[Richard Caraviello]: 15th, a regular meeting, the Medford City Council, April 18th, 2017. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Present. Councilor Falco? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. Councilor Lungo-Koehn? Present. Vice President Mox? Present. Councilor Scarpelli? Present. President Caraviello? Present.
[Richard Caraviello]: Please rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Motion by Councilor Knight to take a paper out of order. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favour? Motion passes. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I move to take paper 1771, the Wage Theft Prevention Ordinance, from the table. It is eligible this evening for its third reading. This is a paper that has gone through the subcommittee process and through the committee of the whole process. And what it is, Mr. President, is it's a proposal to ensure that people that are bidding on public contracts here in the city of Medford comply with the wage and hour laws. It requires that a series of certifications are made and a series of statements of credibility are made to the administration so that when they're awarding a contract, the individuals that are awarded the contract have not been found in violation of any wage and hour laws. Wage theft is a problem across the country, Mr. President. It's something that we see here in Massachusetts a lot of times with contracts like cleaning contracts. For example, the high school has a cleaning contract, and they may bring people in to clean the high school. And the prevailing wage rate, which they are supposed to be paid by law, is $26 an hour. But these employees are hourly workers that make $18 an hour when not working on the prevailing wage. And their employer will withhold those funds, Mr. President. So they're actually employers that are stealing money from their employees. So this ordinance requires that people that are bidding on public projects that are covered under the prevailing wage laws and other state and federal hour and wage laws, Mr. President, are in compliance. They inform the city whether or not they've been found in violation. And they take out certain bonds if they have been found in violation. With us here this evening we have some individuals that were instrumental in putting this work, this ordinance together, Mr. President. This is a paper that was originated through a group called Community Labor United. It's been a matter that's been endorsed and supported by the Greater Boston Labor Council. And here this evening with us from the Greater Boston Labor Council we have Rich Rogers. We also have representing Sean O'Brien from Local 25, James Donovan, political director. We have from Local 537, Bill Young here with us this evening. I'd be remiss not to mention Louie Mandarini from Local 22, a longtime Medford resident, Mr. President, who was instrumental in crafting this language and also helped with some technical assistance. And also with us, we have Phil Reason from the Painters Union here. Mr. President, this is a paper that Mayor Burke and I worked on in concert with the individuals that have been aforementioned. It's something that I wholeheartedly support, and I'd ask my colleagues this evening to vote in favor of it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Dello Russo? Second. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehnan? Yes. Vice President Marx. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: President Caraviello. Yes. 17 in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. While we're under suspension. petition for sign denial reversal by Jason Perillo, a back bay sign for Georgia's bakery, 25 Hall Street, Medford. OCD application 2017-3 exceeds allowable size 94-307-2. Vice President Marks is chairman of the sign committee.
[Michael Marks]: Yes, Mr. President, we have the petitioner in front of us. If you can just give us a brief synopsis on the sign itself.
[Jason Perullo]: Good evening, Mr. President, members of the council. I'm Jason Perillo with Back Bay sign company. Um, our petition to hear tonight is to ask petition to or ask for permission to install a wall sign for George's bakery products incorporated over at 25 hall street. The sign that we propose this evening is 35 square feet over what the ordinance allows. The building is 111 feet wide. Um, the sign is designed to fit the architecture of the building. Um, the sign is not illuminated. There are no residences that can see the sign. And, um, if you, uh, George is also here this evening. If you have any questions for the business owner. Thank you very much.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Dela Rosa.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I see no reason to object to this request for a variance. This gentleman brings business and good commerce to the city of Medford. It's a decent family business, and we wish them all the best, and I have no objection. Motion for approval, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Nice. Mr. President, George's Bakery has been in this community for a very long time without incident, issue. Um, I get some bread from there every once in a while. I'm not going to lie. And, um, I certainly think that, uh, this proposal that's before us this evening is within reason and, um, meets the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance, uh, relative to signage. And I too move for approval with a second to council Dello Russo's motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Vice-president Moxie. Do you motion for motion for approval?
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, based on the paperwork submitted, uh, and the, uh, rendering of the sign itself and the location of the sign. I too see, uh, um, no concern with the size of the sign, even though it's nonconforming to existing, um, zoning sign ordinances. And, um, at this point, Mr. President, it's not internally illuminated. Um, and at this point that would move approval, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by vice president marks seconded by councilor night. All those in favor. Oh, I have, I have, I'm sorry. Um, Councilor Marks is the sign a committee chairman.
[Michael Marks]: The motion comes from the sign chairman.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's correct. And seconded by councilor Donald Russo. All those in favor. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So George, good luck. Um, if we could also take, um, 17352, the nominees while they're here that were appointed last week that are coming here to be vetted this evening. Mr. Scott, would you second that motion? I second that motion. Thank you. This evening, we have some people that were selected to be on the Community Preservation Committee, and under the rule of transparency, Uh, we feel, uh, we feel that it's a good to vet all these candidates. So, uh, at this point, while they're here, um, if you, when you, when we ask your name, if you could please come, uh, to the podium and give us a little brief resume. Uh, is Jones here? Jones here? Name and address of the record, please.
[Joan Cyr]: Jones here, 40 Cedar Road North, Medford. So I sent an application in to the mayor for a seat on the community preservation commission. As many of you know, I'm a resident of Medford, 17 years, was part of the preserve Medford campaign committee a couple of years ago to collect signatures to get the CPA on the ballot. And when it did pass, I was a member of the ad hoc committee. that was assembled to draft the ordinance and to usher it to completion to the City Council. In the application, it stated, you know, that an applicant should be a resident who has expertise or demonstrated interest in open space, recreation, historic preservation, and affordable housing, among other things. And that's what I sort of applied for because Improving these things in the city of Medford is very important to me. I know that these are the things that are usually on the bottom of the list when it comes to budget time. Of course, police, fire, safety, those kinds of things are much more important and usually get the dollars, and these ones don't. So this is one of the reasons why I really felt that we could bring some good dollars to Medford, that we could improve the city and bring money into Medford by improving the city. So my certification as a project manager, one of the things that I do is I help the others that are in the room kind of use their expertise and bring it to fruition. So I'm the one who sort of helps people remove roadblocks, bring people together, open communication, that kind of thing. And that is the expertise that I could bring to this committee to kind of help the process move along and keep in time. That's why I applied, and I would appreciate your support, and I really do hope to help Medford become a more inviting city.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Joan.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. I move to approve for Joan Cyr. I know that Joan's done so many great things in our community, and her dedication and commitment and her leadership is going to drastically be needed with such a huge endeavor, so I move forward to accept Joan Cyr. as one of our members.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to second Councilor Scott Peli. I worked with Joan on the CPC committee when we put together the resolution. She was vital to the process. She's smart, she's committed, and I know she'll do a great job. This commission is going to be working very hard to, especially in its infancy. So I think I, you know, I definitely support being an appointee to this commission, and I just want to say good luck. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor Knight. Yes, Mr. President, if you review Ms. Cyr's resume in contrast with the ordinance and the requirements that are set forth in the ordinance relative to what would make an appropriate appointee, you'll see that Ms. Cyr hits all the high spots. I, too, had the opportunity to work with her on the Community Preservation Commission subcommittee that helped draft the ordinance. And I wanted to thank her for her technical expertise and her input and involvement. Mr. President, this is a great appointment. It's someone that I'd wholeheartedly support. And I'd like to thank you for the opportunity for having us come up here this evening and vet this. I move approval as well.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Dela Rousseau.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President. Uh, I was prepared to approve this last week. I'm prepared again. Uh, tonight I had the delight of appointing her. Thank you. Community preservation, uh, preservation commission.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Um, thank you briefly. I just want to thank Joan and all the other members that are, have been appointed and coming to let us vet them tonight. I want to thank them for being here and thank them for wanting to be on such a committee that's going to take a lot of time and effort. Jonah's definitely going to do a great job, so I wish you the best of luck. I would ask that all the members, obviously, we'd love to be able to get the minutes of the meetings, whether it's email or hard copy of the minutes of the meetings, and to keep us informed so we know how the process is going. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, uh, I'm happy that the council last week, uh, voted to invite all the, uh, appointments, uh, to this council. And, uh, I think we all realize that this is a good group of candidates and it was nice to hear Joe and that you appreciate the responsibilities of this particular appointment and also know that, uh, it does impact open space within our community. uh, historic preservation, housing, and a number of really important issues. So, uh, I believe it's roughly a million dollars a year that'll be generated through, uh, the CPA. Uh, so it is an important task and I know you as one person will take this very seriously. And again, Mr. President, I, uh, agree with my colleagues and, uh, move approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Outstanding choice on the motion by councilor Dello Russo, seconded by councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor, motion passes. Joan.
[Joan Cyr]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Um, Roberta Cameron said she, she's going to be a little late, so we'll get, we'll get her when she comes in. Elizabeth Carey. Sue, are you here? Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[I5lIrWN8Vh8_SPEAKER_09]: My name's Elizabeth Curie soul. And my address is 50 Douglas road. So I'm a relatively new resident of Medford. I've been here for just under two years and I'm extremely excited about living here and really excited about the prospect that CPA funds could bring to Medford. I'm a landscape architect. I've been working as a landscape architect for about seven years. I currently work for the Trustees of Reservations as a project manager. I manage their capital projects along structures and landscapes or restorations of historic landscapes and new buildings on our properties and specifically on our historically significant properties. So I think I bring a lot of project management experience, a lot of appreciation for landscape and open spaces, appreciation for historic restoration. Um, and I'm extremely excited about the prospect of being involved in this committee.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, once again, if you take a look at Ms. Sewell's resume and contrast that with the ordinance and the criteria that's put forth therein, you'll see that she meets all the major requirements that have been put forth. It appears to me, although I don't know the woman personally, that she's been a qualified and dedicated professional in her field of expertise, and she's someone that I will have no problem supporting this evening. I move for approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, Councilor Marks,
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's nice to see Elizabeth. And I welcome you to the community. Thank you. Two years. You're a rookie. So welcome to the community. Thank you for partaking on a very important committee. And I was just wondering if you had any feedback relative to the lack of funding. Originally, this program started off with matching funds from the state. And over the years, it has dwindled down. to I think it's at 18% now or maybe even less than that. Do you have any thoughts on that or?
[I5lIrWN8Vh8_SPEAKER_09]: I mean, it's concerning that it's dwindling. I hope that positive projects and positive success of the initiative will, you know, give reason for better matching in the future. So hopefully, the success of the initiative will continue its longevity.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. I also move approval. Mr. President. Thank you. On the motion by council at night, seconded by council of Kern. All those in favor. Aye. Motion passes. Congratulations. And thank you for your service. Thank you so much. Joseph. Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_21]: Joe Pecora, 25 Adams Street, Medford. You want to give a little brief synopsis of yourself? Sure. I've been living in Medford for about five years now. And I work as a real estate agent out of Cambridge. I've been practicing as a real estate agent for about 15 years. I come from the trades. My family's involved with development in the suburbs, in the metro Boston region. And I think I bring the experience both as as a real estate agent and as a contractor to the table. And I look forward to working on the committee.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, if you review Mr. Pecora's resume and contrast with the city ordinance, you'll see that he also hits all the high points in terms of criteria that's been established. As we all know, the Community Preservation Act does have a focus, number one, on land acquisition and number two, on affordable housing. And I think he brings some much needed expertise in those fields and I move for approval.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. And this may be a good opportunity for members of the committee to meet each other also, which is a great suggestion. Joe, knowing that you're in the field of real estate, what are your thoughts about what this community needs in regards to affordable housing? Do you think we're where we should be? Do you think that there's a need for additional
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_21]: I don't know what the numbers are, what the stats reflect, but I know that's a concern as prices continue to soar. I know in other areas closer to, you know, Cambridge, Somerville and those markets, Somerville's been seeing real new price points, a million dollar condos left and right now. moving up as well in terms of price, and I think it's a pretty big concern for the community, pushing people out and not having a fairly decent mix of people from all walks of life. And I think it's important to consider and to work toward making sure that we create opportunities that are affordable for people. I would imagine that Medford is feeling a pinch as well, rents as well as sales. I know just recently, the other day on North Street, there were a couple of condos that sold for a million dollars, almost a million in Medford. People are talking about price, rents are high, and yeah, I think it's a pretty significant question or point. You ought to look at it.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, so far we've seen three candidates, and they all have their own expertise and style. And it's refreshing to hear Joe just mention the fact that with the housing market, as we know, in Cambridge, Somerville, and Method is experiencing right now, that there is a lack of affordability in this community. And I know with my children and other children in the community, that's a big concern that eventually someday they may not be able to afford to live in this community. And when you hear Joe mention that, that is something that's on his radar, and he's well aware of it. It makes me feel comfortable as one member Although a million dollars every year may not go far to adding a lot of additional affordable housing, but it's something that this committee will be responsible for. So I also, Mr. President, move approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? Motion passes. Congratulations and thank you for your time and volunteers in our community. Heidi Davis. Nope. Just those four, we're not gonna do the other ones? Okay. And we're just waiting for Roberta to come, she'll be in later and we'll do her when she gets here. We'll table this until Roberta. Yeah, table the paper. On the motion to table by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, and seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Okay. Councilor Knight has requested a brief recess. All those in favor? Motion to return back to regular business. While we're under suspension, 17370, offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved that the Medford City Council vote to support the establishment of a local historic district at 21 Toro Avenue. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. There was a number of meetings and a number of neighbors that were concerned about the property at 21 Toro Ave. It was purchased about a year ago and the neighborhood really worked with the Medford Historical Commission to create a local historic district for 21 Toro. It's something that the neighborhood is extremely excited about and it was quite refreshing having attended those meetings with a few of my colleagues, refreshing to have the owners of 21 Toro Ave be on board and almost excited about this endeavor. So it's something that's long overdue for the council approval. And I would like to vote on that tonight that we make 21 Toro Ave a local historic district to preserve the history of the property and into the future. Um, this will, be recorded at the Registry of Deeds, and it's something that is long overdue to be voted by the council, and hopefully we can all support this and move forward. And I believe we're the last step in getting this push forward, so I think it's something that we need to act on sooner than later.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Locren.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Locren, for bringing this up. I, too, went to those meetings, and I think it's so important I think we also visited that whole neighborhood and visiting and looking into that. I believe that we also voted during budget time to approve some funding to increase. That would be something that if we can to maybe help us where we are with those monies. Have they been expended? Are we putting, I believe that we were putting the, the, um, the, not the monuments, but there was the, uh, uh, the plaques at historical locations. I know that we were looking to.
