[Richard Caraviello]: Good evening. 22nd regular meeting of the Medford City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Del Rosario. Present. Councilor Falco. Present. Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor Kern. Present. Vice President Marks. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Present. Please rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[John Falco]: Mr. President, I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules to take paper 17- Councilor Belko. I'd like to make a, if we could suspend the rules to take 17-515 out of order.
[Richard Caraviello]: 17. To the very end. What's the number again? 17. On the motion by Councilor Falco for suspension, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford Mass, dear Mr. President and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the appropriation of certified free cash in the amount of $49,000 for Riverbend Contamination LSP services. The balance in certified cash prior to this vote is $8,239,329. Alicia Hunt, Director of Energy and Environment, will be present to answer any questions. Ms. Hunt, please. Mr. Clerk, if you would please note Mr. Councilor Scarpelli's presence. Name and address of the record, please.
[Alicia Hunt]: Alicia Hunt, Director of Energy and Environment, 41 Watson Street, Medford. So I'm not sure how much background is helpful for the council. I know you all received the press release that was sent out about a month ago, that contamination lead was found in the soil at Riverbend Park, that part of the park has been fenced off. And in order to take the fencing down, we need to do a series of testing. Sorry, there's a weird echo on the mic. To do a series of testing, borings to understand just how deep the contamination goes, what the contamination is, and the extent of it. And then we can have a solution developed, depending on exactly what is there. So in order to get that moving, so you will see there is money actually in my budget for next fiscal year to continue with this program of moving this project forward. However, the question that everybody wants to know is how soon can we take that fence down? And in order to take it down soonest, we want to begin the work with our LSP, the testing and the reporting as soon as possible so that we can determine what the solution is and then come back and say, here's what the solution, here's what we're recommending to do. But we basically didn't want to wait until July to get started on this, but really get started as soon as possible. on this work.
[John Falco]: Do we know how long it'll take to actually do the testing?
[Alicia Hunt]: So he said it would be about, he'd be out there like two to three days with the equipment. They're actually going to do borings. They have to go down 15 feet, but they would be small borings. And then it would take about on the order of two weeks to get the test results back. And then there's also a series of reports that have to happen at certain prescribed times with the state. Okay.
[John Falco]: Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Nice.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Ms. Hunt, thank you for being here this evening. I'm wondering if you can explain to us a little bit about what the contaminants are in the ground there and what you're aware of the contaminants in the ground right there. Cause apparently it sounds like you're going to have to do a little bit more research to figure out exactly what we're dealing with. Number one. Number two, I'm hoping you can also explain to the council a little bit as to whether or not this need for funding is in direct correlation to the extension of the Clippership Connector, or if this is work that would be done regardless of whether or not the Clippership Connector project was in the design stages.
[Alicia Hunt]: So to begin with the first question about the contamination, what we found there when we did testing was lead and a small amount of arsenic. So we know that that is there, and we know that that is spread at the surface level throughout this area, which is why it's fenced off. When we say surface level, we mean the top eight inches of the dirt. So they take testing in the top eight inches, and they consider that to be the surface. There could be other contaminants there. We honestly don't know where it's from. There are speculations around the fact that clipper ships used to be built here, and they used lead in the painting of those. But we don't actually know. And part of this is once you know that there's some contamination, in order to design an appropriate remediation plan, you have to understand the full extent, the depth, what it is. They'll do a full suite of tests for more than just lead at that location. to look at the whole area. Your second question was about the clipper ship. So none of this actually had anything to do with the clipper ship connector.
[Adam Knight]: And another question that I have, Mr. President, this will be it for me. In the area that we're discussing here, was any of this surface level dirt, or was this any of this dirt disrupted to make it surface level dirt? Was there any digging excavation work or anything like that going on there that made this contaminated product come up to surface level?
[Alicia Hunt]: That was my first original gut question because we did what's called two test pits in that area where we did dig deeply and we tested that soil in preparation for a different project. We were going to do a green infrastructure project, a project to clean stormwater that we had a grant for. And so we did dig down to about seven feet and tested. And that's where actually we first saw the lead. And so when that occurred, the state said to us, you now need to test this whole area, the whole surface. So I know that there are two areas about this big, but the practice of the way the test works when they come back and they do surface level is they did a grid of 35 test locations throughout this entire section of the park. And they actively avoided those two spots of turned up dirt because they knew that that was dirt that had been surfaced by those test pits. So this is testing from 35 locations throughout this entire section. Sorry, did you have a second question on that?
[Adam Knight]: So is it safe to say that the state is going to be requiring us to test and remediate this situation regardless of what's going on in the area?
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So that's exactly it. So as soon as we realized that there was lead in those two test pits, We said, we cannot afford, we can't do this green infrastructure here. It's not a good location for it. And so we suspended that project. But the state, we actually had to tell them that we had found lead because of the levels. And so they were the ones, the State Department of Environmental Protection, that said, here's where we want you to test. This is the grid we want you to do. This is the area we want you to test. We gave them the results from the surface level testing. They're the ones who said you must put up a fence, you must put up a sign that says contamination and keep out. You must now do this boring, this more extensive looking at the thing. They can spread this work out over many years, but it is our desire to not have a portion of one of our public parks fenced off for many years. So we would like to move the project forward as quickly as we can. And not wait for, it's part of Riverbend Park. And this part, I did bring picture maps in case anybody wasn't sure. That would be very helpful. Sorry. So when you look at this picture, and this was up on the city's website, it went out as a press release, you can see the River Bend Yacht Club is at one end of the property at Ship Ave. And then this area, so for people who are not looking at this picture, I would tell you that if you were standing at the Andrews School and looking at it, and decided to walk down the right side of the school towards the river, so past its loading dock towards the river down that path, All of this is to the right of that asphalt path, to the right of the soccer fields. It's got condos there with big white fences. And so the white fences are essentially the property line. And then this is the area between those fences and the river. And it doesn't have any active recreation on it, like no kind of play equipment. But it is, we've been told by the condo residents that they use it for their children to play back there. And we know, we've observed huge numbers of people cut through there on bicycles, with dogs, with strollers, off of Ship Ave and into River Bend Park and vice versa through there. So you can even, in that photo, see like a dirt path, that's been made by people who walk through that area. People from that neighborhood are quite upset that they're not supposed to walk through that right now. So that's part of why we'd like to move it forward quickly.
[Adam Knight]: And if, Mr. President, I could just ask the Director of Public Health, Ms. O'Connor, if she could explain some of the health risks that are associated with this type of contamination. what her office's position is relative to the record. Name and address of the record, please.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Mary Ann O'Connor, the Director of the Board of Health for the City of Medford. Thank you. So lead is naturally occurring, right? And on most homes that were built before 1980, lead-based paint was used. And lead gas was in the air until the 1980s, so there's exhaust. So you're going to find in most cities that there is lead contamination. Children under six are most susceptible, obviously, to lead poisoning, and that's because their brains and the nervous systems are still producing so. But you can get lead poisoning through ingestion and through inhaling. And again, with children, you know, the fact that they're playing outside in the dirt, then coming in and eating their lunch and not washing their hands and putting their hands in their mouth, that's where the lead becomes ingested. Now, this particular situation, There are certain spots that the lead is higher than others. But again, there's variations that contribute to, so the seasonal variations, so when that area is covered with snow, you don't have any worries about being infected by lead. If you have nice grass, which most of the area does have grass, that's another barrier that you don't have to worry about. So really what you're concerned about is bare soil and kids playing in that bare soil and then putting their hands in their mouth and ingesting the lead.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, may I rest? Thank you very much. Appreciate your help and understanding.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Can we just get a breakdown? How will the 49,000 be spent and what exactly is that going towards? And what are we looking at for, I'm sure we don't know exactly, but for costs down the line?
[Alicia Hunt]: So I sort of thought you were going to ask that. There's several different pieces of it. Some of it actually covers some of the consulting that he's already been doing. So when you find an emergency situation like this, your LSP, they're a licensed site professional. So we hire them, but they hold a license like many other professionals do. So they have to do the right thing and not what their client necessarily wants them to do. So they come out and they start helping us with the testing, with the immediate response action. We had some of the testing that has already occurred we've paid for, but then some of this consulting that's going to go into the reporting. They monitored us putting up the fence. They've been having communications with DEP. So some of that has already, some of it's happened, but there's, I'm going to get it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: How much did we expend so far?
[Alicia Hunt]: He hasn't actually billed us. He's basically said, you know, I know that, you know, frankly, if he has to bill us in July for it, he will. But the preference would be to really get this moving. We don't want to delay this entire project. And so, sorry, I should have had it called up already. Here we go. So there's, I'm afraid to speak to the numbers off the top of my head, even though I know most of them. There's $12,000 for the report, the immediate response outcome report that is due at the end of June. There's $4,000 for the consulting that goes into doing that report. Then there is two days of drilling assessment, all the labor, laboratory analysis, equipment, groundwater sampling, and well survey. And that's $27,000 and change. There's an IRA status report that's due August 22nd. So there's an immediate risk report that's due at the end of June. There's another report that's due at the end of August. That's $4,500. Um, so that those two, the 27 and 45 are 31,586. And then the other, uh, sorry, what numbers that I don't have in front of me where his original quotes to us.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So the 49,000 is really just to figure out what we've done so far and to figure out the extent of it once we drill down to the level that we need.
[Alicia Hunt]: This is the characterization of the extent of the problem. Once we are clear on that, then we will work on developing a solution. And everybody wants to know, so what are you going to do about it? Because that's the natural, I want to know, what are we going to do about it? And so when I've talked to him about it, there are truly two things you can do with lead. and that is you can remove it or you can cover it. If this was a different location and we wanted a paved basketball court, that would be great. We would pave it. We would put a nice coating over it. It would be wonderful. We're not doing that next to the river here, unfortunately. Removing this amount of soil and disposing of it, because it's lead-contaminated, is probably going to be cost-prohibitive, although we've been talking about some ideas of mixing stuff to make it, make that you could do that. What we'd really like to do is maybe remove some of it, put down a barrier layer, and then put clean fill on top of it. And actually we probably have clean fill up at the cemetery that we could use and would be a lovely way to dispose of the excess soil up there. Whether that's enough or not, we don't know. But that also has, complications that we would need to go to Conservation Commission. They will need to approve it, because it's right next to the river. This is probably going down to the river's edge. And then there's people's yards, so you can't just raise the level of the dirt and have water run into their yards. So there would need to be engineering to look at it to figure out what's the best way to do this. But that's kind of what we're hoping, that we'll take some out, we'll cover it, we'll put some clean stuff down. And as you asked about the clipper ship connector, This part, frankly, putting a 10 foot wide path in would be just an area where we wouldn't need as much fill or it would be easier to cover for this section here behind these condos. But it's not part of this project.
[Richard Caraviello]: What is the information Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: It's my understanding that the design phases of the Clippership connector have not been completed yet. Right. there's now an assumption that it's going to go back behind this residence?
[Alicia Hunt]: So this is perhaps I should be clear, not one of the areas where it's disputed. If you see the dirt path in the ground there, those residents in general want to know when could we pay pave a path? Some of them have strong reservations about where the other parts of the path are going to go. They don't feel it's right to disrupt neighborhoods for their neighbors, but They don't actually object to it back here for the most part. There have been a few neighbors who've said they don't understand. But you can see from that dirt path that people walk through there constantly. And I've been out there now because of the contamination and the rain. And there are people walking their dogs and biking through there in the rain, even on the nice, not just the nice days. So that is it. I would say it's not in design. This is part of the location where the intention has always been to connect into Riverbend Park. But yeah, there is a design meeting on Thursday night at the Andrews School. So people who have interest or concerns or questions about the Clippership Connector, this Thursday at 7 o'clock at the Andrews School is a meeting that the DCR is organizing. I will be there. and the consultants, the design consultants are going to be there.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Can you just explain the 35 test locations? Was there lead found at every single one?
