[Richard Caraviello]: To Reverend Noah Evans. Reverend Noah, welcome to City Council. You've been here many times. For those of you who don't know, for the last nine years, Reverend Noah Evans has been the pastor of the Grace Episcopal Church. On March 5th will be the last Sunday Mass for Noah Evans at the church. Reverend Noah will be moving to Mount Lebanon Episcopal Church. Reverend has been an integral part of our community and has helped build relationships of support to many in our community. Reverend you have been a positive spiritual presence for everyone in the city of Medford and have been an inspiration to all who have known you. Today we want to say thank you. for how you walked in truth, for how you shared God's word, salvation, life, and for each soul you renewed. Thank you for the time you have spent and the hours you have gladly gave to our community in unfolding of God's perfect way at Medford. The residents of Medford wish you and your family the best and hope you have more wonderful opportunities on the road ahead. We will miss you, but in more ways than, in more ways than you'll know. We thank you, we owe you a great debt of gratitude. Your presence in our community is going to be missed more than you know. Reverend. I think before we give you your citation, I think maybe some of our councilors may want to give you a couple of words. Councilor Marks, would you like to start out with something for Reverend Noah?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As you mentioned so eloquently, Reverend Noah has been an integral part of this community and has been a voice of reason. He was at the council meeting, I don't know, maybe a month ago or so in representing issues of concern in this community. And I know his shoes are going to be sorely missed in our community. And I wish you well in your new endeavor. And if you ever need anything, give us a call.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, thank you. Reverend Noah, it's been a pleasure working with you over these years and an honor to work with you in your parish and to minister alongside of you as we both walk people through the darkest moments of their life. I know the skill set that you have. I know the concern that you have, not only for the people of the parish, but also in the greater community and the outreach you've done in the urban centers of this area for the poor. So I wish you well. I know you have a great task before you to minister to the people of Pittsburgh, and I wish you, your wife, and your children well. Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Reverend Owens, thank you for all that you've done for our community throughout the years. You have been a big part of just leading the interfaith group within our community, all churches, Catholic, Protestant, Episcopalian. And I know you brought that group together like it's never been before in our community, and that's meant a lot. And I wish you well in your future endeavors. And on a personal note, I know my My in-laws belong to the Episcopal Church, and when my father-in-law passed away, I mean, you were with him to the end, and that meant a lot to our family, and I thank you for everything that you've done, on a personal note, and for our community. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much, and Father Noah, thank you very much as well. You've been a great next-door neighbor. I've lived next door to the Grace Church now for a number of years, and I've certainly seen the parish grow under Father Evans' leadership. You've done a great job here in the community, and we really can't thank you enough for the efforts that you put forward in building social capital and creating an engaged citizenry with the parishioners. So thank you very much, Father Evans. You're going to be sadly missed, but I'd ask that even though you're down there in Pittsburgh, you still pray for us up here in Medford. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, President Caraviello. I just want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues. You've done great work in Medford, and we're going to sorely miss you. Best of luck in your future.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. Again, I echo what my colleagues have said, Reverend Nowart. Your vision and your leadership within our community is going to be sorely missed. I just, something they all missed. I just hope that you remember that you left a Patriots fan and hopefully you don't become a Steelers fan. So thank you very much and God bless. Thank you.
[Mark Rumley]: Solicitor Runley. Thank you. Reverend Nowart. I speak to you tonight just briefly and as a friend, and I only want to say one particular thing, that there's a quality of Christianity that you exhibit so well, and it's one that I've observed over all the times that we've been together in the past years, and that is you are genuine and authentic, and I've been blessed to know you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: At this point, it gives me great pleasure to present this citation. to Reverend Noah Evans. The Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council accommodation to Noah Evans, rector, Grace Episcopal Church, in recognition of your leadership to the members of the Grace Episcopal Church and to the community of the city of Medford. Since your arrival in 2008, the Grace Episcopal Church has seen 50% growth in attendance, significant growth in stewardship, growth in the Children's Center, and the completion of a major capital campaign in the building project at the parish. You've restarted the Protestant chaplaincy at Tufts University and have been a leader in the Medford Conversation project, as well as spearheaded green improvements throughout the parish. It is with great pleasure that the Medford City Council rises up to join you and your family and friends on this remarkable milestone. On the behalf of the citizens of the city of Medford, we wish you good fortune on your new home as rector at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Mount Lebanon, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Thank you very much.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_26]: Thank you. Thank you. It has been such a blessing to be able to serve both at Grace Church and be able to serve with you all in the city of Medford. I've learned so much from this city and the way that you're committed to your life together and working things out and living in the diversity of this community and moving this changing community forward. I really, truly believe that Medford is a beacon to the world of a way for people to live together, especially a diverse people to live together. And thank you for all of your leadership. all of your leadership in that. It's been an honor. Thank you.
[Mark Rumley]: Sorry, Rick. Here we are. Oh, that's a good shot. This is going to cost you $5, Capiello. OK.
[Richard Caraviello]: Take it off my salary. Thank you very much. It was awesome. Thank you. I hope that the parents can find someone that's as equal to you.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_19]: They're great.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Dello Russo to return to regular audit business. 17-084 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the administration hire a full-time qualified grant writer. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. This is something that I've put on the council agenda before, probably three, four years ago. And it's something we discuss and bring up usually every budget season, if not more. And in light of what's gone on in the last several weeks especially, I believe that we truly need somebody qualified to help us write grants, to help our department heads write grants, to be able to tap into the funding that is out there. We saw and we've been discussing grants for police stations and other facilities. We just saw our neighbor Malden get $9.8 million in a grant, which is approximately half of the new build for their police station that just was opened in the last couple months. There's also other possibilities. I know that we could start off by getting a mentor, somebody to help the people here at City Hall that do write an occasional grant. We are lucky and have good department heads that will write a grant here and there. but they're not dedicated full-time grant writers, and I think we're missing out on something that can be so beneficial and pay for itself tenfold, if not more. It's just something that I think the city needs. Also, grant mentor, I was given some information today from a resident who said that the service co-ops of retired executives make mentors available, so in the meantime, while we're exploring the possibility of hiring, whether it be a part-time or full-time grant writer, there are mentors out there. And these are the things that the city needs to tap into so that we could do more projects and more projects that are needed. We could be able to spend more of our general fund on maintenance and things that, obviously, we sometimes fall short on. So I would ask for a roll call vote on this. And we really look into this to get a grant writer and put it in the next budget, if not sooner. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, I feel as though this is a great resolution. I second Councilor Longo's motion for approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, seconded by Councilor Knight, a roll call vote has been requested.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Vice President Marks. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Yes, Mr. Councilor Dello Russo.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_19]: Second by Councilor Knight. 17-075. Law and order.
[Richard Caraviello]: Oh, I'm sorry, wrong one. 17-018, thank you. Committee of the whole meeting report from February 22nd, 2017 regarding the bond order for the police station. Councilor De La Rosa.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have met in great detail, not only last Wednesday, but last night we received over the weekend of a number of responses as to questions that were sent to the administration. They've been answered. We had multiple opportunities for discussion, remonstration, and sharing of diverse opinions. Mr. President, we've gotten our answers and a motion to, as it was reported out of committee, motion to adopt the committee report.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think Solicitor Rumley wants to make a statement. No?
[Mark Rumley]: I do have the mayor's communication that she had submitted to the council. Yes. I don't know if this would be the appropriate time with the reporting out of committee, but I think it would be, assuming that other procedural things fall into place.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, motion by Councilor Dello Russo that the committee report be adopted. Seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. Motion. While we're under suspension. 17-086. 17-086. Offered by Councilor Lungo, Kern, and Mox, be it resolved that the Energy and Environmental Office update the Medford City Council with regards to concerns they may have about 92 Main Street being on a flood plain. Councilor Lungo, Kern.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I just feel a couple of these resolutions. 90 Main Street.
[Richard Caraviello]: 92 Main.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: 90 Main Street. 90 Main. I feel a couple of these resolutions probably come first. They're pertinent to, I think, something that will come in a little bit. It was brought to my attention that 90 Main Street is on a flood plain. I believe Climate Change in Medford, it's a group that's working on mapping out the city. finding future floodplain issues. They did detailed mapping, including air quality, heat gain, sea level rise, and the potential flooding of lots. And 90 Maiden Street is on that list of a potential floodplain. So I think it's just extremely important to get an update from our Energy and Environment Office. I'm not sure if our consultant can discuss whether or not that's on a floodplain. And I'm not sure if anybody's here to answer any questions, because I know that's pertinent to potential vote that may take place in a little bit. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Motion to refer to the subcommittee on environmental affairs. Mr. President. Second. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo.
[Richard Caraviello]: All those, uh, all those in favor.
[Richard Caraviello]: You didn't push a button. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Michael Marks]: Hey, that's all right. Mr. President, I concur with the sentiment of my colleague, Councilor Lungo-Koehn. And where we have the gentleman from Dunneman Sweeney, is it possible maybe if you can get up and explain if this would have an impact on the cost of the project itself? If he's not able to answer that, Mr. President, that's fine. But I'm just concerned that if this wasn't taken into consideration and if it needs to be taken into consideration. Mr. President?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Donarusso. Also, do we need to be concerned that where it's on a flood plain, do we have to be concerned whether Route 16 and half of Medford Square will be swept away?
[Richard Caraviello]: I would hope that the gentleman maybe will have an answer for us. Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[bS1lGAOLUz0_SPEAKER_06]: Jeff Shaw, Donovan Swinney, architects on 16 Jay Street in Somerville. I can say that it's always going to be a consideration for any project going into construction to take into consideration all of the environmental characteristics of this item.
[Michael Marks]: So Mr. President, if we could just ask, typically, in your opinion, what does this add to the overall cost of a project? Are we looking at, is there an industry standard? Is there an additional 10%, 20% that you add on to a cost? Or has that already been considered?
[bS1lGAOLUz0_SPEAKER_06]: The project, as was conceived, already has a budget. It considers the site costs at this point in time. The actual configuration and how the site is dealt with during construction would be done at that later date when the design is completed.
[Michael Marks]: So potentially there could be a request for additional funding if need be?
[bS1lGAOLUz0_SPEAKER_06]: I don't think I can answer that question. I think it takes into consideration a hypothetical. information about.
[Michael Marks]: Well, the fact that it's on a floodplain is not hypothetical.
[bS1lGAOLUz0_SPEAKER_06]: The fact that it's located in a design haven't been determined yet. I don't understand. I don't know exactly if there would be any consideration of additional costs because we haven't done the actual design. So there may be none. Right.
[Michael Marks]: We, we, we heard just the president last night that, uh, you know, money's tight in this community. And the only reason why we bring this up is that if there is an additional cost, I think we should know it ahead of time. Uh, so that, that's the only reason why I ask. And I don't know if council longer current already made a recommendation, but I think we need to know, and maybe they have to do some more homework on it. But if there is additional cost because of the property being located in a floodplain, uh, according to, our own energy and environment office. So I'd make that part of the report if council.
[Richard Caraviello]: I don't think for the city engineer, well, the environmental office, do you have that referred to the environmental office?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I may be pertinent to send into more to have more discussion in committee, but I think we need an update from our environment and energy environment office first. So if we could get, have the administration look into a cost, if it is on a floodplain, how much, obviously Council Marks' amendment, but we need an update with regards to this before we meet in committee. So if we could maybe change that around, get an update, get cost estimates, figure out how much additional cost it's gonna be, and get an update, and then we can put it into committee. I would ask my colleagues to, get an update first.
[Richard Caraviello]: Do you want to withdraw the motion?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The motion is to send it to committee. I would like that withdrawn so we can get an update first. This isn't something that can linger in committee for months and months. I mean, we have eight months.
[Adam Knight]: Then it would be incumbent upon the committee to meet and to request the pertinent information that's necessary to get the questions answered. Committee can meet as soon as possible and get the pertinent information?