[Christopher Bader]: Typically, we have not provided plaques, but we can certainly do. Excuse me. Oh, sorry. Let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Bader. Name and address of the record, please. 298 High Street. I'm the chair of the Historic District Commission, and we're in charge of creating new historic districts. Sorry, Chris. And as you say, we should absolutely put a plaque indicating this is the King House with its construction date, approximate construction date of the 1840s. It's part of the historic, it's an important historic building in South Medford. And let me just give you a brief summary of the events that led to this becoming a candidate for her local historic district, which is that it was owned by Tufts University. And they kind of pulled a fast one on the grandfather's house, where they subdivided it with no public input, and then sold the entire property to a contractor who immediately sold off grandfather's house itself and built a prefab house on the remaining property. And everyone was upset about that. Then they wanted to do exactly the same thing on 21 Turo. They had no intention of destroying the historic house, but they had their eye on that very juicy piece of property. The neighbors were outraged. It was really a grassroots uprising, you might even say. And finally, the Tufts and the new perspective owner backed down and agreed to sell it to someone who agreed not to subdivide the property. I think historic districts, part of our job is not just to preserve historic buildings, but to preserve open space. And a lot of these historic houses are on big lots. And the neighbors want to keep it that way. It was tentatively resolved with the new owners that they would put a historic preservation restriction on the deed. Now, the problem is this is a historic preservation deed of preservation restriction of limited duration. And moreover, the building department does not have easy access to preservation restrictions. It's there at the registry of deeds. But it's not something there that a building inspector is going to be able to look at in a few minutes. So we decided we would, in addition to the historic preservation restriction, we would seek local historical status. We sent out, there's an elaborate process spelled out by the Mass Historical Commission, which we followed. It took about a year to actually get it through. We held a public hearing. We were actually amazed to find that no one opposed it, including the owners. In fact, they really were delighted. We held this public hearing after a 60-day waiting period and blah, blah, blah. And really, the last step is now for you guys to vote on it. It requires per Massachusetts General Laws 40C, it requires a two-thirds vote of the of the city council. That means five of you guys. Um, and we would appreciate your support. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Any questions?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Tell me what this, uh, in creation, this, uh, historic district at 21 Toro F yes.
[Christopher Bader]: Uh, defined 21 Toro F it is the current, it is the house and the current property. uh, that is in, that is registered at the registry of deeds as 21 Turo. So it is both, uh, this is not something that can be subdivided or built on without the permission of the historic district commission. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Chris, can you give me that one?
[Christopher Bader]: The, the law again, excuse me, the law again, 40 C what do you say? General master was 40 C yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Dello Russo, point of information.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Have we received any communique on this from the city solicitor? Uh, we have not. The city solicitor has, um, has the habit of speaking for himself. Yes.
[Christopher Bader]: Uh, he, um, he was, he basically, there was very basic language, uh, added to the, uh, existing bylaws of the city of Medford. in accordance with Master Noland's 40C, and the city solicitor approved that language. Basically, there's nothing in there besides adding the King House to the list of the other two historic districts in Medford. Otherwise, no changes whatsoever to the Medford bylaws. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. Bader, how are you? Good to see you. Good to see you. Um, all the procedural requirements have been met by the district commission.
[Christopher Bader]: So now right now, okay.
[Adam Knight]: And right now, um, this would bring this, if we take this to a vote this evening, it would bring this issue of 21 to wrap the finality and it would have its single home historic district classification.
[Christopher Bader]: Yes.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I move for approval.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Vice president mocks. Thank you, Mr. President. Do we do we have any other properties in the city that are in a similar circumstance?
[Christopher Bader]: That are in immediate danger of subdivision As the reason for the developer buying them not that I'm aware of no There are of course historic houses all over Medford. They need protection and we're working on a plan to a general plan to protect these houses particularly those in close to Medford Square. For example, the Andrew House, the David Osgood House, which is owned by the Unitarian Church but is in very poor condition. And we don't think Grandfather's House is in any danger at this point. The damage has already been done with the construction of the prefab house that was built next to it. So we're focusing at the moment in houses near, uh, uh, uh, square.
[Michael Marks]: And if the council were to vote on this tonight, do you know when it would become effective?
[Christopher Bader]: Is it something that, uh, you would have to talk to the city solicitor about that. But, but I would believe it would be effective immediately.
[Michael Marks]: Effective immediately. Yes. Okay. I too would move approval. Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to, uh, say thank you for your hard work on this, and thank everyone here tonight. I think this is important. It's something I support wholeheartedly. We need to protect our historic homes. And I think this goes a long way in doing that. Hopefully, we could probably see more of it, too. But I think with developers coming in all the time trying to tear things down, I think they're tearing apart our history. And that's unfortunate. And we need to do more. And I just want to thank you for all your efforts. Thank you so much. and move approval. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Lungo, on the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehnan, seconded by, by Councilor Falco, and this requires a two-third vote. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dela Ruccio. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Kern.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Mox. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Congratulations. Thank you. While we're on the suspension, 17-371, offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn being resolved that the Medford City Council move forward with extending the demolition delay of historic properties from six months to 18 months to 24 months by changing Chapter 48 of the City of Medford ordinances. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Um, I know that the demo delay Chapter 48 isn't, subcommittee, so I'm not sure what councils have been able to read it, but I believe the commission and myself or whoever will be able to get a copy to anybody that hasn't. Um, this proposal was voted in favor by the Medford historical commission and it is outlined in yellow. Um, the version I have outlined in yellow with the potential changes. And obviously, one of the biggest changes is we currently have a six-month demo delay that has been around for quite some time. But times are changing, and a number of different communities are moving towards extending their demo delay or already have a 12-, 18-, or 24-month demo delay. I know that I believe Winchester's working on pushing it to a year. Watertown has 24 months, Somerville has an extended demo delay. Lexington, Concord, they're at Woburn. There are a number of cities and towns around us that do have a demo delay. The commission in their annual report, Medford Historical Commission in their annual report, it shows 2016, the amount of demo delays is up, I don't know, would you say 90%? The norm was about one to two requests for a demolition of a historical property. This current ordinance we have is anything 1900 or above, built in 1900 or above. In 2016, not only were there 17 applications for demo delays, but the historic commission found that 17 properties were historically significant and preferably preserved. So I think that's an important factor. It goes to show that times really are changing. We've had uproar in the city over a number of different parcels. Walnut Street brings to mind what's been, as of recent, you have 18 Walnut Street, you have the property across the street. You also have a property that was listed, and I'm not gonna name the address, but it listed, and I believe it was listed on MLS, because I do have access to MLS, I did read it. I don't have it in front of me, but it was advertised as a single-family home that could be turned into four units. So that's a problem to the community. It's a problem to our neighborhoods. The residents in the community are not happy with the current state. And the six-month delay is not deterring what it used to deter. You can go over the Walnut Street property and what's going on there, and that gives you significant proof you know, what I just stated. So why is the delay? And this is put, this is question and answers that have been put out by the historical commission. Why is the delay being changed from six months to 24 months or potentially why are we requesting that? Why am I asking the council to support this? Primarily because the commission has found that the present six month delay is not effective. The commission has seen numerous cases where owners or developers have showed no interest in working with either the commission or the neighborhood to look at alternatives to demolition and simply waited out the six-month demo delay time frame and demolished the property anyway. A larger potential demo delay time frame of up to 24 months is generally too long a time frame for a project to become dormant. And the commission feels that the extra time will give the demo delay some teeth and leverage that will serve Medford and our neighborhoods better. and why the changes are being proposed. And I just stated already over the last five minutes, there are several significant historic buildings that have been demoed. Residents have been upset. And as the real estate market continues to improve, no more vacant land exists. The threat of Medford's historic buildings is ever increasing. The proposed bylaws tries to address these concerns by providing time to research alternatives to demo before any more historic buildings are lost. It also clarifies previously undefined terms and creates a standard set of mandates for applicants to complete in order for the commission to lift the delay. I know we have a number of residents and we have Ryan Haywood. I reached out to him last week after I got emails and phone calls from concerned residents on the Walnut Street property. And you see Facebook, there's a number of people that are interested in this. And I believe the time is now, whether we have a committee of the whole meeting, or we decide to move forward with this tonight, I think it's something that we need to move on quickly. Ryan was gracious enough to meet with me, and I know he'll meet with, or has met with other councilors as well, to explain in depth what the ordinance entails, the proposed changes to it, how they will affect in more detail than I can give the community, and I think it's a win-win, and I think it's something that we need to discuss and move forward with. leave it to the people, the residents who are thankfully came tonight to support the paper.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I thank a Councilor longer current for bringing this forward. Uh, this is, this issue is, is greater than what it reads itself. I think that what we're seeing in our community with our questions and zoning and a lack of true development plan, I think is it, This one key issue really sums up what we're seeing as probably the number one now major issue and concern in our community. I too was part of the subcommittee that saw this as an issue and moved it forward for 12 months with a possible another six months. So looking at that 18 months, that's something we wholeheartedly supported. and subcommittee, I think that it is still was brought back and then put to the city solicitor for final approval. I think that bringing this forward kind of gives you that kickstart that we need to get a final answer and whether it's in committee of the whole or in the open meetings to get this get this through. I think it's very important because what we are seeing is free reign throughout our community and making sure right now, looking at a historical community and tying that and holding that off where we have that control right now, I think is vital. So I appreciate my fellow council for bringing this up. I appreciate all the hard work and the emails that I did receive from multiple community members and concerns that were brought forth. I know that one member came behind this reel last week and we had a depth conversation because you can hear it in their voices. And when people seeing communities that that we know as of Medford changing right in front of your eyes and it looks like we have no control. So I think this is a great resolution to at least put a stop to this right now and give us a little bit more control as we look into the zoning and development concerns that we do have for our community. So I wholeheartedly second this, this motion and moving this forward. So thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. Um, by way of history, I'd like to just give a, give a brief breakdown as to, um, the process in June of 2016. Um, the historical commission came before the council during budget hearings and express some concern about the demolition delay. Um, at that point in time, in June of 2016, uh, I was working on a proposal with Mr. Haywood based upon some recommendations that he had in council. Longo current put forward a resolution requesting that, um, the demolition delay be looked at in June of 2016. That paper was referred to the zoning and ordinance committee. and it was introduced by way of a subcommittee hearing language. Language was put together and in August of 2016, the Zoning and Ordinance Subcommittee reported the following changes to 48-78B out of committee favorably for full review and vetting from the committee of the whole. The first recommendation that the subcommittee made was to strike the figure 1900 and replace that with homes built within the last 75 years. Presently, homes subject to demolition delay have to have been built before the year 1900 and the recommendation of the subcommittee was to strike that and replace it with homes built within the last 75 years. Um, also the subcommittee, uh, agreed in their committee report, which was reported out favorably, um, underneath four eight dash seven eight B subsection H to strike the figure six months and replace it with the figure 12 months. And, uh, that would be the amount of time for which the demolition delay can take place. Um, also under section I two, um, would be strike six months and replaced with 12 months again, a housekeeping to ensure that, uh, the ordinance would reflect that demolition delay would be 12 months. Um, the subcommittee also recommended that a new section be added to four, eight dash seven, eight, um, which would allow for the historical commission to petition the city council for an additional six months of demolition delay. Um, if they felt certain requirements and criterias weren't met, this was, reported out of the committee in August of 2016 and set for a committee of the whole hearing. The matter was being scheduled for a committee of the whole hearing when the commission asked to hold off and presented us with a revamped ordinance that they wrote that was a little bit more than just increasing the number of years that it takes to make a house eligible for demolition delay and also increasing the amount of time for which they have to delay demolition of a house. So in October of 2016, the Historical Commission presented those changes to the subcommittee. And in October of 2016, the subcommittee requested some technical assistance relative to some questions that were raised relative to legalities. Those were sent to the Office of Community Development and the legal department. Those questions weren't answered. And in January 2017, there were some subcommittee changes with the change of the leadership to the president. So councilor Dela Rousseau for councilor Falco and councillor Me night now make up the committee in February of 2017 a meeting notice was posted to reconvene and discuss this matter where we had not received any response from the administration at which time the snowstorm struck and The meeting was canceled because City Hall was closed so that brings us to February 2017 mr. President so it appears that as of In August 2016, the subcommittee had reported out a paper favorably to the Committee of the Whole, and there is a paper that is now at the Committee of the Whole that would address this issue. The recommendations were to increase the number of years for which a home would be eligible for a demolition delay to be built within the last 75 years. It would also give a 12-month automatic demolition delay with the ability for the commission to petition this council for an opportunity for an additional six months, Mr. President. recommendations still remain on the table and can be brought up at any time. We can move forward on those tomorrow. Um, the proposed ordinance that the commission put together, um, was a little bit more inclusive than just addressing issues of time and of delay. Um, and there was a number of concerns that were raised by the subcommittee. The subcommittee, um, was waiting to get some answers back from the administration's legal team and community development team that hasn't happened. And we share the frustration that the individuals behind the rail share, However, if the matter is just as simple as increasing the number of years to look at a house and the amount of time to delay demolition, there's a paper that's sitting right at our Committee of the Whole right now that we can act on, Mr. President, and that will address that issue. And then we can go and continue to properly vet the proposals. And that's the course of action that I would recommend.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Vice President Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, this is such an important ordinance. And in my opinion, waiting for a legal opinion, waiting for the administration to move on something is long overdue. And I'd rather see something put forward and have us worry about maybe some ramifications down the line. I'd rather see some protections in place right now, Mr. President. And what makes this community so unique is the, and you hear it over and over again, is the very uniqueness of every neighborhood, Mr. President, and every style of home in this community. And slowly but surely, we're losing the style of this community to these large salt box type homes and condominium projects, Mr. President. all for the sake of adding additional units and additional money for the developers. And you know, as was mentioned earlier, many of these older homes are on larger properties like on Walnut that have additional space. And the developers see this nothing more than a way of making additional money. And we as a community have to safeguard ourselves And I think this is a great step in the right direction. I'd rather see the 75 years extended to 100 years and beyond, to be quite honest with you. And the 12-month, in my opinion, is not long enough. I think what was offered as 18-month for a demolition delay, or even 24-month, at least provides this community with ample opportunity to safeguard its historic homes. So I personally would like to see us take a vote tonight. I think that's what Councilor Lungo-Koehn has requested. The resolve says from six months to 18 or 24. I think we have to narrow it down naturally before we vote on it, because you can't have 18 or 24. It has to be one or the other. But I definitely think, and I'm prepared tonight to move this forward, Mr. President, because I've been around a while. And I'm not going to wait to hear with an opinion that may be rendered down the line that we've been waiting on already for six months. Um, because, uh, I, I rather move forward, Mr. President. Uh, this is long overdue and I would support, uh, the resolution tonight, Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I want to get to, um, allow the speakers to speak, but I, I too would be agreeable to even if we vote for a demo delay, tonight, whether it be the 12 months that the committee discussed with an extension of six months or an 18 month demo delay. I think we should move forward on a vote like that tonight. And then we do have a number of other changes. Maybe we can meet in committee of the whole to discuss changing the ordinance completely, but I think we need to move forward on something. I think the votes may be here to do that. So I'd like to hear from the speakers and I'm agreeable to my colleagues.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President. If I could, through the chair, ask Councilor Knight again to restate his recommendation. I believe that he was suggesting that we had something in Committee of the Whole, and we have two contrasting things, so I just want some clarity, if I could. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: The recommendation of the subcommittee coming out of the August subcommittee report, which was favorable and unanimous, would be to strike the figure 1900. Right now it said any home built before 1900 was subject to a demolition delay. We wanted to reduce that figure to any home built within the last 75 years. That was the recommendation of the committee that was reported out favorably. That's subsection B under ordinance 48-78. We also have the opportunity to strike the figure six months and replace it with 12 months. And that was a reference to the amount of time for which the demolition delay would be in effect. That's under 48-78H. And we also have a reference to six months in 48-78I, subsection 2, which also made a reference to a six-month demolition delay. And the recommendation of the committee was to strike that and replace it with 12 months. So the committee made an initial recommendation to change the purview of homes that are subject to a demolition delay from houses that were built before 1900 to houses that were built within the last 75 years. So that would be a rolling scale. Um, we also agreed to give a 12 month demolition delay. And then there was new language that was reported out favorably, which said that, um, the commission would have the right to petition the city council for a delay of an additional six months. So that would give us 18 months of demolition delay if they could show that certain criteria weren't met. And that was the recommendation that was reported out of the subcommittee.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And that, uh, if I could, again, through the chair, that was all agreed to or arrived at with input from the commission and also, uh, the city solicitor. At Alia?