[Alicia Hunt]: Not at every single one, but at a liberal distribution of them. So there was no ability to say, well, it's not at this end, it's not in this corner. They were done in a grid fashion, and it seemed fairly random. as to where the levels were higher or lower, there was no clear pattern to it. Everything in that white, they were distributed throughout that white area.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So then did we test further down, obviously?
[Alicia Hunt]: We did not test on the other side of the asphalt sidewalk there, the path.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Right here.
[Alicia Hunt]: So outside, so I think that line should be following the asphalt path that goes down between the fields. and this area. And so the area from the asphalt path in has been part of testing that occurred when those schools were built. And there was actually a response action outcome in 1999 that determined it was a small amount of arsenic in that it was not of any kind of concern and it was closed out. So because of that, DEPF did not ask us to test on the other side of that path.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: What are the cost estimates for this lodge of a piece of property with contamination? Any of the three options, I guess.
[Alicia Hunt]: We have not really asked him for cost estimates yet, because he keeps saying it's premature. If we find something else in there, it might change the answers. Frankly, in order to get cost estimates, you have to do a bunch of engineering and design work, and that costs money. So he really needs us to say, here's the plan. This is what we want to look at, and then set up a purchase order to pay him to do that kind of engineering and those sorts of estimates. That's not an off-the-cuff number.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So we're looking at the $49,000, then cost for engineering and design, and then the fix.
[John Falco]: Yeah.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I guess my last question then, has there been any discussion to test? I mean, obviously, if there's just a small sidewalk, you would potentially argue that there may be lead. or arsenic in the lower section? Are we going to?
[Alicia Hunt]: On the other side.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: On the other side of the sidewalk. That's right behind the, I'm assuming, I believe this is the school right here.
[Alicia Hunt]: And so those are the soccer fields, right? That path runs down along the soccer fields. So if you also see the soccer fields, for those of you who are familiar with them, are raised up. We understand that clean fill was brought in to that area. And like I said, they did testing in 1999. I have to tell you, my heart is always torn in a situation like this. I do not want it to cost the city more money, because that's just money that can be used for other things. But I'm the environmental director, and I want us to deal with any problems that are out there. But I'm not really trying to go looking for problems. It's a tough situation.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I mean, you're probably talking to the wrong person. three young kids, but I would just, through the chair, I mean, I would request that we do some testing. There's soccer fields, kids are there all the time, and it is pretty well grasped, but there are a number of kids in the back of the school where I'm not sure if they have recess, that some testing, and we need, because we can't do all this work and then just come to find lead a couple of years later, find the school, and when we could have done it all,
[Alicia Hunt]: So some of that, so that area, the other sidewalk was the limit of work for where they did testing in 1999. We have copies of those reports where they found a little bit of limited arsenic and nothing else. And that's where they said it was not enough to be of concern to anybody. And they, uh, the state at that time closed it off. Now I wasn't here at that time, but I have copies of those reports in my office. and the maps of where they did that testing.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And health, like Councilor Knight asked about the health concerns with lead, health concerns with arsenic. Again, for children especially.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah. Well, again, the same concerns about ingesting and the other exposure would have to be over many years. If you're walking on it, it would take many, many years of exposure that way. And it would do what? What would the effect be?
[Alicia Hunt]: Obviously, in 1999, the state determined that the levels that were there were more like background levels and were not an amount that was going to be of risk to anybody. So they have different levels that they have concerns about depending what the category of use is. So if it's a backyard, it's one level. If it's a park, it's different. If it's a parking lot, you know, what's on top of it, you know? And so they approved it. That's the other side of the pathway for school and park use. And I will say that some of the same people from the state have been looking at this and helping us to do some of the research. I am thankful to DEP because some of what you need to do, you would hire your consultant to do. is the background research on what is at this location, what's been done here in the past. And they've actually been doing a bunch of that research for us and feeding us the information so that we don't have to pay the consultant as much to do it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I would just request that we do some test pourings behind the Andrews Middle School as a condition of the paper. I think it needs to be cleaned up. We have homes. We have people. living there, going to school there, teaching there. I believe the dog park isn't going to be too far away. I think we need to just, if there's a problem behind that school where kids are playing soccer six months out of the year, I think we need to at least, I don't know how much the test location costs, 35 test locations, but I think we need to figure it all out at once. It's a connected, besides that small pathway, it's a connected piece of green space that I think needs to be handled all at the same time. And I, I too, I, I agree with Ms. Hunt. We don't want to go looking for problems, but when it comes to thousands of children's children playing on that, on that field, um, I think we need, need to, we owe them to at least investigate a bit.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just might, so that you're aware, increase the price because they related to the borings. Um, I don't have an estimate on that, but it would, probably have me requesting additional money. They had to, for the two days of the drilling, which is 20 soil borings in this, and four soil borings that are groundwater monitoring wells, and then all the tests that go with that and all that work, that was $27,000.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But the 35 test locations, I mean, I'm saying, even if we did 10, you know, five, two rows of five along the pathway, go in 20 feet, I mean, at least we'll know has passed that pathway, you know, those were the 35, those were the surface testing.
[Alicia Hunt]: So those order of $6,000 for 35 foot. Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So bring that down by a third, we're talking to grant maybe test 10, seven feet
[Alicia Hunt]: I would have to confirm with them and get an actual quote, but you're right that the surface level testing is much less expensive, which is why we just did it with money that we had available.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And I think $2,000 is money well spent just for peace of mind and for thousands and thousands of parents that are going to have children. So, $19.99, 17 years, do the 10 tests for $2,000 and we have reassurance, but don't do it and you'll never know.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, thank you. First, I want to congratulate my colleague for expressing concern for the children back there. And I think that we should follow, quite frankly, I believe we should follow the schema of testing and not scaling back that will allow us to get a proper sample and do proper statistical study of the land back there. And if we're going to do it, we're going to do it right. Mr. President, the people in this neighborhood have been under considerable duress over the whole issue of this Clippership connector, infringements on their property, infringements on the security. not having an ample opportunity to discuss and explore questions and not being allowed to speak for themselves. I would rather hear from them about their intentions of pathways and where they go rather than anybody else first. So therefore, they're now faced with additional duress in their living space because they're faced with ancient contaminants that have been there from the days of masted sailing ships that conducted crimes in our community and around the world. This soil is clearly contaminated, the extent to which we'll learn further once we do further testing. So to ameliorate and find a plan of action to take care of this poison in the soil and to bring the residents down there to a peace of mind, I support this paper and move approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick question. Alicia, you just tell us how we notified our neighbors that what was happening and what were the, what could be the outcomes? How do we do that?
[Alicia Hunt]: So we put together a letter from the mayor's office explaining actually with Mary Ann's contact information, because we knew that all of their concerns would be health-related concerns, and I am not appropriate. I don't have the background to address the health concerns. That's Mary Ann's office. So we put together a letter. It was hand-delivered to everybody on Ship Ave. I would have to call up a map to give you the names of the streets, but the two streets there that go out to Riverside Ave. And then that side of Riverside Ave as well. Those letters were hand-delivered by city staff one afternoon. That same afternoon, it was mailed to those addresses as well, because we don't always trust hand-delivering. The mailing went to the property owners, so anything that was hand-delivered would have been picked up by whoever is residing there. The mailing was a list from the assessor's office of the property owners in that neighborhood. And then there was, we have a lot of email addresses because of the Clippership Connector Project. So every email address we had from that area was emailed that notice as well. And then we sent it out to the press, put it on the city's website, and put out a Facebook about it so that people in general would know about it. We then followed that up with fencing the area off and putting up signs that say, Dangerous Oil Contamination.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, perfect. Thank you. I second that, Mr. President. We'll move forward.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And it was mentioned earlier that when we built the schools, the McGlynn and the Andrews School, this city hired an LSP back, I think it was in 1999 or maybe even a year prior to that. And they did extensive boring. and that entire site. And to be quite frank, I'm not sure if it includes this little Riverbend Park area here, but I can tell you firsthand that there was extensive boring done. And we knew back 20 years ago that there was contaminants of lead and arsenic. So this is no surprise, at least to me, that that area is heavily contaminated with lead and arsenic. And as you mentioned, soil was cotted in to mitigate rather than dig up because of the expense. They had to put down at the top level a certain amount that allowed us to use the ballparks, as you mentioned, the soccer fields and so forth. And what's happening now is any time we dig or disturb the area, all of a sudden now we're raising up red flags. So whatever was being done there, you mentioned there was some digging going on for a new project. Maybe if there was some hindsight there saying, you know what? This is an area that we know is contaminated. The city is high in an LSP. We know it's in the area. Maybe before we dig, maybe we should do some due diligence. Because any digging down there is going to raise a red flag. In my opinion, we're going to be in the same predicament. So my question is, if and when this happens, First of all, how long will it take place?
[Alicia Hunt]: How long will which? The act of boring?
[Michael Marks]: No, not the boring, the remediation. How long will that take place?
[Alicia Hunt]: So it depends how fast the city moves on it. Honestly, you can drag this out for years if you want to under state law. Our preference would be to do this testing now in June, have results by early July, spend July and August figuring out what a good solution is, and then determine is this a solution we can put in place in the fall, what's the financial cost of it, and how long will it take? We would love to take that fence down and have this fixed by the fall. I don't know if we can, but the LSP says to me that that is not an irrational hope, that as long as we keep moving on it and don't drop, you know, we theoretically could, also as long as there's no, other surprises that come up, things that he wasn't anticipating. There is some concern with when you're right next to the river, how do you properly do things so that you're not completely ruining the ecosystem there? We have to look at flood levels and riverbanks and heights and not draining water into people's yards because we've now built up a level. So there's a bunch of things that need to be taken into consideration. I could imagine that we would have solutions in the fall and then spend the fall having public meetings and debate as to which solution is the best and the right one, identifying money and then not being able to implement it in the spring.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, the reason why I asked that question, and I appreciate your response, is that for those of us that have been behind this reel have dealt with the issue in the West Medford parking lot for over three and a half years now. And we're finally getting to a point where we're going to remediate the area. and a great disruption to the businesses in West Medford. But the reason why I ask is because, as you mentioned, this is a highly traversed area. And I would hate to see this go on any longer than it has to. And I as one member will approve this, but I'd like to see a time frame. I have to see something in writing that's gonna say, we're gonna start on this date. By then the boring will be done. We're gonna start August 1st with the choosing of a plan. or sending out a request for proposal for work. I think we have to see a timeframe before we vote on anything because potentially we could be looking at another West Medford Bargain Spot liquor issue that lingers on for three, four, five years in this community, an area that's fenced off, saying contaminants. And as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned about the neighbors and so forth, about notification, I think it's important that residents not only know what's going on there, but also have an idea of a timeframe. So I'm not prepared to vote on this unless you're prepared tonight to at least give us some timeframe of the boring. What is the process? I don't have any paperwork in front of me.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So that's what I asked. Um, I've been sort of asking what are the different, where are the bottlenecks? Um, so my first thing is that I would need a purchase order in order for the, um, consultant to start doing drillings. Consulting, giving me advice he's willing to just do, knowing that we'll make him whole eventually. So I asked finance, they said if it was approved tonight, they could have something cut for me by Friday, which would mean that he could mobilize during the last two weeks of June. He has to schedule it, but it will either be next week or the week after that, that he could have borings done. We have a report that's due June 23rd, That's when we have an IRA plan due to DEP that the consultant will work on. I would, it's my expectation that if we move at this rate where we are out there in the next two weeks, we will have the results before the 1st of July, and that's when we'll start the planning. How long that planning takes will be dependent on what the results of these tests are. Depending what the tests are will dramatically change that piece of it.