[Richard Caraviello]: I would like to get this information.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: meet with the information, and then ask additional questions. There's no reason why we have to delay it two, three full weeks to even refer the questions out. We're being rushed. This is being shoved down our throat. We have questions that need to be answered. And this should be answered first before we send it to committee in a month or two, whenever we decide to meet. So I'd ask for a roll call vote on my resolution to get an update.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Lockern to get an update on the flood plain conditions.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: From Ms. Alicia Hunt. I know there's a committee working on it right now. I believe there was a committee meeting, I'm not exactly sure when it was scheduled for, but it was pretty recent and this was information that was divulged. We just would like her written opinion on it and to know more information. I wasn't at that meeting. I don't exactly know when it was, but it's information that we need as soon as possible, not in a few months.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. So your motion is to get an update from, from, from the office of environment and energy regards to the floodplain. And if there will be any additional costs regarding the product. Yes, please. On the second by Councilor Marks, second by Councilor Marks, all those in favor roll call. Roll call has been requested, Mr. Clerk. So the motion to refer to the committee is withdrawn? Yes. No, it'll also go to committee also. We'll get an update from the city engineer.
[Adam Knight]: The table before the council at this point in time is to request the information and then have a subcommittee scheduled so that they can be discussed. Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: Roll call has been requested, Mr. Clerk.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative. None negative. Motion passes. 17 0 8 7 offered by Councilors. Lungo-Koehn and vice-president mocks. Be it resolved that the city of Medford update the Medford city council. We regard to who has been hired to be the OPM on this project manager for the, for the potential new building at 92 main street council Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, we could just get an update. I'm sure somebody would be able to answer this today. Who's going to be the owner's project manager? I believe that needs to be decided before we go out for architectural studies.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Lomax. Thank you, Mr. President. We have the mayor's staff here. Maybe they can enlighten us on who's going to be the OPM for this particular project.
[Mark Rumley]: Mark Rumley, City Solicitor. It's not under my jurisdiction at all, but I can tell you this, that no one has been designated at this juncture. Is there a plan to designate someone? There has to be. It's required under the law for a project of this size.
[Michael Marks]: So it's required prior to any design, is that correct?
[Mark Rumley]: No, it is not. It's required during the design phase, which hasn't begun yet. So when does the design phase start? Well, once we get a loan order to pay for the design services, the architectural services.
[Michael Marks]: Because the way I read the law, it says that OPM has to be hired before the project designer. OK. So we're on the same page.
[Mark Rumley]: I think we're pretty much same page. It's also concurrently. OK. If you want to use that synonym, that might work also.
[Michael Marks]: That's fine with me. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street, Medford, Mass. I actually have in front of me from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the Office of Administration and Finance for the Division of Capital Asset Management, the Owner's Project Manager Guidelines for Mass General Law, Chapter 149, Section 44A 1⁄2. I'd like to read it, just to be clear. Effective on July 19, 2004, Chapter 193 of the Acts of 2004 inserted a new provision into Mass General Law 14944, which governs public building procurement. The new provision requires public awarding authorities to engage the services of an owner's project manager on all building projects estimated to cost $1.5 million or more. The law requires that the owner's project manager, also known as the OPM, be hired before the project designer, meet required minimal qualification standards, and be selected through a qualifications-based selection process. The OPM acts as the awarding authority's agent and consultant throughout the project from the design through completion and must be completely independent from the designer, general contractor, and any subcontractors involved in the projects at all times. The law provides a listing of the minimally required duties of the OPM as follows. And I'll just read this and then I'll stop. The duties of the owner's project manager shall include, but need not be limited to, providing advice and consultation with respect to design, value engineering, scope of work, cost estimating, general contractor and subcontractor prequalifications pursuant to 44D.5 or 44D.75 where applicable. scheduling, construction, the selection, negotiation with oversight of a designer, and as a control standards for monitoring performance of the building project and assisting in project evaluation, including but not limited to written evaluation of the performance of the design professional. contractors, and subcontractors. And attached to this seven-page document, it outlines what the OPM is required to do by law and what you can ask them to do. According to this law, your OPM should have been hired before you even engaged with the architect. And I can give that to you so you guys can see it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion. On the motion by Councilor Lococo, seconded by Councilor Montz.
[Michael Marks]: So we ask that we be apprised of who the OPM is once the selection is made.
[Richard Caraviello]: That is correct. Yes. All those in favor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Aye.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion passes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, while we're on suspension, could we take a paper off the table?
[Richard Caraviello]: And which one would you like that to be?
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_19]: I would like that paper to be Councilor Dello Russo. Present. Motion to approve.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to approve by Councilor Dello Russo. seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Roll call vote is required, Mr. Clerk. The only update I have is whatever you received from the mayor this afternoon. Asking to take its first reading. Yes. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, so that's a motion for approval, okay, of the paper. No, I just didn't know if we had any updates from anybody before we take that vote.
[Richard Caraviello]: The only update you have is whatever the mayor sent you earlier today.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And I think the people should be apprised of it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_24]: Name and address of the record. Bill O'Brien, president of local 1032, office of 340 Salem Street. I was just coming up here, council, that we'd like this paper read aloud.
[Mark Rumley]: Good evening, Mr. President, members of the council, Mark Rumley, city solicitor. I reside at 50 Woodrow Avenue in Medford. The communication that the council received late this afternoon or early this evening, I have with me tonight, the mayor has asked that I read it because not everybody has received a copy and that would give them the information of what's included. and it is to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council. Dear Mr. President and Councilors, this month I have put before the City Council my request for a loan order to finance the cost of architectural services for a new police station at 90 Main Street. I consider this long overdue effort to be one of which we can all be proud. Concurrently, I have heard the concerns of the Medford firefighters about their training facility and fire headquarters on Main Street. With this in mind, I have met with representatives of the fire department and have given them my commitment to address their concerns. And as I said last night, my commitment will be more than words, it is action. The action to which I commit is as follows. I will appoint a working group of fire personnel to assess appropriate sites for the construction of a new fire station slash headquarters and fire training tower. The amount of $500,000 will be appropriated for the construction of a fire training tower. The sites to be reviewed will include but not be limited to the current headquarters. Number two. The working group will submit a written report to the mayor 18 months after it commences its assessment. Its report will primarily include its recommendation as to preferred sites for the construction of a new fire station slash headquarters. It shall also recommend a site for a fire training tower. Number three, after the mayor receives the recommendations of the working group, The mayor will seek cost estimates for the construction of the new fire station slash headquarters and fire training tower. Number four, the mayor will submit a loan order to request of the city council to finance the costs of architectural services for a new fire station slash headquarters no later than the end of fiscal year 2019, provided the working group meets all the above deadlines and requirements. I am proud to make this commitment. I consider it the best way to serve those who serve us so well, the members of our police and fire departments. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Solicitor Rumley. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. We did meet a couple hours last night with regards to some additional questions. I'm not sure. Our treasurer, if you could come up, Ms. Irwin. We had requested just the numbers of that break-even point of where we would have to possibly do an override, and you said you'd provide those to us today.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I did get a handout to the clerk's office today, so hopefully you received that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I didn't see that.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: It has a legal sheet on the back.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So if you could maybe just break this down for us. Sure.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I, as I, um, we talked about last night, the, uh, new growth and how we were going to be able to consider that in the future. I think, Councilor Kern, you asked us to maybe do a 10-year average. And so what we did was I looked back, starting in 2005 through 2017, and the average new growth was about 1.1 million. But that factored in a couple of years that were really meager. 2005, I believe, and 2011, we had some really short new growth. So what we did going forward on the first page, if you look, is that we used 1.75 as a new growth number. And actually you can see on page three that our levy of 105 million, just below that you'll see a 2.5 increase and then a new growth number of 1.75. And so that brings us to $4,378,000. And that continues all the way down through, let's see, FY, looks like FY 31, all the way down. So that number on the end there, 4378-373, is the amount of revenue that we'll be able to levy going forward. And so what we did was take that number, and then if you do look on the first sheet, you'll see that it's a little convoluted, but I think if you stay with me, you can follow it. The first column is personnel, and that is then followed by ordinary income, which is, I mean, revenue, which is just about everything, and then enterprise and debt. And so what we did was take personnel, and we increased that by 2% each fiscal year. We took out the insurance costs and multiplied those out at an 8% increase each year going forward. So in the final column, you'll see that we have, in 2017, $3,475,000 worth of debt service. And going forward, as we get into the years where we'll start to pay back the architect and the police construction fees, debt service, you'll see on the right-hand side that we will have an increase in our budget in FY18 of $4,020,000, excuse me, and we'll have a levy of $4,378,000. Are you following me? Am I making sense? And so that gives us $357,000 left. Now, if you follow that down, You're going to see that in 2020, we will be in a deficit of $998,000, which is going to require free cash to make those debt payments. Going beyond that, we level out for a while. And then the schools are paid. And then on the second to last one, you'll see that that includes a payment for a new fire station with the architect. rolled into it. And so that brings us to a $6,454,000 increase in our budget, but we'll get $5,204,000 in our levy, which will then again require an infusion of free cash.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. If I may ask questions of the chair. So this breakdown, I understand the breakdown. Is this just with regards to our police station or this is if we did both?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: You'll see at the bottom, In FY25, there's a payment, which would, it would essentially mean that the police would come online first, and then in five years, we would have the fire come online, a fire bond.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: In 2025?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Yes. That would be the first debt service payment.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. 2020 with just doing the police station, we're going to need to borrow from free cash to balance the budget. That's correct. So by you telling us that, that means we will not be able to put another bond on our books unless we were going to take more from free cash until 2021.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Unless we had an infusion of more new growth. These are just projections. These aren't hard and fast numbers, certainly. So we would have to see you know, what happens in the next fiscal year.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Right. There'd never be enough new growth to sustain a, like a library in between the police and the fire. No. Okay. I think I understand the breakdown.
[Michael Marks]: Vice president Moss. If I could, and thank you for providing this in. My question last night was, at what point, because we were told if we were moving forward with the police headquarters, there was no talk about any Proposition 2.5 override. It was only when we mentioned about combining police and fire headquarters, it was mentioned last night, well, we're going to need a Proposition 2.5 override to afford that. And my question was, at what dollar amount triggers the two and a half override. And I thought that's what you were going to provide.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, I can't give you the exact dollar amount. I can tell you that we would be, uh, with 1 million with the police station and a dual, uh, facility, we'd be at about two and a half million, uh, in the negative in 2018. And that would require an override because we, I don't know where else we would get it to pay for in the next 30 years. every year.
[Michael Marks]: So you're saying an additional $2 million every year if we were to build? A dual facility. A dual facility. Correct. And the need, based on the current $38 million you're talking? Yes. So if we were able to offset some of that with free cash, the $9 million in free cash, or if we were able to offset that with some grant funding? That would no longer be the case, correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, I mean, those are scenarios that I can't give you a definite answer to that it would or would not require an override today. I can't say that. I can say fairly certainly that, you know, a $2.5 million deficit probably would require it because that's an ongoing debt that would be 30 years. It would be continuing, excuse me, for 30 years. It's not a one-year thing where we could borrow free cash. And again, our free cash is our rainy day fund, our stabilization fund. We can't use it to pay debt service for 30 years.
[Michael Marks]: No, but you can use it in cases of public safety and needs that arise.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Yes, and generally in cases where you're using it for a one-time fix or an emergency or something to that effect, but for debt service that's going to be 30 years, you know, using free cash is not wise, and it's obviously not something we can afford to do.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So I guess my question is that we heard tonight from the mayor and her response. So just so I understand, it appears that we're not looking for at least a payment if we were eventually to go through with a new fire station. The first payment wouldn't come until 2025? Correct. And typically, how long does it take for us to pay off? When would the building be built in order for us to have a first payment?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, it wouldn't necessarily mean when it's built, but when we go to bond. So we would get the architect first, then we would wait for the plans, and then we would do some cost estimates, and then we would go to bond based on your approval. And we would have a payment probably about 18 months after we bonded.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So I'm just trying to figure out the time frame. So if we were to move forward with the proposal that was mentioned tonight, and the firefighters got together with their group, and the firefighters, after their due diligence of 18 months, which puts us in what, 2019, make their recommendations to the mayor. The mayor then moves forward, as she stated within the paper, that she will initiate another design.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: She would anticipate a loan order.