[Adam Knight]: That is correct, Mr. President, Councilor Dello Russo. The commission and the council met on that. The language changes were minor in nature and didn't raise any question or concern about legality. When we started getting into a two year demolition delay and some of the changes that were in place, some concerns came up relative to whether or not there would be legal standing as to whether or not that was a land taking. Some questions and concerns about financing of projects and stuff, stuff that really, I think warranted concern, but not stuff that should be a deal breaker. Number one. Number two, I think that, you know, moving forward, we have some recommendations from the subcommittee that met that are sitting on the table at the committee of the whole that will address the issues in the ordinance that have brought forward. They will extend the demolition delay period of time from six months to 18 months or a year guaranteed and potentially 18 months if need be. And it will also change the type of home. that is subject to a demolition delay. And that's something that I could support this evening, Mr. President. I have the subsections and the languages, uh, the language, um, performing this evening and I'm writing it up, uh, right now for the city clerk and I'll present that by way of emotion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. And so if I could, so then if I remember correctly, we were prepared to have committed the whole meeting on those proposals, uh, yet we're asked not to buy the commission. So they had additional, uh, additional items that they wanted to put on. And then once we got those, the sequence of events happened that we haven't met. Mr. President, I'm not prepared to vote on this tonight. I think we need to sort out what has to be done, do that in the Committee of the Whole, at your discretion, Mr. President, and also have the assistance, the paper was reported out to Committee of the Whole. And I have the assistance of the city solicitor present with us to lend his expertise. I'm not at this point asking to table. I will not support the motion that's before us to vote and approve this. I'm not going to support an ordinance change without three readings until we have clear language and the opportunity to come to clarity on this. with papers before us. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to, uh, just go on the record of, um, you know, I was a member of the subcommittee that has been, um, that met with the commission and, uh, has been working on the ordinance changes. I mean, I definitely support, uh, you know, updating the ordinance. I think we need to do more to protect, protect our historic homes. I mean, you know, as, as time goes on and we see these homes disappear, it really, uh, you know, has a negative impact on the, it really changes the fabric of our neighborhoods and we need to do more. Um, you know, the, the, the, the subcommittee has been working, um, to actually make changes to the resolution, uh, to the, uh, ordinance to actually do more to protect historic homes. And, uh, so far, I mean, I know we've been working hard on that. We've been working hard with the commission. Um, and I do support extending the, uh, demolition delay as well. So I just want to go on the record of saying that, but, um, I do support this resolution. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: And you're good. Yes. Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: It's Ryan Hayward, 40 Sharon nav Medford, uh, Councilors and friends of Medford history promise to be succinct tonight. Tonight I stand before you as the chairman of the Medford historical commission where the official municipal bodies charged with the preservation, promotion and development of historical assets of our hometown. One of the many ways we accomplish our mission is by administering the demo delay, which is before you tonight. And it was adopted in 1994 by this very board. It was established for protecting the city's significant historical, cultural, and architectural buildings. And if invoked, the delay period is a maximum currently of six months and only applicable to buildings built before 1900. The intent of this pause is so that the applicant can make reasonable, continued, and bona fide efforts to save the irreplaceable asset. In most cases, however, the commission has found that the existing bylaw is ineffective. And the commission has found that we have little influence over the course of action. Scores of developers, absentee landlords, neglectful property owners, and profit seekers have chosen to wait out that short timeline and even build it into their schedules at this point. We have found that there is an unsettling trend towards demolition rather than renovation. Applications have tripled in the last three years alone, and many of these were notable landmarks that we knew and loved. The time now is to overhaul this bylaw and make it an effective preservation tool through Councilor Knight and now through Councilor Longo Cohen. I respectfully request that the city council immediately move forward with the demolition delay revision of chapter 48 article four as presented in subcommittee to the demo delay subcommittee last September. This is not the original bylaw that was proposed before that. I respectfully disagree with Councilor Knight that the commission had no input on that. And then, unfortunately, we got word after the fact that that subcommittee did vote. And so we put forth our own proposal, which went to subcommittee. Highlights of these changes include much needed revisions to the definitions, changes to the reviews and timeline. including buildings that are 50 years old to be in compliance with our certified local government status and the national park service, including language to discourage demolition by neglect. And most importantly, changing the timeline from six months to two years to give this board the leverage it needs to influence projects involving our historic buildings. By extending the demo delay, we will join scores of other communities that have said yes to better projects, Yes to preservation and yes to ensuring that we have something to leave behind for the next generation. I look to you all for your support as it should be clear that you have our support and I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys have on this as you guys move forward in process. Just to be clear too, the question was raised about properties that were up for demolition. I mentioned in my annual report that I will have sent to the mayor tomorrow There were 18 properties that came under review last year. Only six of them fell under the demolition delay, but we reviewed... I reviewed personally, at least double that amount that were not applicable to the review, unfortunately. So we're losing buildings on a month-to-month basis, and sometimes more than that. There are six buildings that have already come up, two of which are currently going through the process of demo delay review, one on Codding Street, one on Walnut Street, which is just coming up for the first leg. And then there's, I've heard, gotten word that there's another building just down the street from the other Codding Street building, which is currently under review. So there are several buildings which are coming up and just being bought, all of which have been owned by long-time owners, absentee landlords at this point, or have approached owners to sell their historic buildings. So this is an ever-increasing problem that I see will not be going away in the near future. So by changing this bylaw and doing it right now and doing it once, and being all-inclusive, it will afford us some time to be able to continue to influence projects in lieu of zoning until you guys are ready to change zoning.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Longo-Kurt.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Thank you for your, um, for coming tonight and explaining that to the council. If I could ask you a question with regards to reviewing the entire ordinance and committee of the whole within the next month or two, um, if we wait, to put a demo delay and we don't vote on it tonight, what does that mean if it's postponed one, two, three, four months? There's going to be additional demo requests that are going to get grandfathered in and we're not going to be able to stop it.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Correct. I think you're going to find that there's going to be one of these huge rushes on demolition that anybody who might be even whispering or thinking demolition will put forth an application. Long-time owners who might be thinking of selling will probably put forth an application just so that they can clear the table and clear the hurdle long before. Because right now, there is no limit on the timeline of determination. So once we make a determination on whether a building is or isn't, unless there's significant reason to change that finding, it's a forever decision. So people can wait out the six-month delay the moment that they have it. And even if they're not selling, then sell the building is a vacant lot. So there is no recourse.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And just to make it clear, you don't have a developer the property to put in a demo delay, they just have to get approval and signature by the current owner, isn't that correct?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Correct. In the current case of 18 Walnut, which is coming up for review, the developer is acting as the owner's representative, and I have received a letter of approval from the current building owner, giving him permission to apply for demolition. So even before he owns the property, an applicant can you know, apply for the demolition and then just wait it out and have an active purchase and sales agreement and then move forward with a vacant lot as soon as they're ready.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: As one, one Councilor to the chair, I don't see any reason why we can't vote to increase the demo delay tonight, especially where committees reviewed it and move forward with recommendations. Um, as well as in addition, I'd like to amend my resolve to include that any property 75 years or older be, um, I, 75 years or 75 years or older as the committee, um, discussed and reviewed and put forward, um, that that be reviewable by the historic commission.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_29]: I'm sorry. I missed it. Are you asking me if it's, okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Doug Carr]: Yes. Doug Carr, one 24 Boston Avenue, West Benefit. I serve and have served with Ryan. on the historic commission for the past four years. I want to echo what he said. It's been really, um, a snowballing effect in the city of Medford in the last couple of years as these properties, um, have come one after another. And it's been a challenge for us because we haven't had the tools we need to protect the resources that we know we want to preserve for the longterm. And I would recommend, um, that 12 months is not enough. 18 is a minimum. 24 is preferred. Keep in mind that the commission, at any time during that period, can reduce that if they're getting cooperation with the developer. It's not all inclusive. If they decide to save the building, we can immediately end it or amend it. Or if they decide to renovate or add on to the building, there's ways that we can reduce it. But it gives us that leverage. The leverage is the key with this thing, because we have virtually no leverage. If somebody comes in on September, the demo delay All they're doing is waiting out the winter, which they're not going to build anyway, most of the time. So it really is meaningless for a lot of developers if they time it right. Um, so I think that's really important that it's truly a minimum of 18 perfectly 24. Um, and that we, uh, execute this as quickly as possible. I would like to echo something that counts. One of the council has said earlier that we're really missing. This is a first piece of several pieces. You're missing a lot of pieces when it comes to planning in the city of Medford. You don't have any design review in Medford for any building under 10,000 square feet. So you can't control anything about a new building. You have no tools in which to do that. And this has been brought before the council many years ago. It didn't go anywhere. But I think the effort needs to be revived because design review is something that a lot of cities and towns have. It gets a higher quality development. It forces developers who would put cookie cutter buildings to not do that. And one of our developers who's put up a building, they're just taking a building they built anywhere and plopping it down in every neighborhood they can. It has nothing to do with the character, context, or anything about the quality of the neighborhood. We can't prevent that right now. So you need to look at demo, not only demo delay, but design review as well, which has been long overdue in the city of Medford. Another thing that's missing here, is planning capacity. We don't have enough planning capacity in Medford. I know Lauren and Claude upstairs. I've known them for 20 years. They do wonderful work, but they do not have enough people to do what they need to do. We need a complete rewrite of zoning right now in the city of Medford. That's why every project in the city needs multiple variances, because we have zoning that has frozen in time in 1960. You need 2.1 cars, whether you're 100 feet from a T station or two miles from a T station. So the planning aspect of the city is just completely outdated. And I know the council has voted monies to increase the staff in last year's budget. But as of right now, that hasn't happened. So the planning capacity of Medford is critical. And I found it, frankly, embarrassing that the master plan for the city of Medford, which is now 12 years old and largely unexecuted, we still can't get to this day. We're executing little pieces of it here and there with grants rather than with in-house planning and expertise. So planning is the umbrella and zoning, demo delay is one of these components, but there are two or three other legs of the stool that will help Medford get a higher quality built environment, preserve our historic architecture, and give us a better quality of new construction across the board. So I urge you all to pass this as quickly as possible, 18 or 24 months, but then start addressing the other concerns as well. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name, address, and the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I apologize. I have a bit of a cold. So being an owner's project manager in construction and development, I work in facts. And I have a few facts that I'd like to put before you for consideration as you think about this demo delay and development in the city of Medford. Currently, today, the city of Medford has 13 properties listed for sale. Thirteen, that's it. Of those thirteen, three are in condo complexes that were designed to be condo complexes. Four are two-family or three-family homes that have been condoized, and the remaining eight are listed single or two-family. Of those eight, four are listed with some variation of attention developers and contractors. So that's what's going on in our city. It is being positioned and sold as a place where some person, male or female, with a truck, some tools, and some capital, can come in here, quickly pick up a property, and do whatever they want with it. That's what's happening in the city of Medford. Another pertinent point of information that I think you need to understand and consider is what our price-to-rent ratio is in Medford. Well, what's a price-to-rent ratio? It's where you take the value of a property that's for sale, put it over the rent times 12 months a year. The city of Medford right now sits roughly at 17.4. There are four cities in the state of Massachusetts that are higher than Medford. Beacon Hill, the Back Bay, the South End, and South Boston. Cambridge and Somerville are irrelevant because they have been gentrified. This is a measure of gentrification. What is gentrification? It is that mechanism that pushes the people who live in a city out because they can cease to afford to live here. That mechanism that takes potentially a resident who lives in a historic building and encourages them to sell because of what's happening around them and the recognition that their taxes are going to get to the point where they're not going to be able to afford to live in the city that they have raised a family in and chosen to stay in and potentially to age and place in. So, this measurement, the four cities that are above us, I want you to think about, Back Bay, South Boston, Beacon Hill, those are some pretty significant price point opportunities. And I don't discourage those types of price points. I think in the nature of real estate, they're critical, but we're getting a false inflation that's happening here because we're losing our two-family and three-family homes, which are a mechanism for young families and individuals to buy a piece of property and be able to afford it because of the rental capacity. What's critical about this is that these two-family and three-family projects that these, quote, developers, or as I call them, flippers, come in, they come in and they buy that property, and because it's less than 10 units, they're not required to put in any affordable housing. So they're making all profit. So there's a misnomer that this development is going to benefit our housing market and drop the value of property so that it's affordable because we're going to increase our stock. simply not going to happen by converting two families and three families and parceling off double lots and making exceptions for nonconforming units to put in another two family or three family, because those developers are not going to sell it at an affordable rate. That's not what's happening. That's not what's going to happen. Not unless we make a decision. We as a city voted, tonight you as a committee voted to affirm the appointments of a CPA that is looking as part of their process to preserve both building and green space. And yet we continue to allow, quote, developers to come in and parcel our large lots and put up these Fast prefab Fabricated in a factory somewhere building that is a fraction of what they would pay for stick build construction They're not bringing jobs. They're simply lining their pockets in my opinion and my observation so I think that there's a message that can be sent here tonight by this committee and And the message is, the line is drawn. We welcome developers, but we welcome developers that come with a purpose, that come with a desire to collaborate, and that want to improve the city as well as make a profit. And I think the fastest way to send that message is to say, yes, no more six months. Now it's 12, it's 18, it's 24. It's 12 with two options. whatever, but I would encourage you to do it because tonight is an opportunity to send one of two messages. That we're here and as a city we're going to stand and support our history and the culture that we want to develop as a group or we're going to sit aside and we're going to let people who are here to make a profit take advantage of us. Thank you for your time.