[Michael Marks]: So for this first part, I would ask my council colleagues to put a condition that the boring and test results be received by this council by July 1st. That's a date that you just said that seems realistic. And that way we know the process is going to keep moving. So I would ask that as a condition, Mr. President. And also, my last point is, Recently, the community voted by way of election that we created a Community Preservation Act, and that's for open space, community preservation, and a number of issues. Could that money be used to work on a project like this?
[Alicia Hunt]: I would want to check, but I don't think so. I can't say definitively not, but it's used for improving recreation areas, And it's used for acquiring land. And I've never asked, because before now, before this occurred, the brownfield that we had concern about was a West Bedford parking lot. And I would tell you, no, you can't use it. That's a parking lot. It's not a recreation area. So I will say that I have not actually thought to ask whether we would be able to use that money. on something like this?
[Michael Marks]: You can ask, but Mr. President, if we can make that part of also the condition that we receive a report back or response from the city solicitor asking whether or not we can use Community Preservation Act to pay for this ongoing process of remediation on this particular site. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. I just had a couple of last questions. Alicia, is all of this property, is this all City of Medford property? Is any of this property owned by DCR?
[Alicia Hunt]: Well, I was actually... So, in fact, when we started this project, we were under the impression it was all City of Medford, and it turns out that there is an amount near the Yacht Club, so we thought the border was the line between the gravel and the grass. I've actually now had it flagged where the property line is. So I had a surveyor out there this week, last week, last week to mark where the property line is. So it's about 100 feet in from the Riverside Yacht Club into the park where the DEP property is. So we've been in DCR. So we have been talking with DCR about their property ownership of that 100 feet there and how they want to handle that piece of it. We will not be doing any of our borings past that property line. That's why we had it marked. And we're trying to coordinate with DCR that last 100 feet.
[John Falco]: So DCR will hopefully eventually do borings in that area?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm certain that the state DEP will require them to, just like they're requiring us to. OK.
[John Falco]: As far as, you mentioned there are two reports, one in June and one in August?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[John Falco]: And can we receive copies of both of those when they are?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm happy to do that. For the record, they are public reports, so we will submit them to state DEP. DEP reviews them, and then they put them on their website. They're available for everybody. The city is also perfectly welcome. We can send it to you guys and post them on the city's website as well.
[John Falco]: If you could send us copies, I'd greatly appreciate it. And just be good to read those as soon as we get them. There's a lot of residents that live in that area, so it would be ideal to see what exactly, we know what the concerns are, but to see how bad it is and what's eventually going to be done.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I do just want to warn you, I don't write those reports. The licensee professional does. When I've read others of these reports, they're kind of heavy. They're kind of heavy in the technical terms. They're not written for the general public. They're written for the state agency that monitors this stuff. So, but yeah, we're happy to share them.
[John Falco]: Just following on the topic. So when we had the committee, the whole meeting regarding the Clippership Connector a couple of months ago, I believe, they talked about the other side of the river as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, 93 side of the river.
[John Falco]: Is that DCR property or is that?
[Alicia Hunt]: That is DCR property over there. The whole other side of the river between 93 and the river.
[John Falco]: Okay. Do we know if there are any plans for the DCR to test that side?
[Alicia Hunt]: No. Usually people don't start testing soil until you're going to remove it and move it out of the way. And that's what triggers somebody. So when you move soil and you're getting rid of it, you can't just move it unless you know that it's clean. So if you're going to dispose of it somewhere, you have to test it. You have to do a characterization. So usually you don't unless you have a reason to test it.
[John Falco]: The reason why I ask is because that night I think they did talk about putting a lane of a trail that went on that side of the river as well. And I'm not sure if that's going to come before or after the Clippership Connector. But I would think that would be a concern as well that needs to be addressed.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I would have to refer that to DCR and what they would choose to do on their property. The agency that would oversee that contamination, et cetera, is the State Department of Environmental Protection. And while I'm the environmental director in Medford, I don't actually have oversight over that, and I can't tell the state agency to go test It would be the other state agency that would tell them.
[John Falco]: And I understand that. But I think if they're going to run, because they made it sound like that during the meeting, I think they were going to run that path down that side.
[Alicia Hunt]: They would also like to investigate that path. They would also like to consider designing on that side as well. That is not currently funded. It's not currently a project in process.
[John Falco]: That's it. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: What was the question?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: One last question. Thank you, Vice President Marks. With regards to the many, many condos that are on the other side of this white line, I see that a lot of it's paved and obviously built on, but has there been any concerns from the property owners that this led on their property and underneath their property?
[Alicia Hunt]: This state has been in touch with them and has been talking to them directly. I have not been a party to those conversations. But I was told they were contacting the Condo Association. They have actually groundwater contamination under those condos that they have been dealing with. And they have a licensed site professional engaged because of that. So I know that the state told me that they were going to speak to the Condo Owners Association and to that LSP about the lead. But I don't know what he actually said or what their plans are.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So the groundwater contamination that they have is most likely lead?
[Alicia Hunt]: It's completely unrelated. Oh, completely unrelated. It is completely unrelated. I think it's hydrochloric acid. Do you remember? Yeah. It's a completely different contamination. And we were, frankly, we were shocked. We thought that when we dug right next to the first test pit that we were going to see their contamination, if anything. We didn't. We saw this other thing. Completely different. And that was because all of the test borings that were done in 1999 and before then through that project were on the other side. I have all of those reports in my office, and there was nothing done on this side of the pathway. And honestly, I know people keep telling me that we know there was lead there, but the actual report sitting in my desk doesn't say that there was lead there on the rest of the property. So it's perplexing. This is not the first time I've had people say that, by far.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I move approval of the paper as well, or second it, with those two or three conditions. And make sure we have a report back from the mayor's office stating that she's going to give the extra $2,000 to do 10 additional test borings, seven feet deep. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. Uh, I too feel as though that this is an appropriate paper to approve this evening. I feel as though it's a good use of free cash. Um, ultimately it's an unforeseen situation that does require immediate action. I think that the residents of the neighborhood deserve it. We have a recurrent theme in our community here that, um, the residents want to see us tap into one of the most underutilized resources that we have here in Metro, which is our river. Um, that coupled with the fact that the residents along ship Avenue, that are abutting this property are going to see a drastic impact on their quality of life and their property value. The longer that this fence stays up that says contamination would lead me to believe that it's a good vote this evening to take, uh, to approve the $49,000 for Riverbend contamination LSP services. Mr. President, as such, I would support the amendments as well. Move approval. The question.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor. And I thank you. We have a gentleman that would like to speak. Name and address of the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street Method Mass. I'm very dismayed all of a sudden we may have a dirty 21E at this river site after 200 to 300 years of the area being a dumping site. And if there is a problem, although is this not the DCR state of Massachusetts problem and their cost to clean up, believe in that In the 1677 law, Massachusetts had said, we the people have rights of 20 feet above mean high tide along all waterways. P.S., I, we have been fishing, my son and many of my neighbors, and biking there for over 50 years. I'm further dismayed being on the eve of finally getting our East Medford connect the bike path, the missing link, which happens to be the center of the city, mind you, connecting West to assembly road. Also, we had already built bike paths behind adjacent and adjoining that possible dirty 21 E area behind the new schools, the McGlynn and the Andrews. And it's sad, coincidentally, when we're finally having a Thursday meeting to hopefully finalize and connect the middle part that we have the situation that I've noticed the fences and I couldn't negotiate with my bicycle for the last couple of weeks. Please, let's try to make some sense of this.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: And hopefully this year and not in 10 years.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, G News 035 Parris Street. If I may, through the chair, just a question on clarification. When Alicia was going over the details of the borings that were going to happen, I believe she indicated there were four that were going to go down to groundwater level. And I'm just curious if we're testing that groundwater at the same time. And if so, what type of additional implications could that open up for that same area? Thanks. Thank you. Are we testing the groundwater? I couldn't hear the end of it.
[Alicia Hunt]: And if so, if we were testing groundwater, yes. And what type of implication could that have on overall cost? So the, basically there are different kinds of contamination. Some are soil contaminations and some are groundwater contaminations. And so we need to test the groundwater because we need to test for everything per the state DEP. And so if you find contamination in groundwater, then the question is, what is it? How is it? Is it coming out? Is it getting out into the air? How is it? Like, that's one of those things that could change. You know, when I say, oh, we could dig up the soil and put new soil on top, but then if we find groundwater contamination, that could change totally what we're doing and totally what the solution is, which is why I hesitate to say this is what our solution is and this is how long we're going to take. My hope is that we don't find anything. If we find stuff in the groundwater that's related to what's actually being treated for under those condos, then that would be connected. And that's actually being paid for by an insurance company. The company that insured the construction of those condos originally is paying for that current work that's going on. So if we found the same contaminant, it would be linked and become part of that. It could get complicated. I'm hoping that it doesn't. We can all do what we do to hope that we don't find contamination and that this is just, the lead is the only thing there.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. The question offered by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Marks, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, and Councilor Marks again, All those in favour? All those in favour? Roll call has been requested. We do need a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Kern. Yes. Vice President Mox. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. All right, Councilor Scarpelli, while we're on the suspension.
[George Scarpelli]: 17-511 petition by Robert Moore for
[Richard Caraviello]: Clematis Avenue, Method Mass, to address the council about a business being run out of a residential neighborhood home. Mr. Moore, if you would please.
[SPEAKER_13]: Bob Moore for Clematis Road.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_13]: There is a business being run of one Clematis Road, Perez Landscaping. A landscaping company? Their name is Perez Landscaping. September through fall, it is landscaping. Winter, there's snow removal. In the year-round, scrap metal retrieval, cutting up metal, what have you, on-site. Originally, it was just small push mowers, leaf blowers, stuff like that. Now they have heavy equipment. Blobcat, grass cutting tractor, wood chipper, which they use on-site. a trailer to haul back and forth, a two and a half ton truck to pull the trailer. It's a residential area, it's not zoned for business. I like it stopped.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that I went out and visited the site, and I talked to Mr. Moore, and there There is equipment, and if we can, I'd like to ask Mr. Mavuso to give us a report back and what the history has been and what is being done moving forward to make sure that this is being investigated properly so the neighbors in that area aren't being woken up at 5 o'clock in the morning due to heavy trucking and beeping. stump grinding during the weeknights and weekends, and so on and so forth. Like I said, I know I've been out there, Mr. Barreto and Mr. Moore, and I've seen the house. I've tried to talk to the person, and if we could just get a report back from Mr. — Has Mr. Mavuso been called yet? I believe he has, and I believe he's already issued tickets. So, if we could just get an update, and if we can ask for a plan moving forward to make sure that those residents aren't being affected in such a negative way. So, thank you.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you. Councilor Knight. Sorry, this past Memorial, they started building a structure in the yard. For what purpose, I don't know. Storage? They got a permit? I doubt it. I have pictures of that from another neighbor that took them. I did forward those pictures to Paul Mookie. I don't know if he passed them on to you or not. We do not have them. You can have these if you'd like. Can we take a look?
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. And Mr. Moore, thank you for coming here this evening. I appreciate it. And I can certainly understand your frustration. I, too, grew up in a home that lived next door to a person that ran a junkyard out of his backyard. And my next door neighbor on the other side parked an 18-wheeler in his driveway every night. So I can certainly understand the impact that it's having on your quiet enjoyment and peace in your neighborhood. Um, in addition to referring this matter to the code enforcement officers suggested by councilor Scarpelli, I'd also like to amend the paper. Mr. President requests that the board of health go out and do an examination out there. If the gentleman is in fact collecting junk and debris, then there may be border health issues that are coming along with that as well. So I'd like to ask them as O'Connor, uh, send one of the inspectors out there to take a look and make sure that they're in compliance with all, um, border health regulations that are in place as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor vice president marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We also have a clean it or lean it ordinance. And if there is debris or building materials or anything in that yard, we can enforce the clean it or lean it. So I think the appropriate avenue is for the building commissioner and the building inspector to go out there and code enforcement officer and check out what's going on the property. And they'll deem whether or not there's sufficient facts to prove that there's a business being run out of that location and then be able to find them accordingly. And if that doesn't work, you can end up taking them to court. So there's a number of avenues that they can do. And that really is the first step. So. I mean, we're the taxpayers. They only rent the property. It's an absentee landlord. Right. We could go after the property. Absolutely. I agree with you. I'm just saying the building department is really the enforcing authority. You know, police department can't come and go out there. Building department that would enforce that. And they've been successful in the past on other properties in the community. So, they'll get our message loud and clear. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Mohr.
