so it all comes down to health insurance, $5 million a year savings. Can someone educate me and show me where that money went? and we never even adopted the owner-occupied real estate taxes exemption. The point is we say $5 million a year, real estate taxes go up $2 million a year, something is amiss. Can someone help me as I pay thousands of dollars every year for real estate tax, can someone tell me where this money went? Someone, anyone. What do we get? Somebody, does anybody know where the money went? Councilor Dello Russo says aye. Did he get the money? I don't know. He may have. I don't know. I can't answer that. I don't understand.
[Richard Caraviello]: Where is the $5 million savings? I don't know what the $5 million savings is.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you for answering my question.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo. Aye.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That the paper be received and placed on file.
[Richard Caraviello]: All in favor? Aye. Aye. Councilor Marks. Where the chair seems to be in doubt, it won't be a quorum. We need four to vote to pass.
[Michael Marks]: We only have three people here.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Received and placed on file. There should be no, procedurally there should be no motion. It was a public petition. It's not a- Received and placed on file.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute, I asked for a motion. It should be placed on file, because that's the problem around here. Just take everything and place it on file. There was a motion to ask, and you said you were going to pursue it.
[Richard Caraviello]: So you should be filing the motion.
[SPEAKER_05]: We only have three votes. I asked the President. Excuse me, excuse me. I asked the President. I'm in charge here. I understand that, but I asked you. All right, I'll decide. What's the decision? We're going to receive it and place it on file, and we will get an answer. How can you do that, Rick? Tell me. Mr. President, motion to return Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. Thank you. You ought to understand how the chair works, Rick, okay? I understand how the chair works.
[Richard Caraviello]: Only the people behind the rail make room.
[Robert Penta]: Well, you were asked to make a motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: I can't make a motion.
[Robert Penta]: Yes, you can. You're not the chair. You're not allowed to make a motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to return to regular business. Second. Councilor Lungo-Koehn, are you... Offered by Councilor Marks be it resolved that the freight trains traveling through West Medford be discussed. Councilor Marks.
[Adam Knight]: He's over there. You got me on this. Wrong one.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We all received an email from a West Medford resident regarding the frequency of freight trains going through West Medford Square. And according to this gentleman, there's been an increase over the last several months. And it's really troubling to him. and many of the neighbors because the freight trains are much heavier than the commuter trains and it's shaking homes, Mr. President, and spilling out a lot of diesel smoke into the neighborhood. So I promised the neighbor that I would bring it up, the resident, and ask for a response back, Mr. President, on freight trains that are coming through. Are there more frequent freight trains coming through? the commuter line, and what is the frequency, and for what purpose, Mr. President, and if we can get a report back.
[Richard Caraviello]: We will get a report from the DOT. Mr. Clerk, if you could ask the DOT for a report. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I was in receipt of the same email. I'm gravely concerned for any increase in the air of diesel particulates. Mr. President, I happen to live in that neighborhood. These pose a grave health uh, danger to people. Uh, it was one of the most, uh, important things that we studied, uh, in the process of, uh, the expansion of the Green Line and moving the tracks closer to people's houses. People suffer greatly from, uh, this type of intoxication. And I'd further point out, Mr. President, that I'm not satisfied with some of the standards that are adopted in this matter by the Federal, uh, Transportation Department.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I thank Councilor Markswell for bringing that up. I too got the email and I did put an email into our friendly transportation buddy, Tom. So hopefully we get something back soon. I did the same. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, I'm wondering if we can request an opinion from the solicitor to see what restrictions we can place on noise levels of trains that travel down our roadway after certain hours. And I'd like to ask the question of the solicitor.
[Richard Caraviello]: Being a resident of the neighbourhood, I have noticed the, earlier in the morning, I have seen the freight trains come through in the morning. I haven't noticed them in the evening, though, but I have seen them in the morning. Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Knight. All those in favour? On the motion of Councilor Marks. Excuse me, on the motion of Councilor Marks. All those in favour? All those in favour? I motion passes offered by council and I be it resolved that the Medford city council wish Robert Vasquez a happy 60th birthday council and I, uh, Mr. President, thank you very much.