[Christopher Bader]: I even address the record, please. Yes. Uh, Chris Bader again, uh, Trinity high street. I'm the chair of the historic district commission. Um, I just wanted to say that the historic district commission, which of course is rather confusingly separate from the historical commission, uh, voted unanimously at our last meeting to support this resolution. And, um, uh, I would ask you, I would ask you for your support as well. Thank you.
[Tom Lincoln]: Name and address of the record, please. Tom Lincoln, 27 Gleason Street in sunny Medford. Well, it's not sunny. I've been heavily involved in historic preservation and related issues with the Royal House and the slave quarters, of course, and the Brooks Estate, as well as other projects. My wife and I moved here close to 30 years ago. It's hard to believe. And one reason, one big reason, is the historical fabric of the city. And unfortunately, in that period, we've seen some fairly regrettable losses of historical fabric and architectural fabric. It's not to say that every building deserves to be saved.
[Richard Caraviello]: We do live in a capitalist.
[Tom Lincoln]: Excuse me.
[Richard Caraviello]: If the gentleman has due respect at the podium, please. Sorry.
[Tom Lincoln]: That every building deserves to be saved, but certainly there needs to be a process where we can have careful consideration, use some creativity, encourage outside money or inside money and developers to do the the right thing for neighborhoods and for our heritage. It's always true that once you lose an old building, it's not coming back. So I commend the council for bringing up this issue for the various boards that have advanced this cause and hope that you will extend the demolition delay period and provide other means for advancing this important issue. Thanks.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Robert Penta]: Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass, former member of the Sarkis party. You know, a city that forgets about its history won't have any history. And at the rate we're going in the city right now, the way developers have this opportunity to come in here, seize a piece of property, build upon it, and then take off and make a profit on it. Perfect example is Luminaires on Locust Street. Puts the building up, he's there a year, sells it for $61 million, and he's gone. But we're talking about something right now is the history of our city. And while Councilor Lungo-Koehn brings up this issue, whether it be 18 to 24 months, for which I would prefer 24, think of it like this. Within the past three years, you folks in a concentrated area of South Street, Toro Ave, and Walnut Street have seen historical pieces of property and trees, if you're a lover of trees, and trees be demolished by out-of-towners, outsiders. People are only here to do one thing, and that's to make a profit on the piece of property and beg upon the people to maybe sell their property, make a big profit, and leave town so they can take over, make some money, and they can leave. It's not right. We heard one of your Councilors indicate that the last time you people submitted a report in October, It went from October to January and then it got lost somewhere in translation. That in and of itself is the telltale sign of what this city administration thinks about. preserving its history, preserving the history of neighborhoods. And speaking about neighborhoods, when you lose zoning in your neighborhoods, whether it's for an historical purpose or what have you, you've lost the character of your neighborhood. South Boston, if you've been following this for the last two weeks, is a perfect example where the residents have gotten together on the development of a gentleman who wants to come in there and take over a piece of property that's perfectly zoned for what he wants to do, but the neighbors are opposed to it because it doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. The state representative from that area, Michael Flaherty, has proposed a piece of legislation, and I believe he's doing it tomorrow morning. He's proposing a piece of legislation that the character of the neighborhood has to be kept in line for that for which is there. It cannot be made to look anything different or obnoxious or something that's not satisfying to the public or to the people in that neighborhood. You know, we're not going to be here in a few years, because however God decides to take us, and when he decides to take us, so be it. But you guys and girl, you have an opportunity here to make the legacy of this community continue to go forward in a positive way. If the city administration doesn't want to have the same eye on the prize, then you people should have it. And the zoning should be changed. And the 24 months should be changed, because you'll tell you know, If a developer comes in here and finds out that he might have to wait 24 months to get that piece of property zoned or done for whatever he needs to do, he might think one of two things. Number one, I'm going to work with the people, or I'm getting out of here because I don't want to deal with it. And you know something? That's probably the best thing, because he's not the real person that should be here for the city. And isn't it interesting that all the people that are coming into the city are out-of-towners? You've got to thank the people who took up the charge on Locust Street to bring it to court, to challenge the developer, for which finally found itself before your body and you folks, likewise, to challenge the developer. The neighborhood that took on the Salem Street, the Breakpro project. The neighborhood people had to bring it together. Not the city administration. I don't know how many more black eyes that this city administration needs to get to find out what its history is all about. But you certainly are making history by destroying pieces of property that have not only historical value, they have a family and a personal and a community value. Do the right thing tonight, ladies and gentlemen. Vote for the 24 months, because within that 24 months, you can bargain or they can bargain with you. But at least the people of this community will know that as an elected official, at least you folks, as a city councilor, are doing the right thing in behalf of the taxpayers of this community. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street. And the first thing that everyone says when we talk about Medford is the Medford market is hot. There was an article this Sunday in the Globe about, hey, Medford, move there. That place is great. And Boston Magazine had an article recently about North Medford being great. You know what's great about the city being great already is that we're not desperate. We don't have to sell to the guy who sends you that letter in the mail that says, hey, I'll buy your house site unseen for $300,000. Because you know what? There are families with children that want to move to Medford. Because we have a deep history. We have a fabulous community. We have a spirit of volunteerism that is unmatched in other towns. And you know what? Paul Revere rode through here yesterday, and it was a very different Medford. We need to hold on to those pieces of history. Back in the day that I was at Medford High, Dr. Valeriani, AP US History, sent us all out to research our homes, to trace the history. And we went into the tombs of the Cambridge District Court and traced the history. And the home, my childhood home, was a beautiful double lot. I won't give the address, because I don't want any developers going in and destroying it. When my grandparents moved to Florida, we left the book that I had made in high school that had traced the history all the way back to the shipbuilding days. Because Medford is steeped with history, and it's important to all of us. My parents bought their home, and there were pictures of ships that had been built in the city. And these things are important. These things need to be preserved. I bought my own home here, and I got my own little Medford acre, which is a big yard. If you add up the square footage I could probably build four units but that's not what I want. I want to keep Medford the way that it is. We do need to grow and expand but we don't need to go down the streets and look in people's yards and say I could put three in there. I could. That's not the kind of building that we're looking for. So I think that you should definitely pass this ordinance to do the 18 to 24 demo display delay because the fastest way to get a legal opinion back from this administration is to pass something. And that's like, whoa. And then you'll have your answer inside of a week, definitely. And with all due respect, if I put in and look, I'm looking for information and I don't get follow-up, From the person I sent out to, I'll keep bothering them every two weeks, every month, because August 2016, not having an answer is totally unacceptable. And I understand that people in this administration are busy, but if this is important to us, zoning is important to us.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. August 2016 was when the zoning subcommittee issued its report. September 2016 was when the, um, district committee, the commission presented their changes. So there was a month and a month break between when the council was moving forward. And when did this, when the commission came before the council and then we asked those questions, but their questions got asked after August, 2016. Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Well, September, that's a big difference, that 30 days. I mean, keep waiting. What are we on, seven months now? I feel like this is important. Every time I go down to the building office and I look through those books, I see demo permit, demo permit, demo permit. This needs to be done now. We don't have time. If you wait six more months to put this in committee, I'm not sure how long that moratorium has been in the committee. I waited, was at a meeting. For your subcommittee and you're waiting for an opinion on that as well. These things are happening and they're happening now and Once these houses are not done. They're gone. You can't rebuild you can't. Oh, well, let's rebuild that 1890 house We never should have knocked it down. It's gonna be too late So we need to move faster because we don't need any more prefab Condos that are going up that cost more than a single-family house and single-family houses people are desperate to get those in this city So, I don't know why we want to knock them down Thank you
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: Sharon Guzik, 10 Manning Street. Unfortunately, I'm just going to repeat a lot of what everybody else said, but I'll try to make that fast. And I'm going to try to add some color. I happen to live in the neighborhood that Bob Penta mentioned, which has had developers, specific developer that has come in and discovered The neighborhoods ripe for the picking and the points that were being made about losing open space because you can build more than one house on that lot. and losing historic trees, which I'm sure you're all familiar with that. Those pieces don't actually speak to the resolution that Brianna put forward, but they are important to us. And as you heard with 21 Turo Ave, they have You know, by making it a historic district, we have, as a city, have some control over what happens to that whole piece of property, the lot. We can't do that for every house, obviously, but we can tighten the demolition regulations, ordinances, and give the Medford Historical Commission the tools it needs, tools with teeth, And I would strongly suggest that you go for the 24-month delay, because you have to give people pause, or they are going to come in and just wait out the six months. Even if you make it 12 months, they'll wait out the 12 months. It has to be long enough that somebody that's coming in and looking to, as I think it was Gene said, that she calls it flipping. They're looking to get a property, demolish what's on it, subdivide it, and build whatever they can. In my neighborhood, as I said, the character has been changed. by one developer single-handedly. We've gotten a prefab duplex next to grandfather's house on South Street. A large tree that had to be 150 years old was cut down to make way for another prefab two family, a house on Summer Street and another large beech tree were demolished and cut down to make way for yet another prefab duplex. And now there's another house being threatened with demolition, a gorgeous, well, it could use a little, TLC on the outside, but you can see it has great bones. It's a gorgeous, large, Queen Anne-style house. Probably, I'm just guessing, I don't know, but from the 1890s era, it has a large lot, and it's very tempting. We could lose this house in short order. As you heard, The developer's already applied for a demo permit, even though he doesn't technically own the property. So he's already got the process started. I don't know if there's any way we can impose a moratorium on these things happening at this point while you guys sort out whether you're going to vote for 18 or 24 months for a demo delay. It just breaks my heart. I'm just seeing the character of my neighborhood with all its, I call them historic houses because they're older than a hundred years old. It being, you know, okay, I get too emotional about this. And as somebody else pointed out, it's fallen to the citizens, the neighbors on those streets to organize and try to fight for keeping those houses, keeping that green space open. And in most cases, it's unsuccessful. The one good spot was 21 Turo, where Tufts wanted to do the right thing by the neighborhood and found a couple that wanted to live in a historic house and bring it back, restore it to its former glory. And they've done a very nice job. So I just wanted to emphasize that time is of utmost importance. We have to get this done if we're going to save the character of our neighborhoods. Right now, we're allowing developers to come in and decide what we want our neighborhoods to be. We have no, as citizens, we have no recourse. We need to give the tools to the historical commission to save our historic houses. And you know, and Doug mentioned the other pieces that need to also be in place. Um, I know that's not before you now, but you should keep it in your head and you know, work on those things as well. Um, Yeah, I made so many notes, I don't know what I was saying. Anyway, I'll just stop there and thank you so much for listening to me ramble.
[John Anderson]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. John Anderson, 102 Brooks Street. I'm also president of the Medford Historical Society and Museum. And you can come down to our building at 10 Governors Avenue on a Sunday afternoon and see dozens upon dozens of pictures of lost Medford, buildings that are no more, many of them very beautiful. And I can assure you that I speak for the hundreds of people on our mailing list in saying that we strongly support increasing the ability of our commission to provide the historic preservation that we all need. Thank you.
[McKillop]: Name and address of the record, please. David McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. Good evening. I guess I'm probably not going to be the most popular person right now, but I just want to be pragmatic and speak about the other side of the picture a little bit. I listen to what we have to say, what everybody has to say, and I'm 100% in favor of changing zoning and having historical areas of the city because I think that's incredibly popular for the preservation of the city. It gives a snapshot to the future of what we were in the past. However, I just want to throw something out there. 25 years ago, I bought my house. My house was not a historical house. Today, if we pass the 75 years, it is now historical. Tomorrow, if I choose to tear my house down and build a beautiful new little house that my wife and I can retire in, does that mean that that may not happen because the city council has decided that my home is now a historic home. So as an owner of a piece of property with a home, that is a decent little home. Point of information. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. McKillop, the council doesn't make the determination as to whether or not the home is historic. The commission does that. So all we're doing is giving them the right development.
[McKillop]: Correct. But if we put it to the point at the hands of the commission, how many homes in the city after 75, 90 years, how many homes become historical homes?
[Adam Knight]: A very good question.
[McKillop]: That's the point I'm trying to make. At one point, the entire city becomes locked. And that's what we have to consider. So again, painting a clear kind of balanced picture, I think that going in the direction of trying to preserve historical homes 100 years past is an incredibly important thing. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Could we have quiet in the back there? Respect the gentleman at the podium. Thank you. I apologize. That's quite all right. I mean, opinions are very welcome. But we have to consider every aspect. And I think that going through this process and finding the right way to make this work for everyone is the best way to go. Because again, let's take a look at another example. A family has a home passed down generation after generation. The family has increased in size. The family is no longer in Medford. And the last remaining people in that home have passed away. Now the family wants to sell that home. A developer happens to come in and wants to purchase that home. Are you saying to that family they cannot maximize their potential because it is a historical home? What is it we're trying to tell the taxpayers? So there's two sides to the coin that have to be considered. And not that I'm against everything that's been spoken about tonight. I'm 100% for it because I think there's some incredibly beautiful homes in this town that have to be preserved. But there are two sides to the coin that have to be looked at. And that's the obligation of everyone to look at that and protect everyone. So it's going to be a challenge to find the best way to come across with this and to find the best rules to make that happen. Thank you. Thank you.