[Michael Marks]: Motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have another gentleman that wants to speak. Name and address of the wreckage, please.
[SPEAKER_16]: It was buried at 102 Harrison Street, up in the heights. I'm talking about the same problem we have here. They moved into our neighborhood probably about four or five years ago. It started out with chickens. I get pictures here, chickens in my yard, chickens in the streets. They brought refrigerators, stoves, hot water heaters. The code enforcement come up, they got them to get rid of all that crap. Then they started with wood chippers. We had trees that they cut down, they bring them home, they run them through the big chipper into the truck. And we tell them, you can't do that stuff. They're foreign people. I got nothing against anybody. I got nothing against the family. Just this is a residential area. I've been up there 74 years. Never had any problems. Now we get this problem. You got these trucks coming in. My daughter works on Friday night late. She tries to come up the street, which is I'm on a dead end. The trucks, they're trying to get them in the yard, put a bobcat in the yard. Took her one half hour to get up the street. And I'm only one house away from my house. And I'd appreciate it if people would do something about this because we've gone to the commission downstairs to the building department. I've gone to the mayor's office three times. They said they were going to handle it. And we still have the problem. Now we're here. We hope this is our last stop. I don't want to have to go to any court. The owner, he allowed them to bring rubbish from his property up in Woburn, Winchester, one or the other, and dump it behind car park, because it backs up car park. We're told you can't do that. The kid that lives in the house says he said it was OK to do that. So now every once in a while, they slip some rubbish in there, which is leaves. I've had fires behind my house, almost come down to my house throughout the years I've been there. But if they keep putting all these leaves back there, they're going to take me else. So I appreciate if you can take care of it. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli that we inform the building inspector and the health inspector to go down and check the property out. Seconded by Vice President Mox. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion passes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Motion by- While we're in suspension- Yes. I just want to acknowledge that today, June 6th is the 74th, 73rd anniversary of D-Day.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Dello Russo. Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, do we move, you have something? On the motion by Councilor Nate to take another paper out of order. Which paper would that be, Councilor Nate? Huh? 17504. Vice President Mox, if you could read this, please. Mr. Vice President?
[Michael Marks]: Paper 17-504 offered by President Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss the problems caused by construction on Boston Ave to Harvard Street. Council President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Mr. Vice Presidents, from Harvard Street all the way up to Boston Ave, you went to Ball Square. For the past three to four years, there's been constant construction going over there. And there's, from digging the streets up to blocking the streets, and there are many businesses that are on that street that have suffered greatly with their business because of the street closures for extended periods of time, and a lot of the times they were done with no notification to the businesses, and I know that some of the businesses have reached out to the developers, and they seem to not have been any help. I mean, as soon as one project stopped there, another one started right up, So I think it's about time that these half a dozen businesses and the homes that are there receive some kind of break for all the disruption they've been going through for the last three years. And the city doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. So I would ask that the engineer, the city engineer again, step in and give us some kind of time frame to let us know what's happening with the project and how much longer they're gonna be there.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And I'd like to thank Councilor Caraviello for putting this resolution forward. I, too, over the weekend had the opportunity to meet with a couple of business owners that operate on Harvard Avenue. And there's a situation where it's not just one development that's going on. We have the development at 640 Boston Ave being performed by 640 Boston Avenue LLC. And that's a 43-unit development housing. And I spoke with the general manager of the construction company yesterday, and that project is going to be wrapping up around July 1st. So the construction is going to be complete and people will be moving in July 1st. With that being said, Mr. President, that's not the only issue in the neighborhood. We've seen the MBTA perform an extended amount of work on the train tracks in preparation for the Greenland extension that's impacted this business. Then we've seen Tufts University go in and do some work up on the top of Boston Ave that's also impacted this business. And now we're seeing RX Devereux doing some public utility work on the Somerville side that's disrupting this business. So, if you wanted to get to the stretch of Boston Avenue between Ball Square and Harvard Street, and you were coming from Somerville, the only way that you'd be able to go would be to go up past Tufts University, all the way up to the library, then turn around down Boston Avenue and come back down Boston Avenue. So, in essence, the traffic constraints that are in place right now are detouring people directly out of the entire region, Mr. President. We're just having an impact on the businesses down there. So I think it's also pertinent that we receive copies of the traffic management plans from 640 Boston Avenue, as well as Rx Davaro, who's performing the utility work on Harvard Street, on the Somerville side, Mr. President, in front of St. Clement's Church. It's my understanding that Tufts University, at this point in time, has ceased their construction. That project is complete. And the finishing touches that are being put on are striping and signage. And I also am under the impression, Mr. President, that in the near future, the MBTA will be back out in the area performing some work. They're going to be doing some land takings, et cetera. So, I'd also like to ask that the MBTA provide us with their traffic management plan. Once we receive those documents, we can forward them to our Division of Engineering and ask our Division of Engineering to review the traffic management plans and come up with recommendations to create a better flow of traffic that will have a less adverse impact on the businesses that are in operation on that stretch of land.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I, too, went out on the site, talked to a few of the neighbors. I think if we can have, you know, from beginning to end at Boston Ave, that constituents get an update on when the jobs or work being performed is being done. I had a call and I talked to one of our friends that told us that they have to get up and leave an hour and a half early before the construction starts because if the construction starts before they leave, depending what time they come in, they're stuck in the driveway. So, and they're not getting much help or assistance or information from those developers or the contractors. So, if we can reach out to uh, engineering and see who's doing the work to inform our, uh, constituents on Devereux and Boston Ave all the way up and down. And they have a, uh, defined start time and end time to make their lives a little bit easier. It'd be greatly appreciated. So thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Dello Russo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I attended last Wednesday night, instead of our Committee of the Whole meeting, I attended a meeting sponsored by the Department of Transportation on the Green Line extension. And I was there along with the mayor and members of our state delegation to express concern by a number of the neighbors and butters to the project. One of the clear things that's emerged in this latest development of activity along the rail line of the rail corridor is the fact that much of the work proceeded without a point person, a point of contact for the neighbors, someone who would represent the construction company, the MBTA, the Department of Transportation to the general public. We expressed that clearly to the members of the construction team that were present there, the management team from the MBTA, DOT, and the construction people. And so they got the message clear, not only from the elected officials present, but also from the neighbors, that they want someone that they can reach out and have open channels of communication where there are problems occurring. And they are occurring. And there's going to be significant change, ambient change. to the area as this project continues. There'll be elimination of virtually all the vegetation all the way up beyond the gymnasium at the corner of College Avenue to accommodate this project in the coming months. They'll begin the process of widening the rail bed or moving the tracks further to the north to make way for the southern tracks that will be inserted. And we're going to see the insertion of retaining walls and the beginnings and foundations of sound barriers in the corridor. So they're ready to go. They're going. They're moving. They're doing the prep work, this project. We can, unless something happens with the funding at this point, we can consider it underway. And so people are going to be affected. uh, and people will need someone to reach out to who was managing the project. And, um, we made that our priority in that meeting. Uh, there will be another meeting, I think in a week or so, I forget the exact date, um, here in the council chambers, uh, for the general public of Medford, uh, to speak on the issue of this, uh, Green Line extension. I know they're holding one, uh, I think this week or next week, um, in Somerville. And so it will be important. And everything's up on the city's web page and the Green Line Extension web page as far as information and contacts on this. But I know that a number of people have felt the pressure about by being constantly under construction up there for the past several years. A lot of utility work. And there has been disruption up there. We want to support the businesses up there. He wants to support you and see that you're served properly up there and don't have to go under any more duress than is necessary.
[Michael Marks]: Council President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. I know Councilor Layton mentioned that the project that's up there will be finished in July, but when I spoke to Mr. Anello, he's telling me that another project is ready to go right behind it. And the developer of that property has made no attempt to work with the businesses. Again, total disregard for their needs before he starts. So before this, say as soon as one stops and no one's gonna start, and these guys, and same person, and these people, it'll be another two years before they get a break. So I think something has to be done now, not when this guy just decides to do whatever he wants.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Name and address of the record, sir.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, Joseph Analetto, 590 Boston Ave, Medford, Mass. Thank you primarily first for giving me this opportunity to speak about my grievances tonight in front of the council. Basically, I've been grinning, bearing the impacts from the construction since the first phase of the Green Line, and I think it started in about October 2012. Surprisingly, the impacts from that construction, in particular to the Harvard Street Bridge, was not as significant as I thought in the beginning. Because whoever was the engineer on that project, particularly routing the traffic, they were cognizant of our ongoing day-to-day business. You know, we're pretty close to the sales before the work commenced. This situation, it's completely different. I mean, I've never been encumbered by road construction this badly in my entire life there. And I've been working on that corner since 1990. And I've probably been working on that corner every day, you know. seven days a week since 1998. So, I mean, I spend a significant amount of time in the neighborhood, and I know, you know, I have a feel for the flow of traffic and everything else. And it just seems like no one knows what's going on over there. I mean, customers are complaining about it to me every day. You know, I had a hard time getting over here, and I came here after work instead of coming here in the morning. Some of them, you know, fed up with it. You know, to what extent do myself have to be responsible for loss of business for all this other work being done around me? I mean, there was no, nobody really reached out to me before the utility work began, development project on 6th and it just seems like the work started and I'm supposed to grin and bear the sentiment that I'm picking up off the street. I mean, I realize that the entire area is going to change. You know, gentrification is taking place and, you know, we all know that. But it's really starting to affect my bottom line. And it's the losses, in particular, the last couple of months since Easter have been significant to the point where I feel demoralized. You know, you sit there when The top of Boston Ave is closed, and then Harvard Street, and then Warner Street's closed. And you're just sitting there twiddling your thumbs. So then the thing that really set me off is reading the scope of the work that Devereux Construction had outlined. They're going to be doing utility work Monday through Saturday in May. And I mean, the car wash business May is probably our busiest month of the year, and we really do rely on that revenue to get through the rest of the year, obviously because of the pollen season. And I can understand Monday through Friday from 7 to 4, but Monday through Saturday? Is it that necessary to do work on Saturday? Also, the way they've been running the traffic over there, it seems like they do it a different way every day. So I mean, it's a, for lack of a better word, A mess. I just feel that the planning of this work was not well thought out from an inexperienced person. I've never been a traffic engineer in my life, and I probably never will. But I just feel like something's wrong here. And I'm not the only one that said it. I mean, countless people have said, you know, getting an attorney and all this other—you know, I'm trying to run a business on a day-to-day basis. I really don't want to go, you know, to those means because it's just going to suck up my time and compromise. You know, business, I have to be there making sure I'm making improvements, making sure my customers are—and a plethora of other issues that go with running a business. a business of that nature, a service business. So again, basically the premise of my grievance was outlined by Rick and Adam before I spoke. And I'd really appreciate any type of consideration that you as the council can give to us, not just myself, but the entire neighborhood over there as the rest of this work goes on. I would like to say, though, that When they did do the first phase of work on the bridge, whoever was in charge of engineering the traffic flow did a significantly better job than it is now. Whoever is working, whoever is in charge of that dynamic is not doing a good job, in my opinion.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for your comments. Councilor?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. Analetto, have you had any conversations with Tufts University or the city of Medford relative to the work that they're going to be proposing relative to the complete streets program in the reconfiguration of the intersection at Boston Avenue? And, uh, at the top of the hill by the library. No, I've had no correspondence with tough, no correspondence with tough. So, and nobody from the administration as well.