[Michael Marks]: For another design.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: For architectural fees, correct.
[Michael Marks]: And that would take us how long, roughly?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: For the plans? I would say probably 10 months, same as the police station.
[Michael Marks]: So close to a year, so that brings us to 2020. Then we get that back, and then we go out for an RFP once we get The design, which takes how long? Roughly?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I would say probably six months.
[Michael Marks]: Six months. So that's mid of 2020. And then what happens between the next five years? Is that when the building's built?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, we have to prepare for building it and provided all those things go into, you know, into sync. Yes. And then at some point we would be here again asking for a bond. and we would do that borrowing based on the timeframe. Ideally, we want the schools to be paid for before we can go forward on that project.
[Michael Marks]: So what was stated last night more or less is being stated again tonight that we're looking at 2025 before we see anything.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: No. Well, I don't believe so because we also, if we bond an architect, In 2019, excuse me, we have five years to repay that or roll that into a new construction bond. So we would obviously anticipate rolling that into a construction bond. So we would have to do that within a five-year period. And the goal is to get that done sooner rather than later, but not until the schools come offline.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So it seems like we can't afford this until 2025.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: No, we can start the project. We can't afford the debt service. We could probably even afford it in 2024 based on these numbers. But it would give us a little breathing room. If you see right here, we'll have excess of $329,000 in the year before. So if we take on that debt, it would probably be similar.
[Michael Marks]: Right. But, but it seems like, uh, from what I gathered last night, the city's trying to get away as far down the line as possible from the year 2020 when the police department comes online as a payment. Is that, is that not correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: You're trying to get as far away as possible to come as far away, but we're trying to absorb the costs of the police department and get out back on our feet. And then the, uh,
[Michael Marks]: The fire department. I'm just trying to figure out for the firefighters when they could possibly, if everything works out perfect and we know it's not a perfect world, when they could possibly see a new fire station. That's all I'm trying to gather. And if it's 2025 or 2024, I don't know, but I think some type of timeline.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Those are the dates that the debt service would be due. So when we bond, We don't make those debt service payments sometimes for a year or 18 months after. That's what I asked you. Right. So it could come online before that.
[Michael Marks]: Is there any way we can get a timeline? I mean, is there any way we can get some type of time? Maybe the firefighters have this in their head already, but I'm trying to get my hands around it just to see what the timeline is on this.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: The timeline shapes up as it goes along. As the mayor indicated in her letter, by FY19, If we bond an architect, we are on our way to building a fire station. And so once that starts, then there are obviously, you know. Right, but it seems, you're right, 2019. And I can't tell you what those are, but once we bond it, then our debt service, we can roll it into another bond. We can do this, you know, there are other ways to look at it.
[Michael Marks]: And I realize what you're saying. My only concern is that 2019 and 2024 and 25 is a big difference. You know, that's a five-year span. And I don't think the process takes that long, to be quite honest.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: And it may not. It may not.
[Michael Marks]: I've been here through the building of the new schools. I've been here through the DPW. I've been here under a lot of projects. And it seems like a long time. And I just want to fight it.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: And it may not. We want to avoid escalation costs. We're not going to start and get architectural services and get cost estimates and then wait three years. We want to lose money.
[Michael Marks]: You want to wait so we don't have to go towards proposition two and a half, correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, we can't do that in 2017. No, but I mean, even 2020. 2020 is going to be a tough year, yes.
[Michael Marks]: If the process was sped up, just say the process weren't perfect, in 2020 would we be able to go out for a bond with a new fire station? No. No, okay, so that's what I'm getting at. So we're looking down the line for a purpose.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: We're not looking at 2025. That's when our debt service becomes due.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so it might be the year before that, I understand.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Right. I understand your situation where you're saying there's a big time gap between 2019 and 2024. There's five years there. That is not necessarily how it's all going to happen. I mean, when you're at the end of fiscal 19, you're going to move right into fiscal 20. You're already in fiscal 20. That's the year that we have to get through. And we would still be waiting for architectural services to do their plans and to come back to us and have cost estimates and do our FPs and then decide how much we're going to spend and how we're going to pay for it. And then we would start the bonding process.
[Michael Marks]: But remember, it's 2017. We already kicked the can to 2019, saying this is when their recommendation is going to come out. So we've already bought ourselves almost two years. So it just sounds like a real lengthy process. I just want the firefighters to know when we could eventually see a building and having a timeline, just a sketch of a draft saying this is the timeline. We look to get back the firefighters proposal this, you know, 2019 in May of 2019. Shortly after that, the Bay is going to go out for an architectural design in June of 2019. Then we're going to get back and review this for six months. I'm sure you could put that together. That doesn't seem like complex.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: As I said there are a lot of factors that go into that and you know the mayor's had conversations regarding this and she's eager to get this headquarters built or fire station built. We just have to be patient with regard to our debt and that's all I can tell you.
[Michael Marks]: I know she's eager but we're equally as eager.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Everybody is eager and as I said the longer we go the escalation costs are greater and it doesn't behoove us to, would there are other projects that are going to want to come online?
[Michael Marks]: And I agree with you. I was prepared to vote on a combined center last week, so I don't want to wait another day, but needless to say, that doesn't seem to be the druthers of the administration. So all I want to know is what is the timeline? If you don't have it tonight, I would ask that the administration provide us, at least for myself, would be very helpful to see a timeline. on when this is all gonna take place.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I just gave you anticipated dates. I mean, you can extrapolate from there. I cannot guarantee you when we're gonna have a ribbon cutting at a fire station.
[Michael Marks]: I don't wanna guarantee, but I think the firefighters should have an idea if it's 2024 or if it's 2027. I think they should have an idea.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, I mean, clearly we've factored it in as a debt service payment for 2025, which means that it would be bonded sometime in 2020. 21, 22 maybe, maybe 23. So you're looking at 24, 2024. For the building to open? For it to open? We got some type of building. Well, I'm not the procurement person, and I'm not the builder.
[Michael Marks]: I'm just trying to get a handle in. That's all. Right.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: And I think the mayor has worked with the firefighters to let them know how eager she is to have this happen, as we all are. So I mean, no one's going to be dragging their feet in 2022 about- Point of clarification, Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Even though nobody's dragging their feet and we're eager, you also just said we can't afford it till 2025. And when we can, we're still going to have to take $1,000,000.25 from free cash to do it. No, I said we couldn't afford really to do a dual facility. But your breakdown says we're still going to have to take almost $1,000,000.25 from free cash in 2025 when the fire station comes on the books.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Right. And we could do that in 2024. Because the schools will no longer be online. That goes away, all that debt.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Right, but I thought that was factored in and we still needed to take from free cash.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: We still will need to take from free cash because we have other borrowings.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's my, yeah.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Point of information, Councilor Knight. This is all assuming that we don't receive any outside funding sources, number one, and number two, that we don't also incur any acquisition, land acquisition costs to find a new facility. for to locate a new facility. If it's not in the existing facility, then there might be land acquisition costs as well. So it's going to be a dynamic and moving object. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Council Member O'Connor. Are you all set?
[Michael Marks]: I had another question. I'm sorry. And Anne, I appreciate all the information. If you could put together some type of timeline, that'd be very helpful. I'm sure the firefighters would like to see a timeline. And I know it's not exact, something that at least we can go by.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I'd be happy to work with ShopCon, who's our procurement director, and with the mayor's office.
[Michael Marks]: That's great. Thank you. My other question, Mr. President, is regarding the advisory committee that's set up under this particular agreement. It is just consisting of all firefighter personnel. Is that correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I don't believe so, no. I believe it's a working group that will be have mayoral appointees, and have appointees by the fire chief.
[Michael Marks]: So it says, I will appoint a working group of fire personnel.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I think there will be people besides fire personnel on there. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: So do we know what it's going to consist of?
[Mark Rumley]: Excuse me, Treasurer. I don't, no one has been appointed yet, but when I was speaking to the mayor today, she talked about her conversations with the chief and the chief alluded to that last night, that he was going to be providing her with some suggestions also. And I know that she had also talked with the president of the union about that, but there have been no names designated. I think if your question is if they are going to be exclusively Medford firefighters, I think that certainly they're going to be represented to a significant and substantive degree. but there could be other professional people that are engaged in not necessarily like fire departments and buildings and that sort of thing or the proper locations. There are all kinds of people that could lend relevant information to this. But the thrust of this and the substance of this is to have fire personnel on this working group. Even the numbers, I haven't heard what numbers they're going to be like. How many?
[Michael Marks]: So could we just reword that?
[Mark Rumley]: Because when you read it, honestly, this is I understand your sentiments, Councilor, and the reason we can't reword it is this is a statement of commitment by the mayor and I'm not authorized to change that wording.
[Michael Marks]: But under this commitment, the mayor is saying it's going to exist solely of fire personnel. That's the way, I don't see how else you'd read that.
[Mark Rumley]: You can define fire personnel as being members of the Medford Fire Department, and that certainly would be true. And you can also define it as fire professionals, perhaps who are retired, who are not on the active force. Right, fire personnel. Right. So if we're going to get down to nuance, definitionally, what working group of fire personnel means, we could take some time with that But I think that the honest truth is that this commitment indicates that the mayor is working with our immediate fire personnel, being the chief, and has talked to the union leadership about this. And I don't think anybody feels for one second that Medford fire personnel are not going to be a substantial part of this, but there's always the possibility there could be retirees or others who could lend their experience and talents to this.
[Michael Marks]: The only reason why I want to bring it up is because when the original proposal was made two weeks ago, there was no input from, uh, the fire rank and fire personnel. There was no input from the rank and file police department. So I want to make sure now as this process goes along, that at least where we're talking about a new fire headquarters, that the fire department personnel be at the table.
[Mark Rumley]: Yes. And I think that's the only reason why I bring it up. Right. And I think those sentiments are prudent. I understand those, those sentiments and there is the mayoral commitment before the council this evening.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. So Mr. President, just one of the, one of the question if I could. Um, so, uh, onto a council and I mentioned if, uh, this working group were to get together and decide that, uh, uh, they need a new fire station possibly, uh, behind here at city hall and a lot behind city hall and, uh, their training, uh, tower, uh, possibly in another section of the city on a private property that needs to be purchased. These factors will all be taken into consideration regarding the cost, correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Correct. But the architect has a $10 million land acquisition line item in the proposal that he has if we were to build a dual facility on a new site. So obviously, the $18 million price tag for the fire station at the current site would change if there were land acquisition costs.
[Michael Marks]: So the current cost of $38 million has a $10 million built in or no?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: No, that's what would be for dual site at the present site. But the larger one, which I think is 49 million includes a $10 million land acquisition fee. Okay.
[Michael Marks]: I don't remember seeing that one, but was that part of what we were given?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: That was part of the original one.