[Krause]: Name and address of the record, please. Thank you. It's Ken Kraus, 50 Mystic Street. Um, I wanted to speak in favor of the resolution to extend the demolition delay, uh, period for up to 24 months. Um, I've observed the Medford historic, uh, commission, uh, do its work for a number of years and, uh, very impressed with, uh, the, their work, the current members, um, led by Ryan Haywood, Heyward and Doug Carr, and even back when Nino Susi was involved. They're extremely knowledgeable on these matters, very diligent, careful, and they're considerate and respectful, not only of the historic element and aspect, but the neighborhood and the developer's perspective. They work very hard to try to come to a solution that benefits everyone. And it takes time. An 18- to 24-month period is not a punitive measure, or a change should not be seen as punitive. What it really does is allow the commission time to thoroughly deliberate the matter and look at all alternatives. It really just provides them adequate time to do their job, to do it to the best of their ability, and to do it in the best interest of the community. So I would urge the council to support extending the demolition day delay time up to 24 months. Thank you. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I know I've spoken already I'll be brief. I would just like to raise two points of information. The first is simply by passing this that doesn't give a designation to every home as a historical property. It just affords the committee the opportunity to review and decide whether a house is of historical significance. The second point I'd like to raise with regard to families who've aged here. and have dwindled off to the last survivors or. beneficiaries to benefit. Nobody lives in Medford and says, I live on a double lot. Ooh, when I die, my beneficiaries are going to make a lot of money. What's happening here is the developers coming in, seeing the opportunity, they're giving them market value, and they're making the profit off of themselves. So the argument, I'm sorry to say, has some holes in it. The people who are benefiting are not really the people who are selling. It's the developers who are coming in. and taking advantage of those properties because they're able to identify them and they understand the non-conforming and variance rules and how to work with the ZBA and what to do with the Office of Community Development. It's not residents that are making that money. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Name and address of the record again, please. Yep. Ryan Hayward, 40 Sharon and have, uh, just to echo those previous comments on the buildings and the determination, the historical commission takes every application on a case by case basis. So, you know, an applicant would really need to, you know, anybody would need to apply in order for a building to be determined, um, eligible for this demo delay and then, It's a two-step process to get to the actual invocation of the demo delay. So we would review the building for historic significance. We usually hire a consultant or we already have had forms, MHC, Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory forms prepared for each building in the city of Medford. Currently, right now, we're going through and preparing hundreds of forms for various neighborhoods across Medford. Right now we're working in East Medford where, just FYI, there are 900 pre-1900 buildings in that neighborhood alone. It's the highest concentration of historic buildings anywhere in the city remaining. Once we get past the significant process, if we deem it significant per the bylaw, We have to determine whether it's preferably preserved in the interest of the city of Medford at large to save. Uh, in a lot of cases, uh, we have found that that is true, but in other cases we have found that that's not true. It's a higher threshold to, uh, to, you know, to achieve. If we determine it's preferably preserved and significant, it invokes the demo delay. It would be the exact same, but it's a long process in order to get to that point. So every building is given fair review under the law. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, after listening to the residents in the audience come up and speak and discussing at sidebar with some of my colleagues, I'd like to propose an 18-month demolition delay for all homes within the last 75 years by amending 48-78B, by striking 1900 and replacing that with the language within the past 75 years, by amending 48-78H, by striking the figure six months and replacing that with 18 months. And I'd like to amend 48-78I2 by striking the figure six months and replacing that with the figure 18 months, Mr. President. The proposal that came out of the subcommittee gave the commission an opportunity to petition the council for an additional six months. I think that this is a paper based upon the sidebar conversations that I've had with my colleagues this evening. This is something we can support this evening and that we can pass this evening and we can put it through a first reading. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'd like to amend the paper to reflect such.
[Richard Caraviello]: Are you making that motion Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: I just did.
[Richard Caraviello]: Do we have a second on Councilor Knight's motion? Second.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Move for question.
[Richard Caraviello]: Second on Councilor Knight's motion. Councilor Longo-Kurin.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I want to thank Councilor Knight and the rest of my colleagues for moving forward on this tonight. I heard loud and clear that the commission wants the 24 months. I understand maybe the votes aren't there. So I'm happy with the 18 months, but I, I do want to go on record as I'm supporting the 24 month demo delay as I think that is something that it's going to give teeth to changing the ordinance. I think 18 months is great, but I think 24 months would be better. I just wanted to go on record.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing street method, Massachusetts. Um, I'm for historical preservation. As a matter of fact, if I may tell you a short story, you might find it interesting, although most of the people behind me, I'm sure, know this story already. I lived in 41 Mystic Avenue for 25 years in a three-family, which was originally a single family, that was originally next to Gaffey's, Captain Isaac Hall's house. And they moved that house. I have no idea when. before I was born, where Governor Zav is today. They moved it instead of destroying it over a hundred years ago in order to make Governor's Avenue a reasonable facsimile of Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, from what I understand. How they got it across the Karate Bridge, I have no idea. That probably explains why those 200-year-old floors were sagging. The house was built in the 1750s, before Pas Revere. Pas Revere went right by it, before they pulled governors out. That's where the house was. Captain Isaac Hall had three sons, if I understand correctly. And I was the first of three sons. I won't get into the fact that they married three sisters from Cambridge. However, by the way, historical designation can be complicated, I'm sure. I'm sure there's different entities that classify it, whatever strength of power they have. I don't know. You have the federal, you have state, city, and I presume there's others, including possibly Middlesex County that I'm not aware of. But you should also consider the new growth as not anti-American, especially if we can fix up some blighted properties. And as far as gentrification, as the lady had spoken earlier, I don't believe we would have much gentrification, even if real estate taxes, the real estate values, the prices, valuations went up drastically. But if you don't use that new growth from the new development to offset Prop 2.5 increases, then we will be pushed out, especially seniors on fixed income. or zero income for the last 29 years. Just wanted to volunteer a story from my childhood.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: You're welcome.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I saw you were probably here the other day. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I'd like to move approval as amended, striking 24 and added, um, 18 month demo delay if that's what the council so chooses and move for approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Roll call vote is requested. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. And this will take its first reading this evening where it is a note in exchange.
[Michael Marks]: Council marks procedurally. Should we take the paper that's before the committee of the whole and a reported out of committee of the whole? I mean, it's, it's a paper of similar subject matter.
[Adam Knight]: Also nice, the council rules state that paper that met in subcommittee cannot be reported out of subcommittee until the committee of the whole meets and it's presented. So that paper would have to be presented to the committee of the whole in order to be reported out of the committee of the whole and reach the floor pursuant to our rules. But we have Councilor Lungo's paper that's in front of us that we can amend. That was the theory that I was going with when I made the amendment to the piece of paper.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Final information, Mr. President. My assent to the paper before us was under the impression that it was a amendation of the original paper that was in subcommittee as presented and refined by Council and presented to us at the sidebar tonight. which then I hope has taken over the substance in form of the resolution 17-371. Thank you. Okay. Councilor Marks?
[Michael Marks]: If the council's fine with that. Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, if you'd like to read the, read it back so everybody understands what they're voting on.
[Clerk]: put his mic on, put his mic on. Okay. Um, okay. So the city of Medford revised ordinance, uh, article for section 48 be amended as follows. Uh, section seven, section 77 definitions, uh, and the significant building, section, subsection three, we're going to strike before 1900 and replace within, replace with, within previous 75 years. Within 75 years?
[Michael Marks]: That's what I have.
[Unidentified]: Right, correct.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. 75 years or older. If it says within, that means within now to 75 years. Correct. Yeah, you're right.
[Michael Marks]: So it would just be 75 years or older, correct? 75 years or older. 75 years or older.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Clerk]: Section 48 78 H. I'm going to strike. Until at least six. Replace it with. until at least 18, that's 18 months. Section 48-78I2, strike at least 6, replace with at least 18, 18 months. We're going to add a new section.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. That's it. That's it. And does this require a, this requires a three reading, correct? We have to take three readings. Yeah. All right. On the motion by council, I'm going to occur as amended. Seconded by councilor Dello Russo. This is for the first roll call vote. Is this for the first reading?
[Clerk]: So for the first reading, Mr. Clark, please call the roll. Councilor Dello Russo.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes, and it takes its first reading this evening. Thank you all my councilors for deliberating and talking this evening and getting this done. Motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn to revert back to regular business. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor. Aye. 17-366 offered by Vice President Mox. Be it resolved that the citywide street sweeping program be discussed. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We're in the midst of uh, street sweeping, citywide street sweeping. And as I've mentioned in the past, Mr. President, it's uh, maybe if we could have a recess until everyone leaves, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: If we could have a two minute recess until the room clears out. Ladies and gentlemen in the back, we're ready to go. Thank you. The motion by Councilor Dello Russo to revert back to regular business.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion by Councilor Dello Russo to suspend the rules. The purpose of taking 17374 from the table, Mr. President. He was already in the midst of his. My sincerest apologies, then I rescind my request. Thank you. And ask that the chairman reconvene the meeting.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. The chairman will reconvene the meeting now. And Councilor Marks has the floor.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of a street-sweeping initiative that's going on currently right now. And it has been stated in the past by myself and many members of this council that this particular program that we have right now is just a shell of a program. And it's existed that way for a number of years, Mr. President. And the reason why I bring this up is the fact that right now, in my opinion, the city is not giving proper notification to residents. regarding when street sweeping will take place. I've recommended in the past, and we'll do so again tonight, that the city embark upon creating permanent signage indicating the date and time of sweeping on every road in the city, Mr. President, which provides residents with notification. It allows residents to know of a recurring patent of when streets will be swept, and it allows residents to plan ahead Mr. President. So permanent signage will accomplish the notification and the planning ahead of residents. Also, Mr. President, as I've offered in the past, staggering parking on streets, whether it's odd or even parking during street sweeping, allows residents in those areas that are congested to, that don't have access to a driveway or to put their car somewhere, it'll allow them to park on one side of the street, similar to what we do in snow emergencies. And then we can sweep on one side and then on the other side, Mr. President, allowing residents ample opportunity to park their cars. on either the odd or even side. I would ask that this recommendation or these recommendations be sent to the Public Works Subcommittee for full recommendations on the creation of a street sweeping program. This is not the first time I've asked that we take a long and hard look at how we operate and do business in this community, in particular regarding street sweeping. The fact we only sweep our streets twice a year You know, street sweeping accomplishes a number of things. It keeps our roads clean, but it also keeps the debris and clutter from going into our catch basins, which create flooding if they get filled up, Mr. President. So this is a very important initiative that, for some reason, this city has been lax on creating an effective policy of notification and permanent signage. And I think it's long overdue, Mr. President, If need be, if the city administration feels to act upon these recommendations like they've done in the past, I would recommend that the city council, and in particular the public works committee, create a city ordinance. Because it seems to me that the policy of street sweeping, which is created by the administration, is no longer effective in this community. When you see cars that are being tagged and towed, you know, and many of which do not receive the notification from the reverse 9-1-1. I think it's a shame, Mr. President, in this day and age, to hit residents up with a $175 bill before they even start their day off, if they're able to start their day off after their car gets towed. So I would offer that in the form of a motion, Mr. President, that this be sent to the Public Works Subcommittee to review permanent signage with dates and times and a recurring on when our streets will be swept and also to stagger the parking by odd even allowing residents in congested areas to park on the streets during street sweeping. Thank you Mr. Vice President.
[Richard Caraviello]: The Public Works Subcommittee is headed by Councilor Nyth, Vice President Mox, and Councilor Dello Russo. Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank my colleague for bringing this forward. Just for clarity, Council Marks, we're looking to put an eight to ten month program like neighbor communities have, a street sweeping program that runs daily.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Counsel Scott probably brings up a great point. I would envision something starting in April, ending the end of December. Uh, I know our business districts probably should be swept probably on a daily basis, maybe the neighborhoods, uh, streets once a month based on the permanent signage, uh, giving dates and times and so forth. And maybe, uh, you know, staggering odd even, but, uh, definitely at least once a month from April to December in the neighborhoods. Okay.
[George Scarpelli]: If I could, If I could, if you could allow me to make amendment to that paper and looking to ask the city administration for feasibility study, whether it's outsourcing or with hopes to provide what I would hope our DPW with the crew and machinery needed to perform that such act on that type of a basis. So I'd love to see more in depth numbers and It's something that I would love to see in our community. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Lamox for bringing this forward. I think this is a great resolution. I think it's something that needs to be looked at. I know that I've received many phone calls when I bump into people in the streets. A lot of people will talk about the cleanliness of the roads in the city. And this is something that needs to be addressed. But I, you know, Council Member Akshay, you bring up a good point. I think that this is something that should probably be in a city ordinance. I mean, this does, I think, hold the city's feet to the fire and says, hey, you know what, this needs to be done X amount of times a year. I mean, two times a year right now to me is just not acceptable. I mean, people pay their taxes here. They deserve to have clean streets and a clean city. And I think right now, you know, you go, you drive down many of the streets and, you know, there's debris all over the place, you know, with regard to, you know, you know, rocks from the road being torn up after the winter. And, you know, I mean, basically these things need to be addressed. And it wasn't even a bad winter. So, you know, when you have a really bad winter, the street can be a real mess. So, I mean, I think I definitely would favor this, would favor this to be in a city ordinance. I think that's the way we need to go long-term. If it's going to go to the uh, DPW subcommittee. I think that's fine, but I think we need to also look at this, uh, um, you know, on the, uh, ordered in subcommittee as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Falco.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. This is a topic that's not new to anybody behind this rail, um, especially during this time of year. And, um, one of the items that I see in terms of street sweeping in general, that's lacking in the community is, um, our public utilities. And when we issue permits to our public utilities to tear up our streets and they do it, And then they decide to come back whenever they feel like coming back to repair our streets. And then they leave the streets still looking in an awful situation, an awful mess with sand, with gravel, with dirt all over the place. I don't believe that public utilities are required as part of the permitting process when they open up our streets to perform a sweep when they're done. And I think that that's something that we should also look at. Mr. President, I'd like to amend the paper to reflect that. I'd also, as the chairman of the DPW subcommittee, would request that any of my colleagues behind this rail send out an email to the members of the subcommittee with any suggestions that they'd like to see, and we can get to the table and discuss these issues.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, I am grateful to have this opportunity to work on this in a concrete way. I know the subcommittee will get things done, certainly under the leadership of Councilor Knight. I would like to point out, though, that I think it is fairly almost nightly, maybe every other night, I should say at four in the morning, as I am awakened every time it happens at four in the morning by our dear friends from the Street Sweeper who come by as I live adjacent to a business district. I have the beautiful sound of the humming of the engine, the whining of the transmission, and the scuffing of the the brushes that get our streets clean.