[SPEAKER_11]: No.
[Adam Knight]: Okay. Mr. President, if I could amend the paper to request that, um, the city engineer reach out to, uh, Titan gas station to explain to him the scope and circumstances of the complete streets project going on, uh, at the top of Boston. Now that would be appreciated as well.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. I think we have someone else behind you that would like to speak.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I feel like every meeting that I attend and I watch, we hear more and more about the onslaught that our residents and small business are facing in this city. And I think it's becoming crucial that we demand that these folks that are working within our city limits reach out and communicate effectively with the people whose lives they're impacting. And in an area like Boston Ave, that isn't necessarily just the Butters or people in the general neighborhood. That's a main area that people traverse through. There should be communications. There should be transparencies for these things. And there should be representation of our residents. We really are, for lack of a better phrase, under attack. Everyone is feeling it across the board. They're feeling it on Boston Ave. They're feeling it up on Winthrop Street by the high school where there's demolition going on up there. Salem Street is getting set to feel its pains with the Break Pro project. I don't know if that statement has come out yet, but we expect that to be happening. And yet, we continue to see the South Street area they're under attack to by their onslaught of development that's happening there. But we continue to see these groups, teams, and individuals come into our city and run roughshod over everybody. And yes, gentrification is underway, but we certainly don't have to sit back and just accept it. And gentrification isn't only going to occur to just our seniors. It's going to occur to our businesses as well. And so we talk about things like how to revitalize Medford Square and bring back small businesses, where you hear about organizations and companies that are suffering because their foot traffic and vehicle traffic is being removed. We look at someone like Carol's, who's been under onslaught now for months upon months with bridge work that's going to extend and extend and extend. And it troubles me greatly because we keep discussing these things, and the situation seemingly is getting worse and worse. We talk about things like development committees made up of residents, and I think we talked about that weeks ago now, haven't heard a word back about it. So, you know, I've said it before, I'll say it again, zoning, development, yes, there are departments that are involved, but the purview of it resides with this And I would urge you, if we don't do something as a group to set limits and insist upon the rules of engagement for these folks, it's going to come to a head somehow. And I just, that in conjunction with the airplanes and everything, it's just, it's crazy right now in the city of Medford. And we look to you guys because we know how Much you all love the city like we do but it's Next week. It's going to be someone else coming up, you know there's always something going on and until unless and until we insist that they have those communication plans and Use the proper methods to communicate them effectively Throughout the city when appropriate. It's just going to continue to go on Thank you
[Michael Marks]: Thank you for your comments. On the motion by Council President Caraviello.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you. Just if we could read back what the resolve is, just so we know what we're voting on.
[Michael Marks]: Ed, turn on your mic. Ed, you have the?
[Clerk]: I'm looking for the, because it's a petition, so I'm trying to Okay, so the resolve is Medford City Council discuss the problems caused by construction of Boston Avenue to Harvard Street. And then we have an amendment. Okay, the city engineer reach out to the business owners of Titan to further explain the scope of the service and construction and the ongoing process to them.
[Michael Marks]: Let's see. Is that a Council of Knights amendment?
[Clerk]: That wasn't a Council of Knights amendment.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Clerk]: Now let me see. Scarpelli is looking for the City Engineer to provide a start time and end time of the projects to reach out and provide some notifications to the residents or businesses in there. Let me see here. And President Calvillo, City Engineer, give some time. Let's see here. Scope of time, you know, when the projects, these projects are going to continue. So they were also looking for a start and end time.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If then nothing's been mentioned with regards to traffic flow and who's in charge of traffic flow.
[Clerk]: So if we could. Councilor Knight asked for traffic plans from the MBTA. and the traffic plans for the construction at Harvard and Boston Avenue and surrounding areas.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. I just think that's the main point of the, one of the main points of the complainant that we look into the traffic flow and make sure it's flowing the same every day and in a way that works. So I second approval of the paper and hope hopefully the administration can get on the MBTA as well. If we could amend it, ask the administration to also reach out to the MBTA and ask them to make sure traffic is flowing. We need to keep on top of it as a city. We need to make sure the traffic is flowing for the residents and the business owners and that it's consistent day after day. Um, cause I, as a business owner, you feel the frustration. You don't want anybody to be hurting. And if it comes down to, construction's gonna go on everywhere, but if it comes down to actually just managing your traffic flow on a consistent basis so the residents and the people that frequent these businesses know how to get point A to point B the same way every day, that's a simple fix that should be done and should be implemented. I ask that the mayor's office get on this, and I second the resolve, especially asking the MBTA to figure it out for our residents and our business owners.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion offered by President Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Wendell Kern, amended by Councilor Knight, further amended by Councilor Scapelli, and President Caraviello, all in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Motion to revert back to the regular order of business? Seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. Ayes have it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Hearing 17-433, City of Medford, notice of a public hearing. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall, 85 George P. Hester Drive, Medford, Mass, on Tuesday evening, June 6, 2017, at seven o'clock p.m., on a petition by Jose A. Perez-Pozas of Annie's Pizzeria, LLC, 213 Middlesex Avenue, Medford, Mass, 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance with Medford zoning ordinance, Chapter 94, section 94 slash 145, to operate extended hours at the business at 213 Middlesex Avenue, Method Mass. On said site being located in a general residence zoning district, continue use as follows. Extended hours of operation requested. Monday through Sunday, 11 o'clock p.m. to two o'clock a.m. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of City Clerk, Bedford City Hall, Bedford Mass. Call 781-393-2501 for accommodations. Councilor Dite is the chairman of zoning. Do we have anyone here? Name and address of the record. Say it again? Name and address of the record. Jose Perez. Are you here speaking in favor of this petition? I'm sorry, say it one more time. Are you here speaking in favor of this petition? Oh, yes. Thank you. Do we have anyone else speaking in favor of this petition? Hearing and seeing none, that part of the hearing is closed. Do we have anyone here in opposition to this proposal? Hearing and seeing none, that section is closed. Councilor Knight, it was the chairman of zoning. How have you found the papers?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, upon reviewing the papers, I do have a petition to hours of operation from 7 a.m. in the morning till 2 a.m.
[SPEAKER_11]: that would be the certified hours of operation at this paper we can explain to me what the hours of operation are at Annie's Pizzeria in terms of when they are actually going to be open and operating well we don't have launched we basically we open from 11 to 10 actually and then what we need is then the hours is after after 10 from you know until 2 in the morning But we don't have a launch. Basically, we open at 11. I mean, 11.
[Adam Knight]: Okay. Yes. And how many employees do you have working for you?
[SPEAKER_11]: I have four.
[Adam Knight]: Four employees working for you? Mr. President, as I review the paperwork here, I see the statement of workers' compensation insurance affidavit for a gentleman. In box number two on the state form, which I have a little bit of familiarity of, it says, I am a sole proprietor of a partnership and have no employees working for me in any capacity. If, in fact, the gentleman does have four employees working for him, he will be required to purchase workers' compensation insurance. In terms of the materials that have been submitted to the council this evening, they are complete in terms of the accuracy as to whether or not he's not going to be required to carry workers' compensation. It's a different story, Mr. President. If, in fact, he does have four employees that are working for him that are not part of the sole proprietorship or the business partnership, then he will be required to purchase workers' compensation insurance. If you purchase the workers' compensation insurance, it does have a hundred percent guarantee if you are found in violation of the Workers' Compensation Act and fail to appeal it $250 a day if you're found in violation of the Workers' Compensation Act and do appeal it. So I guess my question to the gentleman at the podium right now is if, in fact, you do have people that are working for you and you are currently in operation, you will be found in violation of the law if these people aren't at least 25% of your corporation.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah. I explained Sylvia in the clerk department. It's my wife and me, kids working. I need to know if I can extend hours so I don't have those employees, because I don't know if I can hire them. But if I extend my hours, I'm going to hire them. Not yet. I don't have it yet.
[Adam Knight]: So right now, you're open from 11?
[SPEAKER_11]: It's just my wife and me. We are in the checkbooks, and my son just give us help.
[Adam Knight]: OK, so the articles of incorporation that were filed at the Secretary of State's office would list the offices and principles of the corporation and yourself and your wife? Yeah. And no others?
[SPEAKER_11]: No.
[Adam Knight]: And then if the Department of Industrial Accidents Investigation Division happen to go to 213 Middlesex Avenue. and went behind the counter, the only people that would be working, including delivering, cooking food, working cash register, any of that?
[SPEAKER_11]: Well, it's a small business. We just started, but we want to grow. So that's why we want to spend hours. If we spend hours, I don't choose going to hire probably two more employees, but I'm going to hire maybe a driver, an extra driver.
[Adam Knight]: So as long as you're aware that if, in fact, you do hire employees that are in excess of your ground.
[SPEAKER_11]: Oh, definitely.
[Adam Knight]: Of the individuals in your corporation. Mr. President, based upon the conversation I've had with the gentleman, I do feel as though the paper is in order and complete. I would suggest that because of the nature of the permit and the willingness for the employee to keep his business open until 2 o'clock in the morning, we place a 90-day review on this. I would also recommend, Mr. President, that if approved, that the approval for extended hours would stay with the business and not the address. So that if the business moves, then the permit for extended hours would die with the relocation of the business.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If I could, through the chair, Mr. President, ask the audience, why do you wish to stay open so late?
[SPEAKER_11]: Like I said, we want to grow. We want to, you know, especially people who are awake late, not us. We are sleeping early. But I know the market. I have a friend of mine who has a pizzeria in Somerville. And they catch most of the business right now after those hours, because everybody else closed. And then I request to some of my neighbors and my customers, if they say it could be also, because it's anything open at that time. Sometimes we are late of the jobs, and it's nothing open. It could be really good for you. Why you don't try? That's what I'm trying. I mean, I'm just trying to see if I can grow.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And if I could, do you offer a delivery service? Yes. Do you have deliveries of pizza?