[Michael Marks]: 49 million.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Yep.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Um, A few things with regards to, I know there's a number of requests and serious issues on the police side that need to be taken care of before this build out in two years. And I know that has been provided to the administration. So with regards to, is there any going to be anything done to the police station, current police station within the two year period to resolve those issues? And then on the same token, we have now nine years before, you know, possible nine years before a new fire station is built.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: It'll be online before nine years. Well, 2017, 2025, eight, nine years. Yeah, but 2025 is, again, when a debt service payment would be made, so it could be two years before that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Point being, there's some serious concerns in station one on the fire side. What will we be doing for both departments in the meantime to make sure living conditions and working conditions are up to par, such as the mold and the asbestos and the building coming apart with rainwater coming in. I mean, some of the living conditions. Are we going to put any money into either department?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: And I don't know if it's a question for you, but... I would have to defer to either the chief of staff or the city solicitor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, if we can maybe get an idea on that, because not only that, but thankfully, If this all pans out, we have two years for the police, 789 for the fire department, and there's some, we discussed them last night, those issues I've already mentioned, plus the diesel trucks in with the kitchen, in with the equipment, you know, a number of different things that need to be addressed now. And I know, Chief, I know there's been a list given to the mayor. I don't know exactly what's on it, but when I walk in your station, I feel like it's unsafe for the officers that are in there. I mean, no bulletproof glass. I think maybe something's been put in recently, but not up to par. That concerns me. And we have two, two, two years before this is built. So on both sides, what are we, what are, what is the city going to do? Name and address of the record, please.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_04]: Jennifer Dever, Chief of Staff to Mayor Burke, 85 George P Hazard Drive. Mr. President, if I may, good evening all. Um, to address Councilor Curran's concerns relative to what is going to be done between now and then in respects to the firefighter, uh, to fire headquarters, um, The chief and I have an active dialogue in respects to any kind of needs or concerns that may happen, um, that will happen relative to the working conditions, much like we've had with chief Sacco relative to the cleanliness of the police headquarters, in addition to the replacement of the windows for bulletproof glass. So we will listen to, um, future concerns, current concerns, uh, relative to the safety and the conditions of the fire. headquarters. Again, I'll state that we will work with the chief and we will work with the union as well to listen to these concerns and move forward much like we have, um, with chief Sacco. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Leo Sacco]: Leo Sacco, chief police, uh, was added to 27 Elm street in Medford. Uh, I've been authorized by the mayor to make the necessary corrections in the police department. Uh, but obviously we're not going to do anything that's going to be a budget break. Uh, one of the items that we need is, is a, uh, the female officers locker room facility and a shower facility. And, uh, the cost of that, putting that into an old building, uh, would be prohibitive would make any, any sense at all. So we have to make some minor modifications. There has been some bulletproof glass. I don't know if anything's really bulletproof, bullet resistant glass, uh, on the forefront windows that are on the outside and two of the lobby windows. And, uh, Now that was something that the mayor probably could have waited where she decided to move forward with a new station, but she didn't. She went ahead and authorized that purchase and it didn't come out of the police department budget. So things are being done to remedy the situation. Nothing's going to make it perfect, but definitely there was a cleanup over a couple of weekend periods and we need to continue the maintenance recently. the custodian that's been provided by the company has changed and is doing a much better job than what we've had in the past. So the place is a little more cleaner and just a lot of work needs to be done and we're not going to spend a lot of money on. We're not going to waste it, but the necessary repairs will be made.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I can, if I, thank you, chief. Um, if I could add a B paper that, um, I know the asbestos was cleaned up in the police department side. If we can add a B paper that mold testing and air quality testing be done on the fire department. I think that's extremely one of the major concerns. I mean, along with a whole list of others, but I think that's one of the major concerns that is causing potential or possible health conditions for our firefighters that it needs to be addressed. I believe the asbestos and the mold has been remediation in the police department. And that's one of the, so the fire department, yes. I mean, it'd be great to do it in both, but we know work has been done in the police department. We have two, you know, depending on this vote, I think it needs to be done in the fire department. It needs to be done in the first floor and the second floor. So if we can have that as a B paper.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Nuzzo, 35 Parish Street. I have a few points as they pertain to finance. We've talked a lot about Prop 2.5 and tripping Prop 2.5, but no one has mentioned at all the offset of the maintenance of the systems that are in place for the fire department if they wait another five years. I can't imagine that those costs will come down to continue to repair old equipment. So there also has to be an offset value on the operating side of the equation that I don't hear being factored in. I hear, and I'm glad to hear, that discussions are underway about additional maintenance to these facilities. But respectfully, the City of Medford does not do a good job at preventative maintenance anywhere. So our buildings wouldn't be in the conditions that they're in right now for fire and police, the two sides of these facilities. if we had the proper preventative maintenance in place. So instead, we're doing these emergency repairs and these Band-Aid solutions, and they cost significantly more. So I'd be interested in hearing that. Additionally, with respect to finance, we're talking about $18 million with respect to the fire department getting a new facility at some point. I'm hearing five or so years. The escalation right now for construction sits at about 5%, and it's upticking since 2009, 2010. It was in the negatives then. It started to tick back up. And it looks like it's increasing about a percent, a half a percent, depending upon the year. So five today, next year, five and a half to six, et cetera. And that doesn't include if the current administration under If President Trump passes anything to do with infrastructure, you're going to see those costs increase exponentially. So everyone's saying $18 million, but it's significantly more than that. So again, I think there's a lot of complexities, and I respect that there are a lot of underlying issues that need to be addressed. I think that also stresses the need to really look at this overall. The other point I would make with respect to committees and work groups, I think it's pivotal, and I'm glad to hear that the police will have representation among their membership as will fire. However, the mayor stood here last night and said it is potentially her intention to redevelop that property. So there should be some citizen represented on that committee as well, because if that parcel is going to go up for redevelopment, voters and taxpayers should have a say as well. And right now we don't have a good venue to be involved. We have some other committees that do a good job, but we don't have a citizen development committee. So if there are people at the table, there should be some folks that represent the general population to talk about who and how they may redevelop that lot if the fire department moves. And the last point I wanted to make with respect to financing and schedule, in all of these conversations these past few minutes, I've heard repeatedly about the architect. I've heard repeatedly about what construction's gonna be. I'm still not hearing anything about an OPM. And an OPM will be able to help you guys navigate will help to determine some value engineering and we'll put together that schedule you're looking for very quickly. So thank you for your time.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo. Move the question. We have citizens still willing to speak. Councilor.
[McKillop]: Name and address of the record, please. David McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. I just wanted to make a comment about the, um, cost of the dual facility. I heard $38 million for a dual facility, and I know it would take a couple of years, and then I heard that it would be $10 million to purchase property. My question is, is it up to $10 million? Because if you're moving the facility and going to another area, is it really $10 million to purchase a piece of property? And secondly, offsetting that cost, wouldn't you be redeveloping or selling the property that exists currently? So really, you're not looking at $38 million, I mean, $49 million. You're looking at something that's much, much lower than what's being presented. And you won't know that until there's a cost analysis done on either the property you're currently in or both properties, the one that you're considering or the property or the property that you're in right now and the property that you're considering. Cause it just might offset entirely and you're still back to the 38 million. So that's something to consider.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: When the clarification council, the administration's estimating 38 million if you stayed on site and then a potential up to 49 if we did not.
[McKillop]: So, right, correct. But if you did not and you went to another area, are you, are you seriously paying $10 million for a piece of property? And if so, is your property worth $10 million. So if your property is worth $5 million, wouldn't you purchase a piece of property worth $5 million? It would make sense. So you'd stay at the $38 million cost. That's number one. Number two, as far as the OPM, I've heard it a couple of times. Here's something that actually, if you read into this law, the Massachusetts law that was presented earlier, at the bottom of it, there is an addendum that basically clarifies the law allows a public agency to assign an existing employee to serve as its OPM provided that the designated employee meets or exceeds the minimum of qualifications set forth for retaining a private sector project manager and has experience in the construction and supervision of construction of building of similar size and scope of complexity as the project to which the existing employee would be assigned. I don't know if that helps you or not. But if you read into that, if there's somebody that is on board right now that has had that experience, you could probably bring them in as an interim until you find the OPM that you need to get this project going the way it should go. Because I think everybody in Medford would agree that this is something that is incredibly important. And we should have a state-of-the-art facility for both the firemen and the police. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I was wondering if someone from the administration can clarify. We were talking about the dates when we could get a possible headquarters. Does the headquarters and the training tower have to come on board at the same time, or can the training tower be something that can quickly be arrived at, knowing that the nature of building a training tower is far less of an endeavor than building a headquarters. Is that something that?
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, I'd be happy to address that because the discussion that I had with with the mayor of the members of the administration and Jeff Shaw in the course of the last few days, let's segregate out to what you consider to be the lesser of the two, obviously, which is the training tower that could be done separately from waiting for a new fire department that does not have to wait that period of time. So it's clear that that that While that will both be under the domain of the working group, that their recommendations on a training tower could easily and well precede their later recommendations, which I would presume would be later, on the fire headquarters slash station. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: And Mr. President, maybe Chief Gilberti can answer this question. Uh, we got, you know, we heard a lot tonight about the condition of the fire department. We know already the condition of the police department. Um, the fire department has a number of specialized equipment trucks. And if we're looking at a potential building in 2025 or 24, can you address chief the need for additional space? We know the deplorable condition of the station, but the needs of the equipment needs and space is equally as important. Can you address what's gonna happen over the next eight years relative to the equipment?
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: Are you asking me if we're gonna incorporate it into a new station, the additional space?
[Michael Marks]: No, the storage need. We know even with the police department now, and that's one of the reasons, in addition to the condition of the building, the fact that these buildings are no longer suitable because they lack the storage for our equipment. What's going to be done in the meantime? There's about a seven or eight year span.
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: Well, if we have no way to put, I mean, we have to live with what we have. Okay. We're as cramped as can be. I'm storing equipment outside today. So the plans are to continue to store equipment outside? Where else can I put it? I mean, that's what I'm asking you. Where else can I put it? We put as much as inside as we can.
[Michael Marks]: And we're losing storage when we lose the training academy, correct?
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: I will. I will lose two bays over there that we keep reserve equipment in. Yes. And the anticipation is that equipment is going to just be stored outside. No, no, we're going to have to find we're going to have to either auction off some equipment, some older equipment to make room.
[Michael Marks]: So there's really been no thought process in what we're going to do with this storage need? I mean, we haven't talked to DPW.
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: We haven't talked to even maybe- We have talked to the DPW. There's no room down at the DPW to store equipment. And that storage is all outside anyway. I can't store a fire engine outside in the wintertime.
[Michael Marks]: What about the private sector? Is it possible in some of the garages on Mystic Ave or Commercial Street?