[Richard Caraviello]: Many of the main streets are done on a daily basis.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes. So we can continue to work on this and I think the idea of an ordinance is a good idea. I think it's a good idea.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address for the record please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street. My street is designated as a main artery. So I think we have the street cleaning is supposed to commence in April and begin end on October 30th. I hope that part of the discussion will include the main arteries because what we really need on those arteries is enforcement. I like Councilor Dela Rousseau get the One to two a.m. Wake up call now twice a week for the street cleaners coming in the middle of the night. But I often look out the window and note that even though one night is odd and one night is even, the street cleaner has to go around a car. So if there's no enforcement, then those roads aren't actually getting cleaned. And my husband will go out the next day with the shovel and pick up the debris on the road. broken glass and such, that hasn't been picked up by the street cleaner because someone is parked in front of our house. So that's important as well. Also, when you do the clean sweep in the fall, because street cleaning on the main arteries has ended, we don't get street cleaning after October 30th, so all the leaves are in the streets. And the neighbors will go out and take care of those as well. So if we're not going to have enforcement, then increased street cleaning is not going to work. I know that the police are taxed, but that should be something that is included in the conversation. Because even though we have the signs on our street every 10 to 20 feet, there's a sign that says move on Wednesday night, move on Thursday night, the cars are not moving and nothing's happening. The street cleaners are just going around them. So that's not really useful for us. I do hope that it will do more street cleaning. My father lives on Garfield Avenue. and he's frequently cleaning out the catch basins because they don't get the regular cleaning.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by councilor marks as amended by councilor night, seconded by, and as amended by councilor Scarpelli, seconded by councilor Lungo-Koehn. And this, uh, to send this to these public, public works, a subcommittee, all those in favor. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Motion to spend the rules. So we, so we can, um, have Roberta Cameron come up. Uh, I know she was a little bit late, uh, to be speaking on the community preservation act. All those in favor. Thank you. Yes.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Roberta Cameron]: Roberta Cameron, 12 North Street. My apologies. I was double booked tonight and I didn't realize how late they would keep me. Um, so, um, I, I think you all know me, uh, my familiarity with community preservation and I sincerely look forward to having the opportunity to help the city of Medford build this, um, this program with the Community Preservation Act and see and understand what our needs are and how we can use these resources to carry out our community goals.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Neistat. Mr. President, thank you very much. I first met Roberta when she asked me for a signature on the Preserve Medford petition and since that time I've had the opportunity to work with her through the passage of the Act and now the passage of the community preservation commission. Um, she was a member of the ad hoc subcommittee, um, that put together the language for our city ordinance. And, um, if we take a look at miss Cameron's resume and credentials and contrast that with the city ordinance, you'll see that, uh, she meets all the criteria that has been outlined. Um, she has a great wealth of experience and technical assistance and, uh, implementing the community preservation act and other communities. And, uh, it was really a pleasure working with her and other members of the committee to get this thing passed. And this is really the final step that the City Council has this evening, Mr. President, in our involvement with the creation of the ordinance. We appoint the last member of the committee. Hopefully she gets approved this evening and they get to work on putting proposals together to give to us to decide whether or not they're things that we feel as though should be funded. So with that being said, it's with great pleasure that I wholeheartedly endorse Roberta's candidacy and move for approval on the paper number one. And number two, it's with great excitement that I'm glad to see the commission finally together, up, and hopefully soon to be running. I would like to point out your colleagues waited as long as they could for you. And I'm on the committee and they had to leave. But I will, for one, Mr. President, have no problem supporting Roberta Cameron for an appointment this evening. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor De La Rosa. Mr. President, I, too, endorse the candidacy of Roberta. I laud her for her leadership in this matter. and her commitment to our community and other matters. And I also particularly point out her patience and willingness to work with people who might not see things the way that she does. And she's offered great leadership, and I'd like to second her approval.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to also endorse Roberta Cameron tonight. I was on the ad hoc subcommittee with Roberta. She was absolutely instrumental in developing the ordinance. I know you're a hard worker. I know you're going to do a great job. I just want to say good luck.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marksx. Thank you, Mr. President. As Roberta mentioned she's well known in the community. Roberta has been an advocate for a lot of different issues in particular our shade trees and our trees throughout the community. Roberta has been a real strong advocate. And, you know, based on the makeup of this committee, we have a project manager. We have someone that works in real estate. We have someone that has a particular interest in historic preservation. And with Roberta's credentials, this is going to be a very dynamic committee. And I look forward to their eventual recommendations, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: Counsel Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I just want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues. I've known Roberta for a long time, and she's pushed for a lot of good things in this city. And I know she's going to do a great job. Thank you for your willingness to serve. I think it's just important. I pushed my button because I think it was important to point out, I think Council Marks did, and your background. You have a planning background, which is extremely important and going to be instrumental on this committee. I did ask the other committee members could just keep us in the loop and obviously maybe forward us minutes of meetings, just so we know what's going on and what's coming down the line. That would be appreciated.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Again, I'm sure I apologize. I had to step out for a moment, but I know how tenacious Roberta was to have this issue come to fruition. And with your background and your expertise, I know how vital you were as we put the program in place. I echo my colleague's comments and very excited to see you as part of this program to see where we can, where we're going to go with this great initiative. So thank you.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. And I too wanted to thank Roberta for being upfront on many issues in this community. And thank you for your, all the work you do here. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo, Oh, I'm sorry.
[Roberta Cameron]: I'm sorry.
[Richard Caraviello]: I had the gentleman back. Would you like to speak?
[Robert Cappucci]: Name, address of the record. Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Capucci, 71 Evans street. Uh, if I could through the chair, I understand this is, she's part of the community preservation. We are, we are a commission.
[Richard Caraviello]: We are approving her coronation by the, by yes.
[Robert Cappucci]: Uh, in, in vetting her out. That's right. I think it would be prudent to ask the question exactly how does this commission work? From my understanding in reading the law is that they get to decide how the funds are spent, but people from the citizenry can also solicit the community preservation commission for funds. Point of information.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight, you will help me. The city's ordinance is rather specific in detail in terms of the procedure and the processes. that take place on how an applicant can move forward and request whether or not they have a funding opportunity. And there are also certain restrictions that are placed around who would be a qualified and eligible applicant.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I'm sure Roberta is very open to anything. If you have an idea, give her a call and she'd be happy to listen. On the motion. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor De La Russa. All those in favour? Aye. Roberta, thank you very much. Yes, Councilor Dela Ruzzo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, while we're on to suspension, I respectfully request that we take out of order paper 17-374, communications from the mayor regarding the expenditure of monies from free cash for the updating of our election equipment.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dela Ruzzo to take paper 17-374, Out of order. Suspension second by Councilor knife. All in favor. Aye.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, if I could, uh, speak on your behalf, we met and I appreciate that, uh, to, um, uh, have a presentation from, uh, the city clerk, uh, regarding the condition of, uh, some of our election equipment, uh, and our need to replace it, that the, uh, equipment has become rather old. uh, over 20 years old. Uh, it's a difficult to find replacement, uh, parts and backup support, uh, for the, uh, machines which were once cutting edge. Uh, and now, uh, we're on the verge of, uh, the, clerk with approval of this, uh, and the commitment to free cash will, um, uh, assist the process of sending out an RFP and, uh, the purchase and examination of, uh, some options. And so, uh, we had a detailed discussion and the, uh, committee of the whole, uh, and it was reported out favorably.
[Richard Caraviello]: So I'd like to move approval, Mr. President. Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I am not opposed to this particular paper. I think it's long overdue to have equipment in the Registrar of Voters Office as well on election day that properly reflects the will of the people. And I think equipment is needed. I do, Mr. President, have to say that This council has voted unanimously on at least three different occasions requesting that our brave men and women of the fire department receive the two extractors, which are washing machines on steroids, Mr. President, and two dryers to clean their turnout gear. As I mentioned several weeks ago when I made a presentation before this council that it was unanimously supported, I requested that the administration look into buying two more washes because currently, right now, many of the brave men and women of our fire department are using turnout gear that is potentially in a fire and contaminates on the turnout gear that's leaching into our firefighters' skins, Mr. President, and could be causing risk of cancer. I've asked this on several occasions. The administration said that they were looking into grants. I did talk to Bill O'Brien, the union president, and he mentioned they are pursuing a grant. right now for two washes and two dries that will be located at the firefighter headquarters on Main Street. And if the grant comes through, fine, Mr. President. There's nothing that precludes this council from allotting $29,700. That's what it's going to take to assure our men and women in the fire department have the proper equipment to wash their gear, Mr. President. That's all it's going to take, $29,700. And if the grant comes through, Mr. President, that grant will pay back the money that was taken out of the free cash. So I would respectfully ask, Mr. President, as part of this paper, there'd be a B paper requesting that the mayor appropriate $29,700 to pay for two washing machines, which are two extractors and two dryers, Mr. President. for the fire department, which has been unanimously supported by this council.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So I would ask that as a big paper, as part of this paper, Mr. President may also point out that it was, uh, uh, reported to us that these new polling machines, Mr. President, these new election machines, uh, will not be subject to, uh, undue interference from, uh, foreign powers, whether they be Eastern European or Asian or anywhere else. Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, as amended by Councilor Marks, the $29,700 be appropriated from Free Cash for the purpose of two washes and two dryers. Name and address for the record, please.
[Joe Viglione]: Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Avenue, Medford, Mass. I commend Councilor Marks. Excellent. I love seeing good, important, tangible items brought to the table. Tonight in Georgia, there's an election and four of the machines, four of the machines are down. Now the good guy's winning. The Democrat, that's my political speech there. But he's winning by a huge margin. But there's four machines, and that really concerns me. So new election machines, yes, we need them. I think we need an outside agency to come in and look at this, because the citizens don't know what we're doing when we vote. We don't know where it goes. It can go into the ether. So I know there's partisan people here in city government, and we want to make sure that everything's done correctly. So there was a lot of questions about the last election. The citizens need to know which kind of machines are coming in. We need an outside agency looking at them so that every citizen knows that their vote counts. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Nice. On that note, Mr. President, I would like to commend the work that Ms. Murray, Mr. Lasky, and Mr. Wade do, our elections commissioners. I think they're doing a great job. It was great to see them.
[Richard Caraviello]: They were very good outside board.
[Adam Knight]: It was great to see them before the council this evening. It's something that we haven't seen too much of in the past, the full board coming before us this evening. So I'd like to thank them for the work that they do. Congratulate them and move approval on the paper.
[Richard Caraviello]: Outstanding board. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, as amended by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor DelaRosso?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Long-Term? Yes. Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Motion by Councilor Donnarusso to revert back to regular business. Seconded by Councilor Knights. All those in favor? 17-367, offered by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the new bimonthly fixed charge, also known as connectivity charge, for Medford water and sewer rates payers be discussed? Vice President Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I spoke about this issue, I believe it was last week or the week? Last week. Last week. Thank you, Mr. President. And this council voted to set up a Committee of the Whole meeting. That's correct. Which I believe is going to take place May 2nd. May 2nd. May 2nd. And I want to thank you for your quick response on that. You're welcome. This is a really important issue that's impacting every resident in this community that pays a water and sewer bill. I received additional information, and that's why I'm bringing it up tonight. I received a letter dated November 17, 2015, regarding Medford Water and Sewer Commissioners. And the letter goes on to state, Mr. President, that the Water and Sewer Commissioners voted to create what they refer to as a baseline charge on everyone's water and sewer bill. When I read on, Mr. President, they refer to it as, which I referred to it last week, as a connectivity charge. And the way I understand it is every resident will receive this additional charge on a bimonthly basis starting in August 1st, 2018. And the reason that I got for the implementation of this connectivity charge is that it will pay for infrastructure improvements and other water and sewer necessities. We all know right now there's over $8 million in the water and sewer enterprise account in surplus funds. And that money, by state law, is earmarked to not only reduce the rate, if need be, but also for infrastructure improvements. And it can only be spent on infrastructure improvements or reduction in water and sewer rates. And this particular charge, in my opinion, is nothing more than an additional surcharge on the ratepayers of this community. And the additional information I did receive And I can let my colleagues see it, or I can make a copy for May 2nd, is that they actually went as far as breaking down the additional charge by the size of the water pipe that comes into your house. And most people in this community, in the residential areas, have a five-eighths pipe that comes into the house. And that additional connectivity charge will be $9.47 bi-monthly, which is six times. So it's roughly $60 additional a year. It may not sound like a lot, but you know what? When you have an $8 million surplus of ratepayer money, sitting in an account. That's a lot of money to additionally request, Mr. President, and also request it based on the fact that it's for infrastructure improvements. And that's the money we're already collecting. And we already have a surplus. As part of the bill we currently pay right now, it goes to your water. It goes to delivery. It goes for the maintenance of the pipes. It goes for the workers within the city of Medford that are in the water and sewer department. So that's already built into the rate structure. This is an added cost that I am adamantly opposed to, Mr. President. I need to say, I find it ironic, Mr. President, that the Water and Sewer Commission would take a vote or be presented with a proposal in November of 2015. And then the city administration sit on it, not till last year when we had a mayor race. They didn't touch it then. Not this year. I mean, last year was an off year. To not sit on it during the mayor race, which was in 2015, sit on it in 2016, the first term of the new mayor. No, didn't want any increases then. 2017. New May is up for reelection. Let's sit on it again. 2018 sounds like a great time. Let's do it in August of 2018 when everyone's vacationing and not paying attention. That sounds like a great time to implement something almost three years after the fact, Mr. President. I really would like to hear from the administration to explain why this is being rolled out in August of 2018. What's the reasoning behind it? Also, Mr. President, you know, I mentioned $60, and people at home may say, ah, $60, that's not too much. That's $1.5 million they're going to raise from roughly a $60 surcharge. Now, not everyone has a 5-8 pipe coming into their home. We have condos associations that may have an inch pipe, a two-inch pipe. Their bill will be $75 bimonthly. You go up further to some of the larger corporations in our city that may have a six or 10-inch pipe. A 10-inch pipe, Mr. President, coming in, that's $1,087 bimonthly. That's $6,000 additional charge. Now, I don't know what businesses or how many have a 10-inch pipe. or a six-inch water pipe, which is $472. But all I can tell you, Mr. President, there's nothing worse than a hidden charge. You know, we've been paying for the last three or four years a franchise fee to get local access cable. Local access cable, Mr. President, we've all been paying, and we haven't received local access cable in almost four years. And I stand to be corrected, it may even be longer than that. So all these little additional fees that are out there, Mr. President, do add up. Do add up to the senior citizens on a fixed income that can't afford an additional penny on their bill, let alone another $60 for a charge, Mr. President. They're already charging us. You already have $8 million of the taxpayers' money, Mr. President, in an account. What more do you want? What more do you want from the ratepayers? It's easy picking. That's what it is. It's easy picking, Mr. President. So I would ask, Mr. President, that when we meet with the Water and Sewer Commission on May 2nd, that the administration is also represented and also that Ron Baker, which I mentioned, I'm not sure if you added him, to the list. He's on the list. He's on the list. So we can have a thorough explanation on, not only from the Water and Sewer Commissioners, from the city administration, who's been sitting on this for several years now, for the opportune time to present it when no one's paying attention. That's what this boils down to.
[Richard Caraviello]: We can put that question forward so we'll have that information for that meeting.
[Michael Marks]: I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, instead of from the other end. I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.
[Richard Caraviello]: We will invite the administration to the meeting.
[Michael Marks]: OK, I'd appreciate that, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Doroso. Mr. President, I, too, look forward to hearing more about this from the city administration, members of the Water and Sewer Commission, and the appropriate parties who are able to present to us factual information, which I look forward to. And I thank you in advance for your leadership in the matter, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Doroso.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lococo. Thank you, President Caraviello. I just want to thank Councilor Marks for bringing this forward. I was unaware. I don't know how you got the information. If you could provide us with that information, maybe by email before the meeting. OK. Yeah, I'm just glad it's been brought to our attention before they roll it out. Come August 2018, I definitely am in agreement with Councilor Marks. We already overtaxed the taxpayer. the ratepayers, and now, you know, any additional fees or charges. It does hurt a lot of people. Some people can afford it, but a lot of people can't. And those are the people that we hear from. So I'm glad. Thank you for setting up a meeting, President Caraviello. And I look forward to getting some answers and hopefully making some changes to the potential possibility.
[Richard Caraviello]: The second council will hold 6 o'clock p.m.