[SPEAKER_11]: Yes. Yes. It must be most of the business that probably deliver. That's what I say. If I extend the hours, if you give me that opportunity, I can, you know, hire more people and more drivers because I can do it myself. Definitely. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, if I might say, in the past when faced with these requests, Uh, when there's been opposition, uh, those people have made themselves known either by, uh, informing, uh, myself and other Councilors or by making themselves present here at a council meeting. Uh, I can think of one instance where the, the proprietor of the franchise was quite persistent. Uh, in fact, the first time he petitioned us for extended hours, he arrived here with a dozen pizzas for us. I did not partake. And quite frankly, I don't partake of that brand at all, ever. However, so many of my neighbors were quick to point out, and many of them made themselves present here, and many of them made an effort to contact me at my office to say that they did not want this going on because they did not want these cars speeding through the neighborhood. As president, I've not been contacted by anybody here. uh, nor have I seen anybody present to speak in opposition. And I might say that the chairman has made an excellent measure by pointing out that we should have a 90 day review on this and that the, uh, uh, that if the, uh, extended hours of operation are granted, that they'd be granted only to the petitioner and not to a subsequent owner nor towards the property permanently. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And the petitioner mentioned that he's only open till 10 p.m. Yes. Your license right now is until 11. Until 11, but I close at 10. Right, so you're closing at 10, you're able to open till 11. Now you want to stay open till 2 a.m.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, usually between 9 p.m. to 11 is totally dead. It's like a time to clean and go home. But when everybody else flows after 11 is when you can catch some businesses because we have something online.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, you know, we've taken these petitions for extended licenses based on a number of circumstances. And each petition is an individual petition based on its own merits. And I would venture to say, Mr. President, that this particular business is nestled between homes. You have homes across the street. You have homes on either side, Mr. President. And in my opinion, a 2 a.m. closing would pose a severe quality of life issue for area residents in that particular area. So even with a 90-day, which I think is a very amendable way of trying to put things through, I don't support that, Mr. President. If the gentleman wanted to open maybe until midnight and start off at midnight, and that would give him 11 and 12, which he's not opening 11, he has by right, it would give him 11 and 12, and then see how it goes. And then in six months from now or a year from now, say maybe I'd like to open until 1. But to start off at 2 a.m., Mr. President, in an area that's already congested, all those stores, as the gentleman mentioned, are closed after probably 11 o'clock is the latest, maybe midnight. And this would be two hours after that of hearing doors open and close and having this be, as the gentleman alluded to, the spot where you can go get a pizza at 2 in the morning. And I don't know if the neighbors in my opinion, willing to put up with that. And this is a special permit. This is not by right. This is a special permit. So at this time, Mr. President, I cannot sign off on this. I'd be willing to go up to midnight on a provisional basis. And then if we hear back from residents that everything's fine with midnight, maybe we could explore one. But to go right to 2 a.m., Mr. President. Mr. Clark, how many operations do we have in the city at 2 a.m.? ? Several, citywide. But we have hundreds of businesses. We may have several that are open citywide. And again, Mr. President, I'm not saying anything. I know that business has turned over a number of times. I live right around the corner, and that's changed hands a number of times, that business, over the years. So I know it's been a tough location, and I wish you well there. But to me, 2 a.m. is — I just can't support that based on the neighbors, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, I do believe we ran into a similar situation back when we were discussing the extended hours at the old Panda Palace location, which is now Shanghai Moon. And we did a phase-in. And we phased it in, I believe we said. For the first six months, it would be X. For the next three months, it would be Y. For the final three months, it would be Z. And we had a review step at each step of the way. If the council is amenable, I mean, maybe that's a solution right now. We can help the gentleman out and I'll be in agreement that we give him a 90 day permit till midnight and then maybe a 90 day review after midnight. And then if there are no issues, it would revert for another 90 day period until 1am. And if there's no issues there, then it would revert to a 2am license with another 90 day review. So in essence, we'd have, you know, a year and a half, a year and a half review. of the extended hours and they'd be gradually implemented so that if any instances or issues in the neighborhood arise, we'll be able to nip them in the bud within 90 days of the event occurring. And then we can always, you know, have an opportunity to correct the wrongs if any are made. But if any aren't, then we can help the business owners succeed. I know the council has discussed the difficulty it is for businesses to be competitive in the city of Medford based upon a number of circumstances. And I believe that the extended hours was a permitting process that was put in place to address some of those concerns. And I'm hoping that maybe we can all sit down here and put our heads together and come up with a methodology that might work for everybody involved. So I'd ask the councilor if he feels as though that would be a suitable recommendation to do an increase of one hour, reach 90 days with a 90 day review thereof. And maybe that'll be a solution of compromise for all involved.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I like the resolve through the chair. But did you, have you talked to your, you said the neighbors are asking you to stay open because they want.
[SPEAKER_11]: Yeah, I forget a book, but I have a lot of signatures from, I collect like 120. Now I know there's a couple of homes across the street. Oh, especially across the street, all of them, and they said, I don't know, I'm okay with that, but I forgot. Especially is, A guy across the street, he said, I received your letter, and I signed it. I said, OK, it's not a problem for that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, and he signed your petition? Yeah.
[Richard Caraviello]: What time does Cafe Mari stay open, Tom? Who? Cafe Mari, the coffee shop there?
[SPEAKER_11]: I think always. Is he one o'clock? Something like that, yeah. No? Sometimes like that. Yeah. Sometimes I stay late, not open because I have to clean something or make prep things and I get out of there at 1130 and they still open.
[John Falco]: Yeah. Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I, I do have a couple of concerns regarding the late time, uh, stay until 2am. Um, and I do like the staged approach as to, you know, just kind of maybe increasing it over time. So I'm not completely against this, but, uh, How many drivers do you have delivering? Right now, one. One.
[SPEAKER_11]: But I know if I get late, because I know the business from that time. I have my friend experience in Somerville and Magoon Square. He told me, you probably need two more, because it's busy time. Everybody is closed.
[John Falco]: And I understand. And that's a little bit of my concern, because if you're going to go till 2 AM, and then if you go up two drivers, you're going to have three drivers. Three drivers. That's three drivers. Three drivers coming and going at 2 a.m. is really, you got doors opening, closing. You have cars driving around at 2 a.m. in a residential neighborhood. That's a bit of a concern, to me at least. And I think that it's something that needs to be looked at. I wanna see you succeed, believe me. But I also wanna make sure that we're safeguarding the neighborhood and making sure that people can get a good night's sleep. And I mean, if you haven't, you know, three drivers going back and forth at 2 a.m. And especially if you're delivering up till 2, that means they might be coming back to the shop after 2. And, you know, so we're talking maybe 2.30, you know, when you really look at it. So I would definitely be, you know, in favor of the compromised proposal by Councilor Knight, you know, just kind of going in stages and maybe increasing, you know, over time. But, you know, If you're going to be going from one driver to three drivers and having all those cars coming and going that late at night or early in the morning, that is definitely a concern, but I am definitely in favor of the staged approach. So thank you. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor. Nice. Mr. President. Yes. I'd also like to ask the gentleman, is it your intention to stay open this late every day of the week or just Thursday, Friday, Saturday?
[SPEAKER_11]: I told Sylvia, but for some reason she put the whole thing, but I just want to do it. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday is dead. You know, Sundays, everybody has to go to work or school. It's dead. There's no reason to stay on Monday or Tuesday. I want to do it Wednesday to Saturday. Because I know people start to get money and pay checks weekends, you know, definitely.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I think it may make sense to, based upon the feedback that I think I'm receiving from my colleagues, that we put a 90-day review, grant a special permit from 11 to 12 with a 90-day review. If there are no instances or issues, that we will grant the automatic permit from 12 to 1 with a 90-day review. And if there are no issues thereafter, we grant a permit from 1 to 2 automatic with a 90-day review. Mr. President, I think that the last 90-day review, when the permit is in place from 1 to 2 a.m., should be restricted maybe to the Wednesday through Saturday. Or maybe it should be restricted Wednesday through Saturday for the 12 to 1 and the 1 to 2. so that we can get through the 90-day review periods with them operating Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, the extended hours, and then we can get a better feel from the neighborhood what's going on. We'd be approving it. We wouldn't be approving it for seven days of the week, and we wouldn't be approving it 100%. We'd be gradually phasing it in. So if any questions or concerns do arise, we'll be able to address them within short order.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. Bozo, are you happy with that? No, that's fine.
[SPEAKER_11]: You're fine with that? I appreciate it. Thank you for any help.
[Michael Marks]: Honorable vice president of box, just so I can understand. So will the petitioner then appear before us in 90 days or cause I heard automatic mentioned one, one time when you were mentioning it.
[Adam Knight]: Um, where I was looking at it was if there's no issue that arises, if there's no concern, no complaint, then it automatically be granted the next level of.
[Michael Marks]: So, so if there's one complaint that he's not going to get approved, we'll bring them in and we'll discuss it and figure out what's going on. That's why I think he should come in automatically. And that's fine. I'll be quite honest with him is I don't mind the phase, but I won't go past a 1am at any point. I think 2am is too much to ask for the neighborhood. So I don't mind the first phase to go up to midnight. I might even support the one depending on feedback. But I am definitely not going to go up to 2 a.m. in that particular area, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: I think it's a fair compromise, and I'd support that wholeheartedly, Mr. President. I'm doing a 90-day review, bringing them back in. I think that that's a good way to proceed. It protects the neighborhood, and it also helps the business owner compete.
[Richard Caraviello]: All right. On the motion by Councilor Knight, with the stipulations that we have, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo, this is a special permit, so it does need Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: He goes with the petitioner. It will be 90 days from 12 o'clock.
[Richard Caraviello]: Wednesday through Saturday. That's correct.
[Clerk]: 90-day review, first 90-day review, 90-day review, 12 to 1. With no issues.
[Richard Caraviello]: 90 days to make sure that there are no problems. Mr. Coy, please call the roll.
[Adam Knight]: I believe there is a section, there's a section in our agenda that, um, might indicate papers requiring action. And, um, I'd request that, um, this matter be placed on, uh, unfinished business rather that this matter be placed on unfinished business so that it comes up in the 90 days.
[Clerk]: so that it's on the agenda. Reports do.
[Adam Knight]: Okay. Yeah. So it'll be in there. So it'll be on the agenda for the next 90 days. So we have a date cert coming up.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes, good luck. Thank you. See you in 90 days.
[SPEAKER_11]: I promise you, I'm gonna do my best.