[_ILL_rSpLCY_SPEAKER_00]: Oh, maybe that is a possibility, but we haven't explored that yet.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I think, Chief, the reason why I bring it up, I think it's an important issue because I think we're centered around the deplorable condition of the buildings, but equally we're moving forward because of the lack of storage within these both sides, police and fire. And that's equally an important issue. And as you know, we saw what happened to the DPW. They left there because their garages were leaking and so forth. They left their equipment outside. And vehicles that were purchased two or three years ago were becoming rusted and a whole other host of issues. And the last thing I want to see, even though our equipment needs some to desire in the fire department as well as the police department, I'd hate to see this equipment being stored outside, this precious equipment that we have. So I'd like to at least get some feedback on what are the plans over the next seven or eight years. Thank you, Chief. You're welcome.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Council President Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street, Medford, Massachusetts. I've said many times, if the city needs it, we should just get it done. What I don't understand is, however, the building's only 55 years old, it's brick and mortar, and now it's almost condemned. We have thousands of homes that are over 200 years old, and they seem to be in fine shape. How did this station or multiple buildings get to this situation? It seems like we have a maintenance problem for sure. Very sad. I'm now hearing the city's using new growth. We, the taxpayers, should get all that new growth. that new real estate tax to offset prop two and a half, or in this city it seems to be prop 2.49%, and give the middle class a break on the real estate, home real estate taxes. And now I'm here and talking about an override. It's never happened as far as I know in 02155, Winchester, has had many prop two and a half overrides. But here, I don't think that would be a wise move against the real estate taxpayer. And I believe for every $20 million borrowed, it's gonna cost us, the taxpayers, 50% more. It would be a $3 million bill in the 20-year payback. By the way, maintenance is still key. If anything is done, If I was in charge, I would make damn sure that so much is put aside for maintenance. Because the old high school on Forest Street will still be standing, and the new schools will turn to dust. Please adhere. Thank you for listening.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Mr. Pinter, I think you cut in front of that young lady. No, we agreed.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, okay. Name and address of the record, please. I wouldn't be that rude. Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening. My name is Robert Pinter. I live at Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass., a former member of the Saugus party. I have some concerns as it relates to whatever this agreement might be between the city and the fire department. And the one glaring thing that stands out with me is that the mayor is going to appoint a committee of fire personnel to work as it relates to a new fire station or whatever it might be. Why didn't that take place for the police department? If she's so concerned about the fire department, it's obvious that then she was less concerned about the police department. And it's quite obvious by this particular writing here. And it's more obvious because of the fact that no one from rank and file of the police union were part and parcel of where we're going with all of this. Second thing, as it relates to the location or relocation possibly of a new fire station, the chief is here. He can answer for himself. But last night, he indicated that the present location is the best place for the fire location here in the city of Medford for its headquarters. So we take that into consideration because the talk seems to be supposedly getting a new fire station at a new location at a later time. And then we go to point number four where the mayor says she's going to submit a loan order no later than the 2019 fiscal year. That brings you up to May of June of 2020, no later than that. But all you're going to be getting is allegedly a proposal for one, a new station. And number two, you know, maybe what the cost is going to be. There's no proviso in here as it's going to relate to how it's going to be paid for, whether it's going to be the Medford taxpayer, because we know right now there's no grants. She's still looking for grants, as she said last night, she's on the hunt. And in some places there's no grants to be found. So you're looking at Mr. And Mrs. Medford taxpayer who seems to be the person that's going to be paying it. So I think you have some financial concerns that really need to be taken into consideration. Nothing that's been discussed right now is an obligation of the city. It's approximate $28 million pension deficit. You folks haven't mentioned that yet. And there's no upticking on paying that down at a faster rate because the interest rates keep going higher. The other night there was a contract, excuse me, there was a meeting as it relates to a multi-million dollar refurbishing of Medford High School. It's going to cost factor that's going to have to come in. Most recently, this council voted on, and excitedly, for the Medford Library and a $20 million bond. And if that comes through, there's a 40% payback on the city side. These are things that really have to be taken into consideration. And you, President Caraviello, in your first term, on the second year of your first term, you introduced a document that talked about $1.3 million of necessary repairs on the six new schools. That's up to almost a million point five right now. This city has a bad history of taking care of its buildings. The private administration ignored all these buildings. This city council is now being faced with altogether, all at once, a whole host of issues. It's obvious that the priorities have not been set. But the priorities of this particular mayor, her little baby, being this police department thing, and now with the fire department thrown in, she should be here discussing this and making her plea with you folks. This is totally unfair. You folks have never had an opportunity to discuss this issue, never mind the location, never mind the 35,000 square foot building, never mind a three-story building, never mind the fact that if you put a combined operation there, according to Dunn and Sweeney, it won't even fit today's standards. And if you look at the 600 plus pages of the report, it alludes to the fact that even if you were to build a new police station and leave the fire station alone, What you're going to have is you're going to have mechanical problems that also will have code problems that will not bone up for the next 20 years. And that's going to be a cost factor to take into consideration. If you're talking about a possible 10 to 18 month period or 10 to 12 month period for a designer to come in and an OPM person hired first, everyone keeps forgetting to say that. The OPM needs to be hired first. Once you put that together, Why wait and do an 18-month period? Why can't you do both at the same time? And if you do both at the same time, maybe you can work out a process that basically says you can build this station in increments. as it relates to building a new police station, and then working on the fire station. Because we all know on the fire station side of the building, the building is probably in better shape and in better condition than the police side. But who's to say it isn't, because nobody's gone through there, and Councilor Longo hit it right in the head, maybe you should go in there and have any equality. Maybe that building should be reviewed for its aesthetic qualities, and whatever it might be. You know, running around not having any money from the outside, and only dealing with approximately $9 million in your free cash, That doesn't leave an awful lot, because then we can talk about your almost $8 million that you have in your water and sewer account, for which Mr. and Mrs. Medford taxpayer has been paying for, and a surplus just sits there, and there is no ongoing proposed work. And you're hitting the taxpayers with that money. You're also hitting the taxpayer with the CPA, the Community Preservation Act, which in effect is almost $1 million plus you're taking away from the taxpayers, and there is no known program for it. So how much can you keep going back to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer and say to them, we're charging you for this, this is what the cost is going to be, and readily acknowledge by our own treasurer the fact that the matter is there's going to be some deficit mode as you continue to go forward that's going to have to be offset. Who's going to pay for it? Do you really want to tell the taxpayer you need a Proposition 2.5 override? Do you really want to sell that? And if everything comes before you, Mr. President, before your council, Okay? Where's the conversation as it relates to that? Where's the priority going to be? Is it going to be the high school? Is it going to be the library? Is it going to be the police department? Is it going to be the fire station? The fire chief made an excellent point, something I never even thought of, and thank you for bringing it up. Talking about storage. If you can't even store what you have on the property that you have right now, where in God's creation are you gonna put that? He said possibly auctioning it off, two bays you're gonna possibly be losing. You talked about regionalization the other night. The mayor readily said that we could possibly go to regionalization. And I believe we heard the fire department indicate and say to you that if we did go to regionalization and we did take one of our trucks and a group of our guys to go there and to do whatever it might takes place at one of these fire academies, so to speak, There needs to be a backup here in this city. And where's the backup to the backup in the city? God forbid there's a major fire that takes place. These are things that haven't been discussed. That's what you folks should be discussing before you rush into this thing and say we want to go forward. There is nobody, not one person in this room that would be against a fire in a police station. I don't think there's anybody. We'd all be crazy if there was one person. We all recognize the fact that the need is there, but we also recognize the fact that the city has been extremely diligent and not maintaining its buildings. But there needs to be a priority that's set. There has to be a goal set here, and there has to be a timeline met. And if it's 2022 that was stated last night, now it's up to 2024 before you start to be making these paybacks, what's the cost going to be as it relates to the new station? Mr. McCulloch made an excellent point. And the point is simply this. If you have to buy another piece of property for $10 million, is the at-present property worth $10 million? Are thereabouts? And if it isn't, but it comes close to it, and between the sale and the taxes that it generates, it offsets the cost of where you might be going. These are things. And I thank you folks. I think it was you, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, who asked to maybe go into executive session to find out who are these other people that the city sat down and spoke with as it relates to possibly moving it around. You seem to forget one thing as it relates to where the public works department is, because we can't put any equipment in there. But the new public works building was being discussed. What was discussed before this council was building something that could be oversized, not only to handle public works, but to handle our other buildings, whether it be our fire trucks, our police cars, and whatever it might be. And there was a pushback by the then administration. Why was there a pushback? I don't know. And there was also a thought process that told us we could just wrap the whole thing around public works, fire, and police. And all you would be doing is asking and moving people that are presently there without taking their property, moving their property, so nobody would lose any space. As a matter of fact, they'd probably have better space, they'd have front view space, but you'd still have the availability of a fire department that's right there in the middle of the square. Police department, maybe move back a little bit one way or the other, but they can get around with their cars a lot quicker than a fire truck could. I don't think you should make a mistake by saying, no, we're not going to vote for this, or yes, we're going to vote for that. It's the process. And once again, the process has been broken down. It's been broken down because there's been no communication, a lack of leadership from the mayor's office with this council. And all you folks are being required to do is to vote for this thing up and down with absolutely not an ounce of input. And today is another perfect example of what took place. If the fire department can meet with the mayor to get this resolution between themselves, then why wasn't the council involved before or after? And who's to say that this mayor is going to be here in 18 months? That's the question. And that's what you need to ask yourself. So why are you going out on 18 months when in fact, if you're going to be doing this thing for a police department, why don't you do it for a fire department at the same time? That way they'll have a better understanding and a better acknowledgement to the fact where the fire and police can be housed together like they were in 1962 and like the report said. That report of multiple pages from Dunham and Sweeney going back to 2013 is probably the best example that you can have to tell you and to show you why a dual building should work. But if not, and you decide to go separately in a separate way, that generates and should generate positive discussion. And one last thing for Mr. Falco, Councilor Falco, when you talked about that training tower, while it seems to be something that, you know, it's going to be there, it might cost $500,000, But where in the city is it going to be? And you don't want that to be regionalized. Because if you want that regionalized, you're taking firefighters out of service, out of our community. You're taking a truck out of our service, out of our community. You're putting backup there, and there's nobody there for the backup. And that's the problem that we're going to have. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Joyce Paul]: Joyce Paul, 8 Mason Street, Medford. Um, I'm not here to criticize. I'm just here to express my opinion, my concern, and some amazement. We all understand that we have major decisions to be made and, uh, that major money is involved. I was a contracting officer for the federal government for 22 years. I dealt with from the architectural services to the completion of the building. I dealt with the new federal courthouse at Springfield, border stations, the Coast Guard building. And I feel every time I come here and I listen to what goes on, we don't understand, we have misinformation, we have lots of questions, and it's very difficult for me to understand why things are happening with the mayor, if you will, offside, and why you people most especially are being excluded. We hired you, voted for you, in essence hired you to represent us. And it seems like it is very unfair the way you are being treated. And when you are being asked to, two weeks ago or last week, I was watching it on television, it was like, $2 million. You know, $2 million, like it's nothing. Property taxes have gone up, I think, 35 years in a row. And now, as I understood it, we definitely need the police station. We've needed it for like 20 years. All of a sudden, out of nowhere comes, we need the fire station. Well, I'm not disagreeing. But yikes, every time you turn around, there's this or that. Then the mayor has some kind of meeting. and something happens and the communication to me is just awful. And when you are being expected to vote on things, this is not the way things should be handled. The federal government wanted open, found that open government worked. And I would suggest that we need some of that in Medford, because we, the taxpayers, are going to pay for this. And we'd like it to work. And you are being held responsible for things that I think it's just very poorly very poor management, and I don't blame you. I just think there's all this cloak and dagger stuff going on that's really not right, and it's really not fair. So I hope things get better for you, because I hope things get better for us, and things get a little bit better organized.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Joyce Paul]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to go back to Mr. Petra's point about the regionalization of the tower. I'm not in favor of regionalizing the tower. The questions I had last night were just basically, what are the disadvantages of regionalizing the tower? That was it, but I want to keep the tower here. I think it's advantageous to us.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think our tower is the regional tower.