[Robert Cappucci]: Name and address of the record, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Capucci, 71 Evans Street. Through the chair, I want to thank Councilor Marks for bringing this up and bringing this information forward. Mr. President, on two separate other debating topics tonight, the vetting of the new Community Preservation Commission, a new shadow government method, and on Councilor Lungo-Koehn's resolution about the demolition, a lot of talk was generated on affordable housing and preserving historic landmarks. here's a great opportunity to give a little bit more affordable housing to the residents of Medford. And as far as historical landmarks go, how about our senior citizens, like my mother, who's 78 years old, who is a historic person as far as I'm concerned here in Medford. This charge, Mr. President, and I'm a little passionate about this, is outrageous, especially when Councilor Marks refers to the fact that there's $8 million in an overtaxed account. Here's a great opportunity to provide a little bit more affordable housing to the citizens of Medford. And we shouldn't wait until 2018. The power of this body should somehow find a way to kill this now, not wait. May 2nd will be the Council of All We. Not wait. And on that point, because this is such an important matter, perhaps that Committee of the Whole meeting should be in this chamber, under the TV, so people at home can watch this, Mr. President. It's unfortunate that that meeting is not available to the whole public through through technology in some fashion. To me, I'm sorry, this is really outrageous. Something should be done. In terms of talking about affordability for the residents of Medford, another speaker spoke earlier to me about how the rents are going way up. Why do you think that is? When the property taxes are always going up, our sales taxes, excise taxes, excess in taxes, a cash account with another $10 million into it. This stuff trickles downhill, Mr. President, in the lower income, in the middle income, and the poor people are the ones who end up paying all of these excessive costs for living in the city of Medford, especially when there's a surplus. Mr. President... May 2nd, voice your concerns that night. I'm voicing them here and now, too, Mr. President. Thank you. It's outrageous. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Max. Just if I can also amend the paper. If we can also, before the May 2nd meeting, get a copy of the minutes which the vote of the Water and Sewer Commission took place that voted on this connectivity charge. If we can have a copy of the minutes for that.
[Richard Caraviello]: A copy of the minutes be provided also.
[Michael Marks]: of the meeting where the vote was taken for this connectivity charge.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[McKillop]: David McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. Uh, I live up in an area called the heights. I'm sure most people are familiar with it. One of the things about the heights that's very unique is our water pressure. I had the rare opportunity of sitting across at one of the mayor's meet and greets, the commissioner of the water and sewer, and asked him, has that area of Medford ever been reviewed? Because the water pressure is It's sometimes so horrific that if I'm taking a shower and my neighbor waters their lawn, I guess I'm taking a cold shower or a very little one or a very fast one. And his response to me was, oh, yeah, it's reviewed all the time. And it's a very costly review to process. And how long ago, my question was, was that reviewed? Oh, many, many years ago, but we look at it all the time. So my question is, how can we have an $8 million surplus and have areas of the city that have a deficit when it comes to things that need to be looked at, repaired, fixed, replaced, changed. I know I'm on a five-eighths piping. Part of that is so the pressure can kind of maintain a certain level. But really, seriously, it's just ironic that we would ask for an additional $1.45 million a year to add what, to the surplus? I'm confused. And the other thing I really kind of me being mathematical, I take 8 million and 9 million and that's 17 million. And isn't that pretty close to what we need for a police department, fire department? Just throwing it out there. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address for the record, please. Robert Penta zero summit road method. Mass former member of the sport. The path is kind of ironic about this is your projected rates this year for your water and sewer are being reduced by approximately 2.77%. So if the Water and Sewer Commission has given you a 2.77 projected rate decrease for combined water and sewer, and as you said, Councilor Marks, they're sitting on $8.5 million in the surplus, why would they now want to go out and hit you with a connectivity fee on a quarterly basis? And if you check any cities and towns, most of them that have a connectivity fee, it's a one-time fee, and that's it. And it's at the discretion of the Director of Public Works or the town administrator If you are a present homeowner landowner and you need to be reconnected, there is no charge. It would be for a brand new person coming in, building a house first time around $50 one time fee.
[Richard Caraviello]: Usually any point of information.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo was that may 2nd committee of the whole meeting. May 2nd is the meeting.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you for interrupting me. Councilor Dello Russo. I appreciate that. Is there anything else you want to do before I finish? Put your smile on your face. You know, let me tell you something. You know, when somebody's speaking up here, I don't need to be interrupted rudely. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And that's the problem. When people view something like this on the council floor and they watch it on television, that doesn't bode very well for you folks sitting here. Mr. President. I just think it's a shame.
[Adam Knight]: Point of order. Point of order. Stick to the subject matter on the agenda, please. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: The point of order is talking about how this council is going to react. with the rate increase of a connectivity fee that you're going to be putting on the taxpayers if it comes to be presented before you. I don't think you need to wait until May 2nd. I think your vote should take place here tonight that you're not going to approve it, and you're not going to be supportive of it. We have a meeting on May 2nd. Mr. President, you have an $8.5 million surplus, and you have a projected rate decrease in your water and sewer rate. Now, you go out and explain that to the ratepayer of this community.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have a meeting on May 2nd.
[Robert Penta]: Wait a minute. Please answer me. Explain to me, are any one of the, how do you have a rate decrease when you want to charge a new increase? You have the CPA. It will be explained on May 2nd. You have the CPA as a corollary tax. On May 2nd, there's a meeting. I understand that. You have a corollary tax, the CPA. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not even going to meet it, not even match it. I did not. You should not be charging the taxpayers that money. It was voted on by the citizens of the state. And the citizens and you guys can make a representative, you can. Order, Mr. President. We have order here. You know what the order was when you and Councilor Dello Russo ran around when the people were talking? You know something, Mr. President? You know, trying to keep order with some folks who were just intentionally, they have no sense of respect. They have no respect for people at the podium. I understand that, Mr. President, but I do have the podium right now and I have an opportunity to say what I want to say. Okay, and I'm sticking to the subject matter. And the subject matter is the water, okay? And I'm saying to you, as president of this council, your message back to the Water and Soil Commission should be, we are not going to be any supportive of it. When Councilmarks gets the minutes of that meeting and they find out how and why they want to keep taxing the people of this community, it's you folks. Your election is coming up this year. You guys are going to be paying for it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Again, May 2nd, all your questions can be answered then. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Greetings, Mr. President Caraviello. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street, Medford, Massachusetts. How do I start?
[Richard Caraviello]: I'll make it very- We're talking about the water.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yeah, I'm talking about water.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's where we're starting.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: If you're not talking about the water, don't start anything. Is it free water? There's something in the water, 02155. I got my T-shirt. It's about the water. Listen, Richard. Okay. This connectivity fee, it's all new to me, Councilor Marks. I'd ask you to explain it, but it's kind of late, and some people want to go watch that basketball game, although the only last two minutes is what really counts, in my opinion. However, this connectivity fee might be something that might, how you say it, the strata breaks the tax man's back, or the taxpayer's back. I enjoyed seeing Councilor Brianna and some other politicians yesterday, first time that I recollect ever going to see front of Captain Isaac Hall's house and celebrating our first revolution. Thank you. I guess the Beatles would say, if you walk the streets, we'll tax your feet, because I'm the taxpayer. When does this end? At Dela Rousseau's? Or Ching Carty's? or a cremation of some sort. If we're going to talk about the water, we talk about the water.
[Richard Caraviello]: We're not going to talk about anybody's business.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Who polluted the harbor talking about water? Me? You? No. The Mills and Lawrence, the GE, the corporations in Woburn. Who's cleaning it up? The lower middle class. It's paid for. It's done.
[Richard Caraviello]: Why are we still paying? May 2nd, you can ask all the questions you want of the Water and Soil Commission.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Ask all the questions we want.
[Richard Caraviello]: Ask me a question, I'll tell you no lies. Thank you, sir. Thank you. On to question by Councilor Marks, as amended by... Do you have any more amendments you want to add on to? So I have a copy of the minutes will be there. Ron Baker will be there and we'll, and we'll have someone from the administration also be there. Is that correct?
[Michael Marks]: Right.
[Richard Caraviello]: Anything else?
[Michael Marks]: I don't know if you want to get them to answer it ahead of time.
[Richard Caraviello]: If they want, if they want to answer ahead of time, they can answer. Uh, but May 2nd, hopefully we can get all those questions answered on the motion by Councilor Marks. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Mr. President, it'd be nice if we could get those answers ahead of time. It'd be nice to go into the meeting prepared.
[Richard Caraviello]: We'll do our best. Thank you. We will request. Hopefully they will come before the meeting.
[John Falco]: You're trying to digest it during the meetings.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think we're all in agreement with that.
[John Falco]: If we get it before the meeting, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Marks seconded by by Councilor Falco. All those in favor. Motion passes 17 3, 6, 8, offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the administration to examine the feasibility of requiring EpiPens and Epi training to the city's first responders. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Being a father of children with allergies and understanding the severity thereof in looking at the past few weeks, what's going on in the community. We have first responders whose job is to save people's lives, carrying Narcan. We have our first responders right now reviewing a request that this council made to have defibrillators as part of their first response packets. And this is an effort to build upon that, Mr. President, and to ask the administration to examine the feasibility of requiring EpiPens and EpiPen training for our first responders. As we all know, when you come into a situation related to allergies, every second counts. And most times the police cars get there before the ambulances do. And if, in fact, there's a feasible way to provide this training and this product to our First responders, I think, will be making Medford a safer place. And I don't think there's anybody behind this rail that can argue that our first job isn't to have a focus on public safety, Mr. President. We're making great strides in that regard. And I think that this is just an opportunity for us to expand upon the services that we provide our citizenry. And I'd ask that my colleagues behind the rail support this measure. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Kurin. Thank you, President Caraviello. I want to thank Councilor Knight, for bringing this forward, I actually saw it on the news. A young child from Walpole was being rushed to the hospital. Oh, no, actually, maybe that's where you got it. EMT came and saved his life with an EpiPen. And they said, thank God the EMTs got there. We're the first responders. And it's a big push by a woman in Walpole. I think she's getting help by a couple of state representatives in that area to change the law of the state. but I think this is a great resolve put forward by Councilor Knight to implement it in Medford sooner than later. So many children and adults and anybody any age have these allergies where EpiPens are being more and more administered and needed and I think if somebody can save a life of somebody who's going into anaphylactic shock, it's going I know there's going to have to be training that's going to need to be need to take place, but it's going to be worth it. So I second the resolve.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Also, Mr. President, I know we've all seen in the news the drastic price increases of EpiPens and individuals that are on fixed incomes may have a little bit of a difficult time purchasing these materials, especially if they're without insurance. So one of my fears is that individuals that You know, I have allergies that require an EpiPen when they have a reaction. I'm going to use that as an area to save costs. And if someone's trying to trim their budget and they haven't used their EpiPen in two or three years and it's expired, they might say, well, I'm pretty good at watching the nuts. I don't think I need it, which is going to create a worse situation, Mr. President. So I, again, thank Councilor Longo for her kind words and move for approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. And I have a grandson that has an allergy and EpiPens are $600 a piece and not covered by insurance. And he takes one to school, I have one at home, and my daughter is out $1,800 on three EpiPens that you only get a year on. So, again, they are quite expensive and insurance should cover them, but they don't. On the motion by Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Lockern, all those in favor? Motion passes. Petitions, excuse me, one more. 17369, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved, the Board of Health examine the feasibility of establishing a grading system for establishments licensed to sell food products. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. This is a program or a process or a policy that's in place in many communities around the United States of America. think about the first time I saw it, I think I was in California when I saw this establishment has been rated a B plus by the Board of Health and its inspection. There are other establishments that were seized and other establishments that were raised. And what the Board of Health is doing is conducting their food inspections and then making an assessment based upon a certain policy or protocol they put in place to give a grade to that establishment with the hopes that it produces corrective action, Mr. President. every food establishment here in the city of Medford meeting every requirement that the Board of Health puts forward. So we'll see cities like New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and most recently I believe the city of Boston adopted a system where they're grading establishments based upon the results of their food inspections. And I think that this is really a great act to protect the consumer. I don't want the policy to create an increased burden on operators or business owners here in the community, but I think that if we sell good products and the city is behind the fact that a business is selling a good product, that we'll have more customers in that business because the city and the government entity has made an effort to further regulate it and to make sure that they're complying by all the rules. And then we're telling people they're complying by the rules. So I know we have Mr. Pinter at the rail here. I thought Mr. McKillop was going to get up because he's a He's a business owner and a restaurant owner. However, this is a measure that I'd like to get a report back from the Board of Health on as to whether or not this is something that they find feasible and find out if it'll work in the city of Medford, Mr. President. So I'd ask my colleagues to support it and move approval.
[Robert Penta]: Name and address of the record, please. Robert Pantazero, Summit Road, Medford, Mass. Number one, I would be opposed to this bill if I was sitting on that side of the rail, because number one, I think this is an infringement upon the free enterprise system. The Board of Health has a job to do. They go out there, they review the product of the restaurant, or whatever it might be, that's their job. And for them to start taking an arbitrary and capricious action by placing a, A, B, or C on the type of business that's taking place, who are they? They don't frequent that business. And I think it would lead a very, uh, it would, it would skew. the public to go into a certain direction to say one business might be better than another. You know, this is just as bad as municipal aggregation. You know, you're asking city government to get involved in people's lives, their personal lives, and in this situation, their personal life is a personal business.