[Adam Knight]: This week marks the 60th year on this God's great earth for Mr. Roberto Vasquez of Sylvia road. And, uh, over the weekend I was fortunate enough to be invited to attend his birthday party. and I just wanted to wish him once again another happy 60 years here in the city of Medford. He's a great gentleman. He's lived down on Sylvia Road for the majority of time that he's been here in the country. He resides from Tripoli and made Medford his home. He was a business owner in the community for a number of years, Mr. President, and it's with great happiness that I make this motion and ask my council colleagues to support it.
[Richard Caraviello]: All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Offered by Councilor Knight and Councilor Dello Russo, be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its steep and sincere condolences to the family of Laurie Esnaldi on her recent passing. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, this is a joint resolution. I defer to the senior member.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, let's just keep in mind the Esnaldi family and pray for the repose of Laurie. A very good family. She was a wonderful person. uh, died too young after suffering from a debilitating sickness. Um, she comes from good stock. Uh, she brought happiness to a lot of people and she will be missed by her family and a wonderful group of neighbors on Stanley.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Toro. So if, excuse me, if we could all rise for a moment of silence, please. The Ricketts.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Um, do we had a correspondence from the mayor, um, in a package, uh, this, this week, uh, well, actually it's, uh, I'm sorry. It's from a Lauren D Lorenzo, the, um, director of community development says given the continued concern with the potential project, uh, and they referenced, uh, city council resolution 16-seven nine nine, which I believe was, uh, the Malden Hospital. Her recommendation is the City Council invite representatives of Pine Hills and the DCR to a Committee of the Whole meeting. This should allow residents and Councils the opportunity to address the project proponent directly and to allow DCR to listen to the existing existing and potential issues. Uh, she says that, uh, I have left a message for Tony green of pine Hills to see if he's willing to attend a meeting in Medford. Uh, then she concludes by saying if the council would like to pursue or like her to pursue this, uh, please let her know. Um, I know I definitely think we should pursue this. Um, if we, we should definitely, I mean, I know, uh, console long ago, uh, current and the console, Scarpelli and myself, have been working on the Malden hospital ad hoc committee and we would definitely, not to speak for everyone, but we would definitely like to request a meeting with the developer.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, if you could make the call to the developer and let me know of some potential dates.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. And I know if we can with that, I know that a city solicitor is getting back to us about the recommendation cause I believe our constituents have asked about the AG's input and recommendation on the health care issue along with that. And again, I believe we're looking to try to have a meeting at St. Francis, so it would be easier for the neighbors in that area to get to that meeting. So if we can just add that to that, I'd appreciate it.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, Councilor Scott-Milley.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I'd say, Mr. Clerk, if you could let me know some potential dates that the developer could come down, and we'd be more than happy to have a special meeting. All in favor? Aye. Mr. Scott, if you could inform Eddie who the developer is.
[John Falco]: It sounds like, according to the letter, it sounds like.
[Richard Caraviello]: Maybe you can get Laura DeLaRanza, if you could ask Laura DeLaRanza. Yeah, if you could, I'd appreciate it. And before we close tonight, I think we heard from many of the residents, regards to the zoning and ordinance. Councilor Knight, Councilor Dello Russo, and Councilor Falco, if you could, I know you've got other things also on the calendar there, but if you could schedule a zoning meeting at the earliest of your convenience, if the committee would be, whether it be in the neighborhood or here, the chair would appreciate it. And let me say this, These last two years, these seven members in different subcommittees have met more than I've ever met in my five years in the council. So I commend the whole body for the work in the subcommittees that they've done for the last year and a half. The minutes were passed to Councilor Knight. How did you find those minutes? The minutes are in order and I move for approval thereof. All those in favor? Motion passes. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 18.37 minutes total words: 1686  |
total time: 20.37 minutes total words: 1022  |
total time: 15.78 minutes total words: 1337  |
total time: 4.89 minutes total words: 470  |
|
total time: 5.53 minutes total words: 408  |
total time: 21.23 minutes total words: 708  |
total time: 27.08 minutes total words: 1411  |
total time: 5.26 minutes total words: 531  |