[John Falco]: Yeah, and it benefits our firefighters, so I mean, I want to keep the tower here. I just want to make that clear.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, as seconded by Councilor Knight. Name and address of the record, please.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_24]: Bill O'Brien, present local 1032, office of 340 Salem Street. Councilor Marks, I just wanted to clarify something or have something clarified, is that you had a very good question of when the fire when the fire headquarters could be built. And I think that, you know, that wasn't the agreement that we, we worked out was that we're looking down the road for five years and not 2025 for a new fire station. Um, and if the, if the treasurer can have that information, I believe what our understanding was we could go out to bond, um, and have a fire station in the city by 2023 it's physically, it's financially possible. Am I correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: If I may, yes. I think that there is a little sort of misunderstanding with regard to debt service versus ability to bond and start projects. And so that does need to be clarified that I do believe that we would be able to have a fire station certainly underway. And I can't say when it would be completed, but 2023 would certainly be what was in the what was being planned, I would, I would think five years out and a debt service payment would be in 2025. So everyone's on the same page on that.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: And that's precisely why I asked for, for a timeframe because I wasn't privy to the meeting this afternoon between the union and the mayor, but it's clear to me that they weren't on the same page. Uh, because from what I heard tonight, We're looking at more of 2024. But needless to say, Mr. President, you know, to get everything lined up and to make sure that we're working on a process now where one didn't exist the last two weeks is extremely important if we're going to move forward. So I think it's vital, Mr. President, that we get some type of timeline from the administration on this on this issue. So I don't know if you know, I'm prepared to make a vote tonight. I'll be quite frank, I am not happy, Mr. President, with the results that took place after today's meeting. I still feel strongly that a combined center is the fiscally prudent thing to do for this community. According to the $100,000 report, that we commissioned for feasibility study back in 2013 from Dunham and Sweeney for the Medford Police and Fire Station. They recommended a combined center. Also, the mayor's transition team that was put together by Mayor Burke, the Business and Economic Development Committee, held countless meetings, met with the general public, and their recommendation was to sell the land and build a combined center somewhere else. So clearly, Mr. President, we have not taken the recommendations of the mayor's transition team, and we have not taken the recommendations of $100,000 study that we commissioned, and we went off in a different direction, and with very little fanfare, very little input. So I am not happy, but again, as I told the union reps today that contacted me, I will not stand in the way, Mr. President, but I think clearly for everyone's sake, for the unions, for the taxpayers of this community, and for this council that we should have a timeline on this project. I can't state it enough, Mr. President, because I don't want tomorrow for the union to pick up the phone and say, you know what, we didn't realize this was going to take place because you know, if we vote on a first reading tonight, there's no, there's no going back.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_24]: We understand that councilor. And we did talk, we talked at length about a timeline and it's spelled out. Now we can't, We can't predict about, you know, this fire personnel, the working group of fire personnel will be prepared in 18 months to make a recommendation to the mayor of where a new fire headquarters will go. We will be ready in 18 months. That's our timeline going forward. After the 18 months, by fiscal year 19, which starts, fiscal year starts July 1st of 2020. 18. So anytime between that, we're looking to have this council vote on a bond for an architectural services. That's what we're looking for with assurances from this administration that once we're done, do this and we're moving forward with the new fire headquarters. That's, I can't predict month to month, you know, week to week or what goes on. And I, and I agree with you and make sure you guys know what's happening. I agree with your Councilor and And from what, you know, we're going to, we sat down and we talked to the administration and we're hoping that, you know, going forward, they're going to hold up their rent because we're going to make sure they hold up their rent.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lococoon.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I'll yield.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street in Medford. So I've heard a lot of people talking about the combined facility would be $38 million. We heard at the debates that they got $10 million in Malden for their police station, and that this administration didn't apply for any because of time restrictions. But if they had gotten $10 million for the facility, that would have brought our costs down to $28 million, which would be only $6 million more than they were talking about for just building a police station. when we still have a fire station that will be looming over our heads waiting. Do we have any assurances that there'll be time to file for grants for the fire station or are we just going to pay full price for that one too? Because I heard that they're very concerned about us as taxpayers having to shoulder these bills. I haven't heard of any grant applications going out to help us to offset these bills. I've seen grants for libraries. I've seen grants for renovating sidewalks. Yes, we're renovating sidewalks at a cost to the taxpayer of a quarter of a million dollars. So I would encourage, strongly encourage, and I hope that other people do encourage the administration to go after these grants because we just left $10 million on the table for the police station at a minimum. Perhaps there were more grants if we combined a police and fire station. And we could be having a ribbon cutting or a shoveling for a combined police and fire station.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Rodriguez, can I ask you where this $10 million grant was?
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: When we had the debates, there was a Malden city councilor who was overseeing it at the high school. That was in Malden. And he said that in Malden, they got $9.8 million for their police station. So we know that the mayor is aware of these grants because she was present at the stage and clapped vigorously at the grants that he received. And I would have assumed that a phone call to the mayor would have yielded details. I'm not the mayor. Had I made the phone call, it wouldn't have had any effect on this process. I'm more than happy to make the phone call and call the mayor's office and let her know what the grants are. But What we need to do now is since we're clearly going to go forward on just a police station, before the fire tower is knocked down, a new location should be picked for that fire tower. Money should be allocated for that fire tower. The firefighters should be confident that in conjunction with their tower being torn down, a new one will be placed. They shouldn't wait until 2023 or 2024. or 2022 or whenever to get their tower. They should get their tower immediately because as we're told, our insurance rates will go up if they don't have a tower because they'll not be able to do training here. And we also need to figure out where they're going to store their equipment because the very idea of the police, the fire chief thinking that he has to auction off equipment because he has nowhere to store it is chilling and upsetting to me as a taxpayer. And I, I saw the reaction on some of the councilors' faces, and it was upsetting to them as well. And that's something that would have been addressed had these meetings not taken place behind closed doors with a handful of people who all nodded in unison because they agreed with what was happening. We need diverse voices at the table so that multiple layered conversations can take place. And these things don't come upon us at the last minute. So I encourage the administration to invite people to the table who will give her different ideas, and not just ideas that agree with hers. That's very important to any administration, and I encourage a future administration in Medford to do the same. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. And I know the administration did state that they are looking for grants, both the federal and state level. Councilor Longo-Chagran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I think I stated two weeks ago, this is probably the worst way anything's ever been proposed with regards to a grant. a bond in 16 years I've been on the council. I think the right way to do it is exactly what's written in the memo today, dated February 28th, where a working group will be set up and it will take 18 months to assess and figure out the best location and figure out everything that's going to be needed for a new fire station. That's the proper way to do business and that's what should have been done nine months ago. It should have been open and transparent. I'm having a tough time knowing, really, the position we were put in. It's extremely tough to make a decision. The lack of transparency, lack of communication, closed-door discussions, I feel like this is being shoved down our throat. truly feel that a dual facility is going to be the most fiscally responsible way to go. And I think that has to take place after a few months of multiple, multiple working groups to figure out, number one, a working group to research grants. The mayor stated yesterday that she's been in discussions with, I believe, Representative Donato, Catherine Clark, but what time has been put into finding a grant, and are there grants out there for a dual facility? That needs to come first. For the taxpayers, we're under a lot of pressure tonight, one way or another. We're the ones that are trying to figure out the best way to go here, and it is very upsetting how much we need a new police station, and obviously now know the concerns of the fire station, and this is still being pushed down our throat. I don't know how I will vote if the questions move forward, but I think three months of multiple working groups, that be it the fire department, the police department, the administration, with the city council, with the people, with the taxpayers and the citizens of this community, I believe if everybody puts their heads together, we can figure out a way to rule out or continue on with a dual facility. In a few months after cost analysis are done. Mr. McKillop is exactly right. What are the cost analysis? We don't have any. We were given five days before we could even ask any questions and we were asked to vote on it. Now, thankfully, we've got two weeks, we've got some breakdowns, we've got some questions answered. We still don't know. I think it was Councilor Scarpelli last night that asked What other locations were looked at? We can't be told until those property owners are discussed. That's something we should know before we take this vote. And I know it's not what the police department wants to hear, nor should they have to hear it, because it has been too long. But that's the truth. That's the way this council should be moving forward for the benefit of the whole community and what is right. and for us to be completely 100% educated on a financial decision that is gonna impact us for 30 to 39 years that our children will be paying for. So I'm gonna move that we take three months to create multiple working groups and we get started tomorrow to figure out the right way to do this.
[Leo Sacco]: Chief. Mr. President, Leo Sacco, Chief of Police. I just want to make a couple of comments, so basically one major comment with regard to the grants. Everyone's talking about all the grants that are out there. I can tell you that I've been chief now a little over 26 years, and a couple of weeks ago I told you for the past 20 years we needed a police station. I can tell you at least once a week I've been scouring different areas looking for grants. No money was left on the table. There has been no money, whether at the federal level or the state level, for brick and mortar construction, absolutely nothing, because they believe that's a local issue that should be dealt with locally. Malden, to the best of my understanding, received money because they relocated their police station to Eastern Avenue, the further end of the city. And it's, I guess it's labeled as a redevelopment zone. So they receive redevelopment money for that. We don't have such an area, or at least I don't think we have such an area in our city, but I don't want anyone, people have come up to the podium and talked about grants and money left on the table. I don't want the public to think that the city of Medford was negligent and not looking for funding sources because if it was out there, we would have nailed it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Ladies in the back, please have respect for the chief on the podium. Thank you.
[Leo Sacco]: That's all I wanted to say. I just want to make sure the record is straight. We have looked for grants for the, at least the past 20 years for a police station, either through block grants or through federal government, through the state and to private entities for grants. There has been nothing out there. So no money was left behind. If there was, if it was out there, we would have been looking for it. Thank you, chief.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo is seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk. Councilor Dello Russo has made the first motion.
[2hZdDePQb_Y_SPEAKER_19]: It's a financial paper.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you could, Mr. Clerk, if you could make that as a B paper. We already have one B paper you gave already about the mold. Make this a C paper. You take a three month study group, is that correct? Multiple working groups. On the C paper, all those in favor? All those opposed? Roll call vote has been requested. C paper is for the three month work study group, Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. It would be a, a work-study group of police and fire officials and its residents to determine location, finances of all the police and fire stations. Is that correct, Councilor Lohengrin?
[Unidentified]: Multiple options, yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: And all the options available.
[Unidentified]: Analysis to figure out where we're gonna store our equipment, where will the Calabasas be confined.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Clay, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor McCurdy? Yes. Vice President Montz? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. On the B paper, that the city do a mold study in the fire station? Mold and air quality in the fire station. All those in favor? All in favor? None. Motion passes.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. I'm of a motion, but I did ask several times that we have a project timeline for both the police and the fire station. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: If we could take a vote on that too, Mr. President. That'll be a separate paper.
[Michael Marks]: That's fine.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's fine. On the motion by Councilor Marks that we have a timeline, Project timeline. For both fire and police. For both fire and police. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. On Councilor Dello Russo's motion that is take the first reading, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. If I may. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I have these interruptions, Mr. President. Oh, you interrupt all the time. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. The C paper, I believe they kind of The seat paper and the main motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: They are kind of contradictory.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, they are. Contradictory. So maybe we can have a little discussion. I would move to table. Well, no discussion if I table it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Table what? The bond motion?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, I'm tabling that.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think we've already tabled it once. I don't think it is tabled two weeks ago.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: You can table it any time. You can't section 22 it.
[Richard Caraviello]: I don't know if we can table that. Sure you can. Sure you can. Of course. Let me table it for a second time.
[Michael Marks]: Third, fourth, fifth time.
[Richard Caraviello]: Sure you can. Floor, Madam Presidents.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I move to table.
[Mark Rumley]: Mr. President, if you will, a section 22 can only be invoked once. That's under the mass general law, section 22 of chapter 43. The motion to table is separate from a request for it to invoke section 22. And a motion for table would require the acquiescence of the council. Although the ruling is the chairs, but that is the back.
[Richard Caraviello]: On council, council member occurrence motion to table, Seconded by.
[Michael Marks]: What's the reasoning for the table? Just a second.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think it contradicts to paper C. If we're going to explore, create working groups to explore dual facility and different locations and get cost analysis, wouldn't it be contradictory to approving the bond?
[Richard Caraviello]: One is a resolution and one is a bond order. The resolution would go to the mayor.
[Michael Marks]: Right, so why can't we do both together? Why can't we do both together?
[Richard Caraviello]: Because they're contradictory.
[Michael Marks]: It's not contradictory. They're creating a working group while the process is going on. I don't see that as contradictory.
[Richard Caraviello]: On Councilor Langoukian's motion to table. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Councilor Martz. All those in favor?
[Clerk]: The chair seems to be in doubt.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, if you could please call the roll.
[Richard Caraviello]: Two in the affirmative, five in the negative. Motion fails. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo and seconded by any for the main motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll for the law and order.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, please. You did not get into the roll call vote.
[Michael Marks]: He can speak as many times as he wants.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, you just don't like me, so that's your problem, Councilor Dello Russo. The people out there have elected you people. We're voting on the motion. On your motion, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: We are voting on the motion.