[Adam Knight]: The proposal that's before us is for the Board of Health to examine whether or not this would be a feasible approach. And what it is is not to have the Board of Health get involved into the business operations of a business, but to report to the general public that the facility that they're going to eat and purchase food from is clean. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: When they go and do their job, and they review a restaurant, and they get a certificate on there that says it's been approved, whether it's a milk license, a common ventures license, or any kind of food product license, that's the city or the town telling you that that place has passed the test. They don't need to have a rating system. When you start getting into a rating system, well, maybe we should have departments come down here and rate you guys and girls on the performance of your jobs, OK? You're really crossing over the line on something like this. You have a department that does its job. And its job is to go out there and to ensure that the food product in a business is safe, it's good to eat, And so be it. And now if you're going to start putting a rating system on it, I think you're really crossing over the line. You know, people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go into a food business. And if that person upstairs, man or female, who happens to work for the health department, just doesn't They might pass the test, but they may not like the person. You're getting into a personality conflict. How many times have you folks gotten phone calls from people that have a business because they don't like a department head that comes in there and gives them a hard time? And it's a personality conflict. It's got nothing to do with the business. I would strongly suggest that this does not go forward and you leave it just the way it is as a private sector business person coming to the city and applying for their license. However it is, they go there, they do their job, but their business takes care of itself. Their product sold to the public will take care of itself. We don't need any city administration telling a business person that owns a restaurant how they should be rated by this city.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: We all do things a certain way. And we could all do things better, Mr. President. And all this is is an opportunity for us to ask the Board of Health whether or not we're doing things the right way, and if it's feasible to do it a different way, and if that different way is going to be better. I don't think it's something we need to yell and scream about.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[McKillop]: Name and address of the record, please. Dave McKillop, 94 Rockland Road, and I do own a restaurant, and I was hesitant to come up. I'm not going to lie. I know you did. There's two rules of thought here. The city that I work in, I have an incredible rapport with the department and Larry, the head of the department. So we work in tandem. He comes in. It's a surprise. I never know when they're coming. There are things that, totally honestly, that they will find that are incredible, and then there are things that they will find that might have slipped through the cracks, whether it's a thermometer that isn't working or something that isn't quite shelved properly. But they work really, really hard with us as a community. And if you work really, really hard with the Board of Health, there's a respect level there that carries very well. Now, I can't speak for what goes on in Medford as far as the rapport between the Board of Health and Medford and the restaurateurs. I can only tell you that that's something that you know, as a whole, you would look at and see the reports and evaluate the situation and make a decision as to, does this make sense for us? Should we step up to the plate and do something a little bit different because it's not quite working the way we'd like to based off of the information we have? That's kind of the way I personally would approach it. If I remember correctly, the grading method was based or actually came about do specifically because of the chain businesses. Because the chain businesses were the ones that were having a real difficult time staying on top of things. Because when you go to franchises or you go to district managers, regional managers, then store managers, then assistant managers, It's very, very difficult to kind of maintain a certain level of control. And that's kind of where that kind of came from and morphed out of. And then it kind of blanketed across and kind of kept going further. And to be honest with you too, Mr. Penta's point, there are some areas that it does not work well, that it is kind of a negative kind of, reciprocation on the behalf of someone that may not appreciate someone else and, you know, gives them a bad score just simply because they can. So it is a double-edged, it can be a double-edged sword, but I think that any community that works with the Board of Health, the restaurateurs, they recognize how important it is, and the Board of Health, if they do it well, and I know in my community they do it very well, They work in tandem, and they work really, really hard together to make sure that everything is the way it's supposed to be. So that's the only input I can give on that. I don't have an opinion one way or the other as to which direction. I just say, basically, collect all your data. Take a look at your Board of Health. And by the way, if I'm not mistaken, the Board of Health is really, it is a department within the city, but it's underneath the umbrella of the state. Am I right or wrong? I think in the city of Salem, that's the way that they present it. Okay, just for clarification, because I wasn't quite sure, because I know that in the City of Salem, they kind of make it as the Board of Health is kind of their own entity within the city working underneath the state, no? Okay, so maybe that's not the one.
[Adam Knight]: There's a lot of things that are governed through state legislation. eliminates local control. So the answer to that is yes and no, I guess.
[McKillop]: That's kind of the way, the approach I would make. And you do have to be careful when anything, anything has to do with something like that. So thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you for your retreat. Thank you, Mr. Coats. Sorry to.
[Michael Marks]: Vice president of box. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe it was about six months ago. Uh, during the council meeting, uh, we had the new border health inspector, uh, before us. And I asked the new health director, uh, where do we stand with, um, border health inspections? And I believe they were seven or eight months behind. And the reason why I knew that is because I had a number of businesses that said, what do I do? My board, my health inspection ran out six months ago. Can I still operate my business? And that's why I asked the question, Mr. President. And you know, I think the larger question is, what are we doing right now? Are we up to date with our health inspections? Do we need more staff in the office? To me, that's the larger question. If we want to create a rating system, which I'll be quite honest with you, I don't know if I'm opposed or not to it, but if we want to create a rating system, that's to make sure at least we're doing our due diligence and making sure we have the appropriate staff and making sure our business has their inspections in a timely fashion so they don't have to wonder whether or not they have to close their door because they don't have a border health inspection. So I think that's the larger issue, Mr. President. I'm not willing to vote on any paper tonight to move any issue forward, Mr. President, until we find out where we stand with the Board of Health, where we stand on with the inspections, and why is it taking so long for our health department to inspect these businesses in the community, because as we all know, as Councilor Penta mentioned, that the Board of Health goes out there and makes sure that the businesses are adhering to code, state and city safety codes. That's what their business is. And when you get your inspection sticker, that means you're up to par. And that means the resident that's going into your restaurant knows your food is prepared in the right way, know that your preparation is right, know the heating requirements and refrigeration requirements are right, and all the cleanliness stuff that goes with a border health inspection. So that is important, Mr. President. At this point, grading a business, I think we've got to go back to fundamentals in this city and making sure we provide the basics, which is a timely border health inspection for all our businesses. So I'd like to see that happen first, Mr. President, before I vote on- Would you like to amend the paper to-
[Richard Caraviello]: get a report from the Board of Health on where we stand with all the inspections in the city?
[Michael Marks]: We asked for it, and I believe she gave us a verbal at the podium. And honestly, I don't remember the exacts, but I want to say that 30 or 40% of our businesses back some six months ago didn't receive their Board of Health inspection, and they were in the process of doing so.
[Richard Caraviello]: So if we could get an update, that'd be helpful. Mr. Clerk, if you could please put down that if the Board of Health can give us an update on and where we stand with businesses getting their license renewals. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I think it's a good discussion maybe we should have with the Board of Health. Maybe we can do that. Through a proposal. Well, through a proposal or we could just talk to the Board of Health at budget time, see where they're at. kind of talk about everything at the same time, give it a little extra time with the Board of Health before we move on anything tonight. I mean, I see both sides. I agree with Councilor Marks, but I understand the point of it. So maybe just to have a discussion about it rather than, or definitely get some more clarity of what we're actually asking the Board of Health to report back to us on.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Nate.
[Adam Knight]: The Board of Health could very simply say, It's not feasible. We don't want to do it. It is feasible. We can do it. All we're doing is asking them a question. I don't see the harm.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight as amended by Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: If the Port of Health is going to put that little thought into it, then I don't even think it's worth asking the question. If they sit back and say, well, we can't do it. That's not even worth asking the question. Or if they sit back and say, We can do it. I'd like to know why they can do it. I'd like to know if they have the personnel knowing the fact that they can't get to their regularly scheduled health visits now. How are they going to be able to take this on? They're in a depleted staff up there. So I think there's more to this. I'm not saying it's not a bad idea, but I just think there's more to it. And you know, if it comes from the council, And we're saying, will you look into this? Then it may mushroom into something else. And we're going to be sitting there saying, wow, we didn't want you to go that far with it. We didn't want you to move that far. Because as far as I'm concerned, once this takes place, this will be an administrative policy. I don't see this as a city ordinance, unless Councilor Knight sees it differently. I see this as an administrative policy. And that's not under our purview. So we may initiate the ball rolling and not be able to stop that ball. And I'm not prepared to do that at this point, not knowing where we stand with the Board of Health presence in our community, the staffing, and the fact that they're not fully equipped to get out in a timely fashion for inspections.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Nice.
[Adam Knight]: There are two ways to look at every issue, Mr. President. We can look at issues as to why we can't do things, and we can look at issues as to why we can't. And all I'm doing is asking a question. I'd like the support of my council colleagues, and that's all I have to say about it. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor.
[Michael Marks]: Aye.
[Richard Caraviello]: Roll call vote has been requested.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Locke-Kern. First president. Mark Scarpelli.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Four on the affirmative. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative motion passes petitions. Press as amended petitions, presentations and similar matters. 17373, petition by Robert L. Capucci Jr., 71 Evans Street, Medford, to address the council concerning municipal aggregation. Name and address for the record, please.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Robert Capucci, Jr., 71 Evans Street in Medford. I'll try to be brief at this late hour. Last summer, it was proposed that the city move towards municipal aggregation based solely on it would save the electric rate payers in Medford some money. It went away. Somehow it came back last Tuesday. in a committee of the whole meeting under a new auspice of protecting the environment, Go Green. There was a wonderful presentation brought by the company, supposedly going to be hired by Alicia Hunt, the director of energy and environment here in Medford, the chairman of the Go Green Medford community. Basically, for the citizens that are watching at home, It's a program whereby if passed, if it ever comes to a vote in this council and it does get passed, you're automatically opted into the city buying your power for you, your electricity, with the provision that you can opt out. Understandably, what the company said last week was you can opt out at any time. There was also a 30 day opt out clause in there. But Councilor Marks at the committee of the whole meeting brought up the state law which is after 180 days you cannot opt out. And getting into these government contracts doing things on behalf of the people, when they tell you, you know, we'll let you opt out at any time. But the state losses something out. I'm a little bit skeptical of the whole process I if they if this is really such a good thing They should present it and market it to the people as an as an opt-in if they want to not Force everybody all at once to be a part of this system. I mean, that's a slippery slope. Where does it end? Is the City Council gonna vote that? another company buys all my clothes from me, all my groceries. It's, it's, it's, it's dangerous precedent that was sent setting. It really is. But I want to be fair to the other side. Uh, Councilor Dello Russo at the committee of the whole meeting was a very astute and bringing up, I would like to hear opposition to this. So I emailed everybody on this council, the citizens against municipal aggregation website. I also included the mayor and, Alicia hunt, the director of environment and engineer. I'm also going to reach out to them if it ever does come to a vote so that the opposite side could be heard. I just find it just comforting that the city would entertain the notion of doing something on behalf of every resident. from reading the CAMA website, it doesn't always work. And if you are locked into it, and they say you can get out, but on that 181st day, you do try to get out. For some reason, you can't, and a lower rate comes. I mean, you can go to the two sources now. It's at Eversource and National Grid. And you can click on them now. And under those, a ton of other options come up. There are choices for citizens to make right now. They can enter into a six-month program for, say, $6.99 a kilowatt hour, or another program for $12.99. That choice, which is pretty much the fundamental building block of this nation, should never be taken away. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to receive and Mr. President file. Second.
[Michael Marks]: On the same, Mr. President,
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank Mr. Capucci for getting up on this subject. I think he hit the nail on the head when it comes to this issue. Just so you know, the issue was referred to the energy subcommittee of the council. And we plan on having a meeting very shortly regarding this paper. But I just want to let it be known, Mr. President, that the city has been going out on its own on the school side for a number of years, doing municipal aggregation on the school side. And back in 2014, it was reported in the Medford transcript that, and the article reads, Medford Unplugs on electricity contract cost schools more than $100,000, Mr. President. The city, when they went in and purchased on behalf of the schools, failed to renew the contract and had to go back out on the open market and wasn't able to obtain a rate like they had when they had a contract. And it ended up costing the schools, which is you and I the rate payer, $100,000 because they failed to do their job. So after that glowing recommendation, now they say, you know what, let's do it on behalf of every resident in this community. Look at our track record. Now we want to bring in every resident and we'll go out on your behalf. Anytime the government wants to get involved in your business, Mr. President, as far as I'm concerned, is not a win-win. When the government says, we want to save you money, that should be the biggest red flag, because the government is not in business to save you or I money. They're not in that business, Mr. President. So this will get its proper hearing in the Energy Subcommittee, Mr. President. But as far as I'm concerned, I agree with the Speaker. When the state legislature created this, They created a clause where it says it's voluntary in the law. This is voluntary. However, once your city council votes for it, it's no longer voluntary. Everyone is subjected to this new municipal aggregation. Then you have the ability to opt out. And we all know when we changed our meters over, it took us several years just to change our meters over in this city because people weren't properly informed. And to say that, you know, there'll be community outreach and so forth, you know, they made a big mistake with the legislation. They should have had it as an opt-in. If you're interested, you want to go green, you want to reduce your carbon footprint, and you want to belong to this municipal aggregation, so be it. And I think the city should offer it. But don't include me in something, Mr. President, and say I have to opt out. And then don't say, well, you know, we're going to decide how much green energy you purchase. If you don't like that, you can opt out of that, too. It's the big opt-out program. You can opt out of that, too, Mr. President. So I'm not fully sold on this, Mr. President. I appreciate Mr. Capucci coming up here. And like I said, this will definitely get its fair share of a hearing within the Energy Committee, and it will be reported back out to this council to make a full decision. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to receive and place on file. Aye. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk be offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council get a report from the DOT regarding the T bus stop at Main and High Street. Councilor Scarpellick.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can. I did receive a few phone calls, obviously, that I've been championing this issue. The last meeting we had with the Department of Transportation, they put on the full court press, and the T had supervisors, enforcement, making sure that the bus stops were safe in front of Main Street and High Street. I've just been contacting recently And I've made it conscious effort to drive there and witness what's happening. There's construction now being done further out so the buses again cannot take that turn. And again, waiting and pulling out off the sidewalk. So if we can get a report back, because I'd like to, you know, possibly move on this and, uh, and, and get the final word on, um, eliminating that bus stop until the construction is done before somebody gets, uh, seriously injured. So thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Aye. 17.375 offered by President Caraviglia. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council offers its condolences to the family of Giovanni Gio Maggiore, who passed away this last week. And Gio was a son of Medford school teacher, Maya Maggiore. And it's a lot more tragic when it's a little small child that passed away. And it seems to hit home a little bit more. So if we could stand for a moment of silence. Thank you. Records. We'll pass the council. Councilor Lockhart. Councilor Lockhart.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Just before we adjourn, I just want to congratulate all those who ran the Boston Marathon, especially Medford residents, including our colleague, George Scarpelli's wife, Dina, Kelly, and Chris Shields. There were a number of Medford residents, and we were tracking them with our phones, so they did amazing, and it was a great, beautiful day. Congratulations.
[George Scarpelli]: Again, it wasn't me that was running. I was just tracking it. It was my wife. She did a great job. Very proud of her. She was exhausting but she did a heck of a job. Proud of her.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I think it's also important to point out what a great job long-time Medford resident David McGillivray, Boston Marathon race director, has been doing. My classmate. Yes, and he's been involved. He's been involved in this race now, I think it's for the last 40 or so years. And one of the things that I heard on the radio today that was amazing to me, Mr. President, was that he's at the starting line at Hopkington when the gun goes off. Then he's at the finish line on Boylston Street when the first wave comes through. And then at eight o'clock at night, he's back in Hopkinton running the race himself. Um, so it just shows what a commitment and what a love he has for the sport and how, uh, he's been able to turn this passion into a career. And it really is inspiring. So I'd like to thank Dave for all his work as well.
[John Falco]: I just wanted to congratulate Dina for finishing the race. Great job. And, uh, also to, uh, Medford resident, uh, who actually grew up here, uh, Joe LeBlanc. Uh, he actually, uh, was involved in, but he grew up here in Medford and he actually ran for charity as well. So. Congratulations to him as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Records, we'll pass the council tonight.
[SkrUmad63nQ_SPEAKER_00]: Name and address of the record, please. Ricky Cormier, 150 Middlesex Ave. I just want to congratulate my sister, Julianne Cormier. She ran for Camp Shriver and she finished the race in just over five hours. So she did a great job. Congratulations. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Records were passed to Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight, how did you find those records? Councilor Knight has asked the records be tabled for one week so he can perform an extensive review. Motion by Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 27.86 minutes total words: 1421  |
total time: 21.34 minutes total words: 1799  |
total time: 29.88 minutes total words: 1525  |
total time: 7.16 minutes total words: 558  |
|
total time: 6.02 minutes total words: 535  |
total time: 4.1 minutes total words: 488  |
total time: 13.29 minutes total words: 944  |
total time: 9.76 minutes total words: 666  |
|
total time: 6.81 minutes total words: 351  |
|||