[Richard Caraviello]: And bring pizzas next time for us, we're hungry, it's late. All right, motions, orders, and resolutions. 17-505, offered by Vice President Mox, being resolved that the city administration perform a complete audit on the condition of our roads and provide the council with a complete assessment, including curbing, sidewalk, catch basin, sewer covers, and handicapped rents, being further resolved that the city prioritize the list according to the road and infrastructure condition. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, this has been an issue that's been on the council agenda probably for the last several years. And it's an issue that I believe is one of the top three issues that I field as a member of the city council. And it's been very consistent over the years, the poor condition of our roads. And the fact that, in my opinion, the city really doesn't have a game plan on repairing the roads or replacing our roads. And I did a little homework and went into the engineering department last week. I went into the finance department to get a little information on really what we're doing as a community on our streets. And I found it pretty interesting, Mr. President. First of all, a lion's share of the money we receive every year to do road work comes from the state. It comes from Chapter 90 money. And many people at home may not know, Chapter 90 money is a program that entitles municipalities to 100% reimbursement of documented expenditures on approved projects for maintaining repairing, improving, and constructing town and county ways and bridges. So we get roughly $900,000 a year through this Chapter 90 money earmarked to improvement of our roads. We also get, and it fluctuates year to year, we get money from the Office of Community Development for road repair, and that could vary from 150,000 to 300,000 a year. So you're looking at roughly $1.1 million a year allocation to improve our roads from the state and actually OCD, which comes from, I believe, the federal government. The allocation amount is based on three different factors. How many road miles do you have in your community? That weighs in at a 58% .33%, so it's very important how many road miles you have in your community when they allocate this money through Chapter 90. Population is 20.83% of the formula, so your population size weighs in on how much money you get back. The employment within the community. Do you have high or low employment in the community? That weighs in also at 20.83%. So all those three factors will be what determines how the state allocates this Chapter 90 money. And in 2018, the governor is allocating $200 million for the entire state. Our allocation for the city of Medford, based on the three factors, we have 91 miles of road in our community. Our population is roughly 56,173. and our employment is about 18,474 in the community. So based on those numbers, where we average with all the other communities, we're receiving 944,095. in dollars. Last year, we received $951,000. The prior year, FY16, $950,000. So it's been very consistent over the years. And we move forward, and we spend the money, and then we get reimbursed by the state through this Chapter 90 money. The unfortunate thing about it, Mr. President, is that's all we're putting towards the roads. Whatever we get through Chapter 90, which is great, 100% reimbursement, sign me up every year. But there's a problem with that. It's great that we get it, but it's not enough. And we've been doing this for years. And we know that our roads have not improved over the years. So it's clear to me, when you look at these figures, that we're never gonna get ahead of the game. We're always gonna be chasing our tail on the roads. We have 730 streets in the city of Medford. 40% of them are private ways. So we have 292 private ways. Now most people will say, ha ha, I live on a private way. Guess what? There's no way you're living on a private way. It might be because in certain circumstances, you may have to pay for it. You may have to pay to have a tree limb taken down. You may have to pay to have a sidewalk done because you're on a private way. The rest of the roads, 400 city streets, and that's 60% of city streets. So I took a look at the numbers over the last four and a half, close to five years. to try to get a picture on how many streets are we doing per year, and how much money are we getting from the state, and at what point are we gonna be able to complete our streets? You know, we hear about complete streets all the time. That's the biggest misnomer ever, complete streets. We get 500,000, we do a few small projects, and we call it complete streets. I don't know what they're completed, but that's what we call it. Over the past four and a half years, we've paved altogether 30 streets in the city, over four and a half years. I like to round it off to five years. Out of the 30 streets, nine were full streets, where we ground the street down and repaved it. So we did nine full streets in almost five years. And the other 21 streets were partial. They went up 500 yards on a road, or they went from one intersection to the first intersection of the street. So they weren't full streets. But for my point, Mr. President, rather than trying to figure this out, I'm gonna go based on the 30 streets. So this city does 30 streets every five years. So that's what, six streets a year, if you average it out. A street, grind and repave, which we heard tonight in Committee of the Whole meeting. The repaving is not lost to 2025, and that could be for increased traffic on a parking lot street and of the tire, which we heard from DPW tonight. But a typical grind and pave 15, So if you take this and logically go through it, if we continue to pave the streets every five years, after 20 years, we will have paved the streets of the 438 states. At this point, when we, at that point of after five years and then after 20 years, We'll be working on 15 to 20. This address any of the private roads I'm talking about. So when you add in the other 300 roads, the figures that I'm coming up with are strictly only going based off the streets that I considered private, which is 438. According to Mr. President, we will never ever, in the way we're spending, allocating money on our streets, we will never ever get ahead on repaving our roads. We are always going to be catching up. We are always going to be doing our streets piecemeal. I asked the city engineer's office, can you provide me with a list, a working list, of the next priority of streets? I could not get one. I could get a list of the 30 streets that were done over the past four and a half years, but I couldn't get a street listing of what the next priorities are. And I think that's some of the frustration with feeling behind this reel when residents come up and say, you know, my street hasn't been looked at in six decades. Six decades. So, Mr. President, it's clear to me In order to get ahead of the curve, we as a city can take advantage of the Chapter 90 money and the reimbursement, but we also have to put money, allocate money in our budget every year in DPW or engineering, specifically for road repavement, Mr. President. And if we allocate an additional million dollars in that year, We go up from 28% of the streets that are being done in five years to 52% or 54, whatever the math comes out to. It has that much of an impact, adding another million dollars a year to our roads. So, you know, knowing it's the top, in my opinion, one of the top three priorities in this community, knowing that we're never going to get ahead from previous experience on the money we're receiving, that we need to do this, Mr. President. We as a council, during this year's budget, I'm sure other councils have other priorities, traffic engineer and a lot of other issues out there. But we as a council have to stand up as a body and say, you know what, based on the complaints we get, based on the poor condition of our streets, based on a number of issues, Madam Mayor, we need you to add an additional $1 million. $2 million would be even better. That'd be 75% of our roads. $3 million would be a panacea. and bring us to a target level of completing all our streets after a certain number of years. That may not be realistic, Mr. President, but I think at least putting an additional million dollars. Now we can all talk a big game when the residents come up, and we can sympathize, and we can cry crocodile tears when they come up and say, oh my God, that's awful. But we have to do something as a council, Mr. President. We have to stand up and take action. and this is the only way it's gonna happen. Have you ever heard anyone from the city administration step up and say, we need more money for the roads? Absolutely not, Mr. President. I've been on this council 16 years, Mr. President, and I've never heard one person from DPW, engineering, or the city administration ever step up and say, you know what, based on the poor condition of our roads, we need some additional funding. Received a number of pitches via email, because this was on the agenda. And the street, that are sinking. By the way, the chapter is used not just to repave, it's used for infrastructure improvements. So if you have a catch basin that's sinking, that money can be used to rebuild the catch basin. If you have a manhole cover that's sinking or has potholes all around it, that could be used to fix the manhole cover. You have curbing that's level with the street now, like Riverside Ave that I've been complaining about, Mr. President. When you drive down Riverside Ave, the curbing is level with the road. How unsafe is that? So these are the infrastructure improvements, Mr. President, along with sidewalks as well, that can be done with this money. And in my opinion, It's long overdue, it's a top issue in this community, public safety and roads, and we need to address it, Mr. President. Just to give people an idea what it cost, Stearns Ave in South Method had their road repaved not too long ago. I think it was back in 2013, it was a few years back. And that street, which probably has maybe 12 homes the length of the street, maybe 13, cost the city $85,000 for a full grind and a repave. So I think it puts it in perspective, knowing the size of that street and comparing it to other streets, that we can get through a lot of streets if we put the money towards it. We can accomplish our goals if we're able, Mr. President, to make this a priority, which it should be. You shouldn't have to use radar when you're running down the streets. I come down the streets, I know exactly where the potholes are. I go like that driving, I know exactly where they are. I know where the manhole covers are too low, I know where all the bumps are, and it's a shame, Mr. President. That shows you how long that our roads have been inflicted with these ripples and potholes. So I would respectfully ask my colleagues, Mr. President, on a vote tonight, To ask the mayor, I know we just received some of our budget and we got our budget book and we're gonna start meeting with department heads, that, and this is in the early stages of the budget, we haven't sat down at all yet, that a million dollars be appropriated, Mr. President. towards the repaving of our roads and that we also have a systematic approach on priorities of roads that need to be repaired. So we don't have to go to the engineering office and say, well, we really don't have a list. It's done by calls that we receive. Then we go out and look at them. And then if the mayor wants to do them, we get them done. You know, there's really no list, Mr. President. There should be a list on the city website that any resident can go there and see if they're on the priority list, see where their street falls, and expect a date that their street may be done, Mr. President. This is not rocket science. And again, as I preference my remarks all the time, this is no reflection on a depleted DPW department. It's no reflection on the good work that they do, Mr. President. But clearly, you know, from past experience and from past knowledge, that we're going nowhere how we're currently operating with repraving our streets. And I offer this, Mr. President, as a way to have an approach that can address one of the top concerns from residents that contact me, phone me, email me, stop me at stop and shop, or wherever else I am, about the condition of our roads. So I would ask that in a formal vote tonight, Mr. President, that we request the mayor put an additional million dollars in the paving budget for either DPW or engineering. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, several months ago this council voted on a resolution that I sponsored requesting that the DPW perform a complete assessment of our streets. And the resolution requested that they consider adopting new technology. And right now there is an opportunity for the city of Medford to utilize infrared technology. And it pretty much is a truck that drives down the street and takes an x-ray of the road and uses infrared technology to determine the quality of the infrastructure below the ground, as well as the defects of the infrastructure above the ground, Mr. President. I've had the opportunity to take a look at one of these machines. A local business on Mystic Avenue, Millennium Power Sweeping, is in possession of one. And this tool can work miracles. It can repair potholes and do a whole entire assessment of the roadway all in one felt swoop, Mr. President. I certainly think that this is a noble resolution. I don't know if a million bucks is going to be enough, Mr. President. And if we're going to be putting out a budget where we're looking to add $1 million to it, and this budget is funded by taxpayers, I don't think that it would be right to opt out of the budget. If we're going to add a million, we should be responsible and also make this a zero-sum game. However, I can certainly understand the councilor's frustration. And I expressed that in our subcommittee meeting this morning. However, I would like to include in this resolution an amendment asking that, number one, the infrared technology be utilized, and number two, I think that it's important.
[Richard Caraviello]: Maybe do a trial run with the truck.
[Adam Knight]: I do believe that they've done that already, Mr. President. And I think that Millennium might have been utilized to do a test run, performing repairs to some cracks on some basketball courts to show how far along technology has come. So I certainly don't have a problem. asking for a complete assessment, and I think it's premature to request funding until we get the assessment done, because we really don't know what it's going to cost. I think Councilman Marks has done a great job putting this resolve together, and he's done a lot of homework on it. I'd like an opportunity to review the numbers a little further. I did get a response from the administration that it would cost about $7 million to pave our emergency arteries in their entirety. And the question comes is whether or not we can use taxation money to do that, or if there are other funding sources that are available to us as well. I certainly can appreciate the resolution, however, for us right now to add a million dollars to the proposed budget I think is premature. I think we should start our budget discussions and deliberations and find out where money's going. Based on last year's fiscal year budget, I think we have close to $605,000 of money that's used for contracted services, for services that could be performed in-house that's being performed out-house, for services that could go towards paying for salaries to Um, replete the DPW staff. So there's a number of items that we need to look at, Mr. President. And this is a priority, but there are other priorities as well as the council and noted. Um, so I can certainly stand behind the resolution to ask for the assessment. Um, however, at this point in time, I'd feel very uncomfortable requesting that a million dollars be added to the budget without further discussion to liberation and investigation.
[Michael Marks]: Point of information, the vice president box, the council will have mentioned that he asked for the assessment back several months. Did we get a copy of the assessment?
[SPEAKER_06]: I believe we got it. Uh, We were supposed to get it on the 31st, but we haven't got it yet, according to the meeting that we just had.
[Michael Marks]: So we haven't got anything based on the resolution you offered?
[SPEAKER_06]: I believe we got a response saying that they'll look into it. Yeah. Right.
[Michael Marks]: So we haven't got anything back. So, in my opinion... Well, we got a response back. We can ask again, which is great. I have no problem asking again. But I think, you know, people are tired of hearing about the ask and want to see action. And I think asking for a million dollars in the budget is action, Mr. President, that will result in the repaving of streets and not just a proposal. I agree and I voted for the x-raying of streets and so forth, but I haven't seen a response back, so I'm not going to put too much credibility into that. I'd rather see some action.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, we do have money that's already appropriated for the paving of Evans Street and Parris Street. I don't think we've seen that happen either, and the money's there.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Joe Viglione]: Name and address of the record, please. Good evening. Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford. I want to thank the Council Vice President for bringing this very important issue up. If you drive on Route 60, right at the Park Street, there is a trolley track or a train track exposed in the road. Now, a couple of years back, in front of the littlest laundromat, which is diagonal to that, the street literally caved in a big chunk the street caved in. I don't know what's under Salem Street but we do know that people from out of town use exit 32 as a speedway to get to Malden and Revere because they don't want to go route 16 which has about double the lights. I've counted them as I've encountered both roads. It's about double the lights on route 16 and imagine what happens when the casino comes in. So they use route 60 which I don't think is a federal road, I think it's a Medford road. The crosswalks are abysmal right now, again, and they were painted last year. So last summer they were painted, this summer they're fading. Tonight, both sides, they weren't going 20 miles an hour, which is the road, that's the speed limit. One car had to be going 55 miles an hour, they just fly by. And Councilor Dello Russo had noted that he agreed Route 60 is a mess. So you have our infrastructure, you have the streets like this, you have people coming from out of town, and we have this mess that's on this main dragway, which is Route 60. Public access TV, of course, could expose a lot more of this, but I just want this council to be aware that there's, you know, speed bumps aren't gonna help, and we can't put too many lights in, but there is a problem, and I'm wondering if any councilor knows how many times the city's been sued over broken roads. That's something to consider as well. So if we're getting sued over broken roads, if people are coming from out of town and zipping down 60, is that expense, could that be offset by paving that road in particular? Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean, 35 Paris Street. The last time we spoke about potholes, I told you all that. I didn't know the last time Paris Street was paved. Someone reached out and advised me. But the last time Parris Street was paved, they watched it from the window of the Curtis School as Beatlemania hit the United States in 1964. So that's the last time Parris Street was paved. So I'm not surprised to hear that within the next century, we may only see another 50 of Medford's roads attended to. I find it interesting that 30 roads have been done. And through the chair, I'd be curious to know if a single one on the north side of Medford has been done, because I have said repeatedly that our side of the city has really seen no attention whatsoever. Not roads, not sidewalks. But it sounds like maybe that's not a bad thing based upon the committee of the whole meeting tonight that we heard about the poor quality of the hot top and asphalt that is coming out probably for any number of reasons. But 1964 was the last time Parry Street was paved. We have not really had our potholes attended to. So I would love to see some additional funding put towards this. And I don't want to be greedy. I would even be happy with key cut, properly filled potholes, rather than potholes that have some attention given to them as a band-aid for the short term. So I think many people might say, to spread that across a little bit more and have equitable repair of those potholes that are causing the most damage. It does not have to be in one place, certainly. But again, 1964 was the last time our streets saw any attention. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street. Our street was the fortunate benefactor of about 13 years ago. We actually did get our street paid, so yay us. We have the school on our street. I'm very happy about that. But I really hope that a million dollars is put into the budget for street paving because it's nice to have ribbon cuttings, it's nice to add nice-to-haves to the city and beautiful parks and things, but we need the roads. The roads are what we use every single day. Every citizen in Medford wants the roads being repaired. My parents did have the cutouts done on their street, but they ran out of the asphalt halfway down and the rest of the street wasn't repaired properly. and serious disrepair. And anyone who knows any street know they're off in the heights yesterday and I couldn't believe some of them. I was actually speaking to people earlier that it's like the surface. So I really hope that some attention is given to our roads. This is a quality of life issue. Thank you. Thank you.