[Robert Penta]: On the motion, but apparently, as Councilor Longo-Kearns alluded to, it is contradictory to the point number C. Councilor Longo-Kearns is a resolution that will go to the mayor's office.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay? That will go to the mayor's office, which the mayor can decide to accept or decline.
[Robert Penta]: It's the mayor's, it's not the mayor's privilege, it's the council's privilege. It's your prerogative, not the mayor's.
[Richard Caraviello]: We are voting on the loan order right at the moment.
[Robert Penta]: On the loan order in and of itself. It's your prerogative, not prerogative, not the mayor's prerogative. And you've already voted on point number C, which is contradictory to the main motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: We are voting on the loan order, Councilor Penta. I think you better. Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo and seconded by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. To take its first reading.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Allen-Curran?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice-President Marks?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scott-Bell? Yes. Vice-President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. The paper will take its first reading. Thank you. Suspension by Councilor Knight. This paper is eligible for its third reading this evening, which is the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Education, Chapter 26. Mr. Clerk, do we have a second on Councilor Knight's motion? Second. Seconded by Councilor Falco.
[Michael Marks]: We'll wait for the audience to clear out, Mr. President.
[Leo Sacco]: Mr. President, I just wanted to say thank you to all the council members for your support. I know that it's been a long grind, but you've always been supportive of what we needed in the police station. I wanna say thank you for that. I wanna thank the mayor for her efforts and her staff for all the work that they've done in making this possible. But one group I have to note is the police officers, the patrol officers and the superiors. They made this a front burner item and they kept it there and they deserve a lot of credit for it. That's like we heard the other night about a home, that's their home. So again, thank you and I wanna thank all of them as well, thanks.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah. We got one more question, Mr. President.
[Eddie Buckley]: Walter Buckley, Vice President, Local 1032, 340 Salem Street. I just want to thank the councilors that were in favor of at least taking the two weeks to consider and answer some questions that we had. Unfortunately, it didn't come out in our favor tonight, but we want to thank you who put the time and effort into answering our questions. And that's all I got.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. 15, 16, 5, 7, 4, as offered by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Falco, that it take its third reading this evening. Roll call. Roll call, Mr. Clerk. Sorry? Move approval. Move approval. Roll call vote. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Maybe for the edification of the audience, they don't really know what this paper is about. You want to give a brief synopsis? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: This paper is in regards to Tufts University notifying the city of Medford of all their students that are living in the city. And the address is and how many people are living in each apartment. So if there are any code violations that our code enforcement officer will be able to rectify them so we don't have any further tragedies going forward like we had seven years ago.
[Michael Marks]: Well said, Mr. President. If I could, I wanna thank the Ad Hoc Education Committee. I think it was chaired by Councilor Falco, Councilor Cohen, and Councilor Scarpelli. They did yeoman's work in an issue that's been lingering in this community for a number of years, and one that has an impact on neighborhoods that abut, in particular, Tufts University, and the issues that are involved, Mr. President. This is not gonna solve all the issues, but as was mentioned in the subcommittee meeting, it's gonna be another tool in the toolbox to allow our code enforcement officers to be proactive in some cases and reactive in other cases. So I see this as a good step forward. As I stated at the meeting, Mr. President, I think we need something citywide. And this is an issue that impacts every segment of this community. We have illegal basement apartments, illegal attic apartments, and at some point, it's a quality of life issue in all our neighborhoods. So I'm thankful of the subcommittee's work on this. I'm thankful for the neighbors that showed up at each of the meetings. to express their opinions on this very issue, Mr. President, and I'm thankful that we now have a tool like Somerville in Boston that will allow us to not only safeguard neighborhoods and the quality of life in a neighborhood, but also, Mr. President, safeguard the students that are living within these apartments, Mr. President, that landlords don't have any care regarding the number of people they're trying to cram into an apartment. So I look forward to the implementation of this and eventual use as an effective tool for the neighbors of Salt Method in the Hillside area. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. I'll be very brief. I just want to thank my subcommittee members as well and the committee as a whole because at some point this did go to committee as a whole as well and there were a lot of great questions that were asked And just thank the city solicitor Romley and John Babuso, our code enforcement officer as well. But also to thank the neighbors that showed up to the meetings, that attended the meetings, and that there are some neighbors that are here tonight that just want to. assure that this gets through, and I'm confident that it will. And I think that, like Councilor Mark said, this is another tool that the Code Enforcement Officer has to keep our neighborhoods safe.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, I think it's also important to point out the work of Barbara Rubel and Rocco DiRico and their work with the Council in ensuring that this is an ordinance that is going to be operational. So I'd like to thank the work of the Tufts University Community Affairs Office, especially Mr. DeRico, who's here in the audience this evening.
[Richard Caraviello]: A lot of work was done by a lot of people on this very good mission. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Nett? Yes. Councilor Carter? Yes. Vice-President Marks. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative. Motion passes. Motion by Councilor Knight to revert back to regular business. 17085 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council be updated with regards to how the plans for the potential new police station were presented to the public last week and how they were paid for. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Some of these questions were answered last night during our committee of the whole meeting. It looks like Donovan Sweeney was paid $150 an hour. They estimated less than $10,000 has been spent for their services thus far. So if we could just get, the only question now that needs to be answered is where did that $10,000, what account or which line item did that $10,000 come from?
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, on the motion by, Councilor Lococo that we find out where the $10,000 came from. Do we have a second? Seconded by Councilor Marks. All those in favor?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Aye.
[Richard Caraviello]: All those opposed? Aye. Motion passes. 17-088 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request MassDOT take the appropriate steps to have the graffiti at Roosevelt Circle removed. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Apparently this quarter it's my turn to bring this resolution forward. I think one of us at one time or another have taken the opportunity to bring this resolution forward and request that the Massachusetts Highway Department, MassDOT, come down and beautify the retaining wall along Roosevelt Circle, which is right now plagued with very pretty pink graffiti. So Mr. President, I'd ask that my council colleagues support me in sending a correspondence to MassDOT requesting that that issue be resolved.
[Richard Caraviello]: And if we could maybe send it to Councilor, Representative Donato, that is his district, for his help. Seconded by Councilor Alango Kern. Name and address for the record.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Castagnetti, Cushing Street. Thank you, Councilor Knight, for bringing up graffiti. Sometimes it is a problem, visually to the eyes. On the other hand, it's more important that the state, whoever's in charge, around that circle, near 93, getting on and off going up towards our rights pond. That area, a lot of times, is overgrown with kind of like trees that are wild. And it's a visual obstruction to the drivers. And that's not an easy place to negotiate vehicles back and forth. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I'd like to amend the paper and request that the Massachusetts Highway Department submit to the Medford City Council a maintenance schedule for the area. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Do we have a second on Councilor Knight's motion? Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Motion passes. 17-089 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the city solicitor provide an opinion as to what steps are required to make Linden Street a through way. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. As the council and the subcommittee on zoning and ordinances begins its discussion on zoning, one of the concerns that's been raised is the number of commercial and industrial parcels that are coming off the rolls with residential development and the city's future ability to provide an equitable tax shift from the residential tax burden to the commercial and industrial properties, Mr. President. So with that being said, there are certain streets in the vicinity of large commercial developments, such as the Meadowglen Mall, Linden Street being one, that is a dead-end street that abuts the private property of the Meadowglen Mall site. And I'm asking the city solicitor, with the support of this council, hopefully, To provide us with an opinion as to what steps are required to make Linden Street a thruway for the purpose of future examination of developing a strong commercial or industrial based district down there for tax revenues purposes, Mr. President. We've talked with some of the neighbors in the area, some of the residents and property owners on the street, and it's something that they've expressed concern about for a number of years in terms of making Linden Street a thruway. Also, currently, at the present time, there is a construction fence that is up at the end of the dead-end roadway, Mr. President. And in previous years past, due to the involvement and efforts of Fire Chief McCabe at the time, there was a breakaway fence that was put there for public safety purposes so that if there was ever a situation where fire trucks could not enter Linden Street from the Riverside Ave side of the property, they would be able to do so through the abutting property of Meadowland Mall, Mr. President. So I'd ask that this paper be approved. I'd ask my council colleagues to support it. And as we move forward, I look forward to updating you with any information that we receive. Council Member O'Karn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. President Caraviello, I don't mind getting an opinion on this. I just do want to point out there are neighbors that have reached out to me within the last week, curious why this was on. And they're, you know, I don't know if they're necessarily opposed to it, but they had very grave concerns of opening up Linden Street. I just wanted to point that out, and an opinion is fine, but whether or not we do it, I definitely think it's something that we need to get that whole neighborhood involved with before we move forward on anything.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Nice. I'd certainly make myself readily available to any constituent that has a question about a piece of paper or legislation that I've put forward, so they're always more than welcome to contact me directly as well, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Nice, as seconded by Councilor Falco, all those in favor. The motion is. Be it resolved that the city solicitor provide an opinion as to what steps are required to make Linden Street a through way. There's currently a gate at the end because it will go on to private property. There's a fire gate, which the fire department has the keys to.
[Michael Marks]: And we're looking for the city solicitor to render an opinion?
[Richard Caraviello]: Whether that gate can come down and that public street can go on to private property. We're not asking for the answer. No, we're just asking for an opinion. An opinion. Yes. On the motion by Councilor Knight, a seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 17-090 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request a cost estimate for the repointing of the wall and replacement of the wrought iron gates at Royal Park. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. It's been brought to my attention that the gates down at Royal Park were removed. And the reason that they were removed was because for a number of years they were not being utilized as open and closed as often as they have been in recent past. The infrastructure wasn't able to sustain the ongoing use. I believe the gates were put up sometime in the 20s, according to some of the research that Mr. Lincoln and the Friends of the Royal House and the Slave Quarters have done. So with that being said, Mr. President, they're ornate gates that did serve a purpose. I feel as though it's something that should go back up. I feel as though the rotating wall surrounding Royal Park is in disrepair at this point in time. And a cost estimate as to what it would take to repoint the brick wall and put up the wrought iron gates is the subject matter of this resolution.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Falco. I'll yield to Mr. Lincoln. Councilor Fackl, we yield to the gentleman at the podium.
[Tom Lincoln]: Thank you, Tom Lincoln. I'm the executive director of the Royal House and Slave Quarters at 15 George Street. We've been a neighbor of the park for well over 100 years. It wasn't there then, but sometimes it feels like it. In fact, I believe the park was actually either given or sold to the city of Medford in the 1920s as part of the royal estate. We get a lot of visitors from out of town that come to Medford to visit the Royal House and Slave Quarters. I had a few comments about the state of the gates in the park, and we'd certainly like to see this done. And we greatly appreciate Councilor Knight's resolution along these lines. You may recall, just as a piece of this, that there was an auto accident on the main street side of the park sometime in the last 10 years, I would guess, which caused a lot of damage. And that was repaired. But the masonry, including the low base of some of the wall, on the George Street side is not in good shape. In addition, we share a common border, a common boundary with the park, a mixed masonry and historic wooden fence. And we've actually had some discussion previously with the DPW and the city about working on that, which we intend to revisit. We'd be delighted as neighbors sort of historic co-owners, shall we say, to see some progress on this. I'm sure the gates, I assume the gates have been stored someplace and could be put up, but I had not realized that the estate of the masonry was the main reason that they were removed. So thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Lincoln, if I can ask you a quick question, just because while we're on the topic of the Royal House, you know, it's a historic, It's something that people drive by and it's part of Medford and it's been here for hundreds of years. But if you drive by at night, you never know who's there. So my question is, has there ever been lighting in the front? Because I don't know if there has. Is there any thought of actually reinstalling lighting or putting lighting in so people can see it at night?
[Tom Lincoln]: Yeah. I know this question was raised earlier, and I think I sent a letter to the council about it. I think Jay Griffin actually was here about it a few weeks ago. Is that possible? At one time, we had what's called architectural lighting on our property to light up the facade of the main building. There was also a light on the slave quarters. On the slave quarters, we provided other lighting, more like security lighting. In fact, we have another problem with the lantern actually on George Street. Some of this conduit, et cetera, was installed many, many years ago. Since that time, the lighting failed on the facade, but in this period, the whole practice for historic monuments, like National Historic Landmarks, which this is, which is the highest category of historic protection in the United States have changed, the technology has changed. At this point, we don't feel we can, two things, we're struggling with, struggling is too strong a word, we're debating about what to do, if anything, on that. Of course, the building is set way back from the Main Street side. And so that you need a lot of lighting. And, you know, the cost of that, the aesthetics, There's some debate. One of the co-presidents, Peter Gittleman of the Royal House Board, actually manages 36 buildings for Historic New England. They have the Otis House downtown, and they've had a lot of issues involving architectural lighting, and I think that's become, it's an issue in the rather rarefied world of historic properties. We've made other improvements on the ground. If you haven't been there for a while, the front entrance has been, we've added an accessible pathway, repaved a long section from the sidewalk up to the slave quarters entrance, and we've done other work on the grounds. It's often said in the historic preservation business, at least with 18th century buildings, these buildings are almost 300 years old at this point, that you might be better off digging a hole in the ground and shoveling $100 bills in terms of the costs of maintenance. But rest assured, it's something that we're thinking about. It's not my decision. I'm merely the administrator in terms of further lighting there.
[John Falco]: Do you know if, has anybody taken a look at what that would cost?
[Tom Lincoln]: We don't have a cost estimate. We've been playing catch-up ball. We redid the decorative fence last year. We need to work on the fence between the royal house and the park, as I mentioned. We've replaced two restrooms. We've done a lot of plumbing, a lot of electrical upgrade. Construction in old buildings with these very high standards is very expensive. So I don't have an estimate. It would involve a new conduit. And then the tricky part, as I understand it, and I'm no expert on technology, is what kind of lights, how far away they are, what they get you in efficiency. The lights we had there were the low sodium, which are incredibly inefficient. And in fact, the bulbs are like $75 now, and they don't last long. But the problem is that the conduit is shot, so there's not even any power. So it's on the list. We have a fairly long list of interior and exterior maintenance and restoration items. OK.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you for your hard work.
[Richard Caraviello]: Appreciate it. Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Nunez, seconded by Councilor Powell. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Motion to take hands of the clerk. 170094. Be it resolved, offered by President Caraviello, be it resolved that the code enforcement officer contact the representative of Planet Aid donation boxes. Many of the sites where the boxes are located are overflowing with bags and falling onto the ground. I have gone by the box on Mystic Avenue, up in the heights on Fulton Street and the one at the book school, there's bags all over the place, so they haven't been emptied for some time. If the code enforcement officer could contact them to get them emptied, because they are quite unsightly. All those in favor?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And maybe at some point we could send this issue to one of our subcommittees. because it's a real large issue in this community regarding these metal boxes. I've had the circumstance to go down to Fells Plaza on a number of occasions, and I've talked to the management company, and I've asked them about particular boxes because it may be a clothing box, but there's 22 TVs that are broken. outside the clothing box. Or it's a box just for books, and there's all old clothes out in front of the box. And the management company said, we don't even know why the box is here. So these companies are going around, and I'm not gonna pinpoint any company, and they're throwing them on private lots. that's just leaving them there. So I think we need an ordinance, Mr. President, that addresses these boxes. They should have a contact number on the side of the box, a person's name, a phone number, and there should be some type of permitting process if you want to put one of these large metal boxes on your property. So I think we need to send that to a subcommittee, Mr. President. You are correct.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm not sure which one, but. I think that would go to the subcommittee on zoning and ordinances. So if you would like to refer that there. I'd like to refer that there, Mr. President. On the motion by President Caraviello, all those in favor? Motion passes. Offered by President Caraviello and Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its consolences and have a moment of silence to the family of Anna Consolino on her recent passing after a long illness. If you're from West Medford, anyone who knows Anna Consolino, She was a fixture in that square for many, many years, and she passed away last week after a lengthy illness. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, just if I could, I grew up with the family in West Method. And the Consolino's name is synonymous with West Medford Square. The ARCO service station was in business under Dick Consolino for 61 years. And that service station was a landmark. And every time I drive by and see a bank there, I just, I don't even recognize the area anymore, Mr. President. But Anna Consolino will solely be missed. and she was a terrific mother and grandmother and a loving wife and a tremendous business person for a lot of people in West Medford. When you brought your car down there and you didn't have the funds to pay, Mr. President, the Consolinos would say, don't worry about it. When you have the money, give it to us. And that just doesn't happen in this day and age anymore.
[Richard Caraviello]: I, being a long time customer, my dad was a customer of the Consolinos and good people, good family. Motion to revert back to regular business. 17092, communications to the Medford City Council from the registrar of voters and the chief election office. Be it ordered that the Medford City Council hereby fix following dates and hours for the 2017 city preliminary and election for the election of mayor, city councilors, and school committee members. City of Bedford, 2017 municipal election calendar. Tuesday, June 13th, nomination papers available from the registrar of voters from 102. Mayor, councilor at large, school committee, nomination papers to be given to candidates only or their agents appointed writing, Mass General Law, C53S17. Thursday, July 20th, five o'clock p.m., last day and hour to obtain nomination papers and statement of candidacy on nomination paper from the Registrar of Voters Office Room 102, City Hall, Rule 539A. Tuesday, July 25th, five o'clock p.m., last day and hour to submit nomination papers to the Registrar of Voters Office for certification. Tuesday, August 8th, 5 o'clock p.m., last day and hour to file certified nomination papers with the city clerk's office. Thursday, August 10th, 5 o'clock p.m., last day and hour for filing objections to or withdraw from the nomination. Friday, August 11th, 9 o'clock a.m., drawing for the ballot positions for the city preliminary election in Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium. Wednesday, August 23rd, 8 o'clock p.m., Close of registration for the preliminary. Tuesday, September 5th, 5 o'clock p.m. First campaign finance statement due. Tuesday, September 12th, preliminary election, 7 o'clock a.m. to 8 o'clock p.m. Monday, September 18th, 5 o'clock p.m. Last day and hour to withdraw from the nomination of petition for a recount of votes at the preliminary. Wednesday, October 18th, 8 o'clock p.m., close of registration for elections. Monday, October 30th, 5 o'clock p.m., second campaign finance statement due. Tuesday, November 7th, elections, 7 o'clock a.m. to 8 o'clock p.m. Friday, November 17th, 5 o'clock p.m., last day and hour to petition for a recount of votes at the election. Monday, January 22 final campaign finances do. Thank you. Motion by council for approval.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if we could, I believe last year this council made a recommendation that the poll workers that are so diligent and do a great job in the city elections be fed because they're spending 13 hours And in some locations, because of the lack of personnel, it's tough for people to get out. And I would ask, once again, if the city clerk would be so kind to make sure the poll workers get some type of bagged lunch or pizza or something, Mr. President, to show our appreciation for the effort that they put in. Second.
[Richard Caraviello]: Second by Councilor Dela Ruzzo. Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Motion to revert back to regular business by Councilor Scarpelli. 17-093 offered by President Caraviello. It resolved that the Medford City Council announced that the mayor will be re-commemorating the plaques at War Memorial Park and the city will be looking for any additional names to be added to the list there. I'm glad that the mayor took this up pretty quickly. It's something we asked for a couple of weeks ago. And if anyone knows of any names that need to be added, please inform the Veterans Services or the Mayor's Office as soon as possible so we can get the names on the plaque. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can real quick, is there a timeline when we'd like to have that on? I know that's been.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think our original paper said we would like to maybe get them done by maybe Memorial Day or at the least by Veterans Day. So if we can get that in. I think there's about 10-ish names there at the moment. So if anybody else knows of any names, please get them in. All those in favor?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. You called on me and then you went to Scarpelli, but that's all right. Mr. President, I think I'm not sure if it was you or one of the other councils offered a resolution to have many of the plaques on our veteran memorials to be refurbished. Yes. If we got any response regarding the plaques, we have not.
[Richard Caraviello]: I have spoken to the veteran service office and I think that's a funding issue. Some of the plaques are old and 10 and, um, And I have talked to some people who do it there. I'm sure if they can even be redone again because of the age and the wear of them.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So if we can't refurbish them, we have to replace them.
[Richard Caraviello]: I would hope that the mayor would appropriate some funds to get that done.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I would ask that that be part of your paper also, Mr. President, that we get an update on the refurbishment.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clark, if we could add that on to the paper. The plaques. If we could look at adding some additional funds to get some of the older plaques. while the city cleaned and replaced. All those in favor? 17-0-9-1, petition by Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street, Medford Mass, to address the council on not erasing Medford's history. Name and address for the record, please.
[Jeanne Martin]: Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street. and I'm in a great mood tonight because I played pickleball, and I never played pickleball before, and it was a lot of fun. All right, thank you. I'm not trying to be adversarial, but educational. After attending the Mayor's State of the City Address, I'm once again compelled by conscience to challenge Mea Burke's political view, which this council signed off on, as it is inaccurate and harmful, as it denies our legacy in reality. Medford was discovered as a, discovered in quotes, as a result of the Sprague brothers finding the existing footpaths of the Indian inhabitants from Salem to Charlestown in 1629. They crossed the Saugus Plains into Malden, and then to the edge of the Middlesex Fells, all the way to what would become Medford Square. The square is a result of the continued use of this area as it was the narrowest point in the river at low tide for crossing over, as originally used by the Indian population. Just on the other side was another Indian footpath up to present day Winter Hill, and from there the Sprague brothers continued down to Charlestown. In 1630, the governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, Matthew Craddock, London merchant and dedicated Puritan, formed his own peculiar plantation, which became our city today. It was seen as peculiar because unlike Cambridge, it was not set up as a town, but a private plantation. The original people whose land started to be taken away from them by these English intruders were known as the Pawtuckets. That was the name of the native tribe, the Pawtuckets. A man named Sagamore John was chief of the Pawtuckets. Sagamore John and his people died of smallpox in 1633. In 1644, the Indians remaining in Massachusetts put themselves under the English government. Once there had been about 20,000 Indians within 50 miles of Plymouth alone. By the close of the century, there were only about 4,000. We know that by the 18th century, not all residents were free. And that's in Medford. Blacks, Indians, and forgive me for using the term mulattoes, that is what is written in the history book that I got this from. It's called Medford on the Mystic, and it was by Carl Seberg, who lived in West Medford on Madison Street. I knew him because I took care of his aunt. Amazing man. Okay, what was I? Okay, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Servants, so these servants were held in slavery. In a census of Negro slaves in Massachusetts in 1755, there were 34 slaves over the age of 16 living in Medford. 27 were men and seven were women. By 1764, the slave population in Medford had increased to 49. And in case you were wondering if northern slavery was any better than southern slavery, think again. Medford Selectman in 1734 voted, quote, all Negro, Indian, and mulatto servants that are found abroad without leave and not on their master's business shall be taken up and whipped to 10 stripes on their naked body by any freeholder of the town and be carried to that respective master's. and said masters shall be obligated to pay the sum of 2S6D in money to said person that shall do so." Unquote. Slavery existed in Medford until 1787, when in the case of the Commonwealth versus Jenison, this institution was finally outlawed. Our nation was not founded on the, quote, fundamental principle that all persons are entitled to equal protection under law, unquote. The Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2, When Thomas Jefferson wrote, quote, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, he currently owned 175 black slaves, including five of his own children, by Sally Hemings.
|
total time: 23.71 minutes total words: 1845  |
total time: 20.76 minutes total words: 2041  |
total time: 1.72 minutes total words: 137  |
total time: 2.52 minutes total words: 261  |
|
total time: 4.73 minutes total words: 493  |
total time: 15.26 minutes total words: 1220  |
total time: 0.44 minutes total words: 54  |
total time: 11.32 minutes total words: 199  |