[Robert Cappucci]: Name and address of the record, please. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Vice President Marks for bringing this up tonight. I mean, I don't know how many times I've been up here speaking about Evans Street. With all due respect, I respect the intentions of bringing in technology to look at the roads. But, you know, as Councilor Marks said, he's gotten, what, how many pictures came in? I think we know what the conditions of the roads and streets are. And to try to make it a little bit bigger of a picture, These kind of improvements go towards growing our community. I want more people to move and live in Medford. I mean, with the problems we're having with airplanes and everything else, more improvement on parks, which has actually been excellent in the last year and a half, I have to say. The park improvements have been good. But if we add this million dollars, To further improve our city and make it aesthetically pleasing and get more people to move here To make our community stronger. I think it would be great and to make it a zero-sum game I know the council is in the administration and a lot of people don't want to hear this but perhaps a 20% reduction and certain pay grades might help to offset certain costs so that we can make these improvements to make our city a much better place to live in, move to, raise a family, and improve our schools. I mean, the facade at Medford High School, I think, is still in need of a million dollar repair. It's a figure that I heard. I could be speaking out of turn. I don't know. that exactly, but I do know it does need repairs. And moving forward, I would hope that when you look at this budget that you're going to debate, we look into certain areas, because I took a look at it before coming up here. You know, to see millions of dollars in the pay grades and having to beg for a necessity like streets and roads kind of makes no sense to the people that are at home watching, seeing their water tax go up, their property taxes go up every year, a surcharge on the property tax, the excise taxes that I think are specifically supposed to be used for street and road improvements. And what are we getting for it? A city councilor who has to bring up again for how many years now, a simple thing like fixing the streets and roads to make Medford strong. Take that slogan off of a T-shirt. Let's put it into reality. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion. Motion to settle, Mr. President.
[Nate Merritt]: Name and address of the record, please. Nathan Merritt, 373 Riverside Ave, Medford, Mass. Thank you, Councilor Martz, Vice President Martz, for bringing up this issue. And as a resident on Riverside Ave, I can personally attest that the curbs are very low. Back in 2014, in October, a car drove through my front yard, took out my fence, and hit the steps at what was the REMAX building on the corner of Riverside and Locust. So there is a need. Also, for the record, I'm sure you're all aware that Wegmans is going to be open soon. So in terms of prioritization, maybe when these big projects are happening and you know that, hey, a place like that's going to open, if you're going to choose to repair roads, it may be a good time to do that and a bad time. You just talked a lot about the inconvenience on Boston Ave, you know, to the residents there. Well, what do you think is going to happen when Wegmans opens up? There won't be a good time to fix Riverside Ave for a very long time. Finally, as far as how to come up with a million dollars, So I see that, Lynn, I know this is kind of further in business, but the city is looking to raise $1 million ahead of time from our water bills. It's a notice I got in the mail the other day. We can come up with a million bucks. Mayor Burke is also asking for, what, 900K for a leak detection system? That's a million dollars. So you could say no to that, and there's a million bucks. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor, Vice President Marks, seconded by? Motion by Councilor Naita Seva. Name and address for the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Castagnetti, Cushman Street. This past gentleman brought up a corner location where a car went through his fence and onto the corner location, I believe it was called RE max. Um, it's also my memory. I believe Councilor Penta had said one that we should have used money by that corner piece of real estate when it was for sale, especially now with more tractor trailers trying to navigate that turn. Very dangerous. And in hindsight, I believe the gentleman was right in the past.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion that has to be severed by Councilor Knight. Mr. President. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I'll be brief. I think we are very frustrated with the state of our roads. I've voiced my opinion in the last several weeks. Luckily, we did have a meeting with the DPW director and head of DPW this evening, and it is discouraging. The crews are out there, they said, on a daily basis working to repair our roads and fix potholes and try to fix manhole covers. I see the patches all over the place, and the complaints, from what I understand, are 60 complaints on C-Click Fix, just for potholes. And I specifically asked, are we working just with regards to the potholes on a complaint basis? And that's the state that we're in. We're understaffed and we're working just on complaints. Now, there are potholes and problems all over our streets. And to go into Evans Street and Parris Street, there's many other roads that need resurfacing. So I think what we're hearing is we have a budget to review and a request for a million dollars. And I think that comes from frustration. And I, too, am very frustrated. So whether it's a million dollars or half a million or even just a plan to be put in place that we're doing more than five streets a year, from what I understand through Council Marks' research, we need more. We need to have more in this budget. And there are places that you can trim. There are a number of different things that can be done. We have $9 million in free cash. We should be committing every year to put more than $950,000 into repaving and fixing our streets. And that's the bottom line. So whether we vote for a million tonight or we discuss it at budget time, I'm in support of putting more than what Chapter 90 funds allows us to put into our streets. We as a city are taxing our residents. on every level, we need to be able to give them a safe, proper place to drive. That is the bottom line, and I appreciate the resolution and see where it goes, but the bottom line is we need to dedicate more time, whether that's hiring more manpower, buying more fill, things need to be done that are not being done now.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Councilor Marks to bring this up because it is the number one concern we have in our community. Um, if, if in a daily basis, I think that, um, most communities don't go to the city council meetings and put potholes on, uh, on their agenda. So I feel, I feel for that. I, but, uh, I think that, uh, going through the budget, and being fiscally responsible to what we see, because I don't want to be in a position where we're being held accountable for losing other city necessities. So I think it's important that the budget season comes up. I'm supporting Councilor Marks' process that during the budget time I will stand by him with the million or more and looking into other avenues as free cash. But until we have that budget meeting, I think it's important that we hear what is upon us in the next week. I know that Saturday, I believe, is going to be a very interesting day and long day, but it's going to be something that I think all of us have heard and all of us sitting at a table would really stress the fact that streets and our roads are gonna be one of our number one priorities, so.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate my colleagues' comments. Let's remember, this council cannot add to the city budget. This is a request by the council based on years of previous experience that we can't continue to operate the way we're doing business and expect our roads to get completed, Mr. President. That's all this is, to open up dialogue and discussion. So don't be, you know, hell-bent on, oh, a million dollars. It's to open up discussion and dialogue and to let the mayor know that there's a need in this community, Mr. President. You know, Councilor Lungo-Koehn talked about we have $8,239,000 in free cash. That could be used for roads, Mr. President. We have linkage money. We're one of just a few communities in the entire state that when development comes in over a certain size, whether it's a rehab or new development, we charge a certain percentage to linkage for infrastructure improvements, like the gentleman that lives on Riverside Ave said. Wouldn't that be a novelty? You know, when Wegmans comes in, because they're gonna pay linkage to this community, that a certain percent goes to the infrastructure around that particular area to improve access and to improve pedestrian safety, Mr. President. So there's plenty of money available. So don't get caught up on whether or not a million dollars and we're gonna have to cut something. No, we're not talking about cuts at all. We want to present this to the mayor saying, Madam Mayor, whether it's through linkage, free certified free cash, or any other venue that you can think of, we need to do a better job. And as I mentioned earlier, the $950,000 we receive every year in Chapter 90 money is just not footing the bill in this community. And it's evident. It's evident. These streets are the worst I've seen in my, I don't want to date myself now, but I've been driving 30 years on these streets, Mr. President. And they're the worst I've ever seen. There's a problem and it exists and we have to address it. And we can ask for all the reports and all the different studies, but you know what? Let's take some action. Let's put money in the budget. Let's get money out of certified free cash and move forward. Let's get a list of priorities and start moving forward on these streets. And rather than see six a year, Mr. President, let's look at 15 to 20 streets a year. Then we'll make some headway and get ahead of ourselves, Mr. President. So that's why I was offered tonight, Mr. President. I'm not asking anyone behind this real to make decisions tonight on cutting out something within the budget. No, this is to start discussion and dialogue. This, in my opinion, is warranted, and I have the proof. I'll send my council colleagues the emails I've received from pitches around the community, and I ask Mr. President for support of this tonight, to send the message a shot across the bow, and to let her know that we're serious about this. And it's not going to just be another rubber stamp on the FY18 budget. This council wants some action and some results, Mr. President. You yourself said we've had more committee of the whole meetings and subcommittee meetings and push more new ordinances forward. That's also get some results when it comes to infrastructure in this community. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd also like to thank Councilor Marks for bringing this resolution forward. And I think it's important, you're right, it is important to open the dialogue and to talk about issues like this. This is an issue that impacts every neighbourhood throughout this city. The roads are in terrible condition. Not all the roads but a great percentage are in pretty bad shape. And we need to ‑‑ I definitely would support an audit on the roads and prioritizing reconstructing some of the roads and resurfacing some of the roads. I also believe that the states, if we're getting money from, getting Chapter 90 funding for rehabilitating the roads, and if we're getting funding from, some funding from the federal government through OCD funds, we probably should be actually taking some money. from the city, we should probably take a look to see if there is any money in available accounts. To put it towards the roads, we should be investing in ourselves. And if there are surplus funds that we could take, and maybe it's not a million dollars, but maybe it's a start, maybe we can find some funding, then maybe we should do that. But I think it is something that we should take a look at. We should be willing to reinvest in our city. We get state funding, we get federal funding. Let's take a look at what we have here. to see what we can actually put into reinvesting in ourselves, reinvesting in our city and making it a better place and making better neighborhoods with smoother roads and improving the quality of life.
[Richard Caraviello]: So I just want to say thank you. It recently went to a meeting somewhere and the mayor of another city, that was exactly what they said. It's time that we start reinvesting in our own community. All right. On the motion by Councilor Knight that we reinvestigate using infrared technology for our roads. A motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by. We're severing all the motions. We're severing that from the others.
[Michael Marks]: Why don't you make it a beat paper or something?
[Richard Caraviello]: You want to make it a beat paper?
[Michael Marks]: Those are amendments to it.
[Richard Caraviello]: They're amendments to it. We're going to look at it, and then we're going to bring up your $1 million, and then we'll take up the original paper.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. I'll be happy to withdraw my amendment and put it in as a B paper.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. All right. On motion by Councilor Marks. Okay. You want to sever that as a B paper? to the motion. Well, no, but you're asking for the million dollars. That's a separate paper. It's not, it's not in the, it's not in the motion. So that's it. All right. As amended by councillor Marx to add that we look into adding $1 million to the budget for the roads, and as amended by Councilor Knight, that we use infrared technology on the roads. On the original motion by Councilor Locks. Seconded by Councilor McFerrin. All those in favor? Roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: That's correct. As amended.
[Richard Caraviello]: It's actually supposed to take up the amendment first. Okay, we'll take up the amendment first, which is? One million dollars.
[Michael Marks]: That's what we were just going to vote on now.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's correct. So on the motion, Councilor Marks' request for one million dollars, a roll call vote has been requested. Councilor Dela Ruzzo?
[Clerk]: Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks? Yes. Scarpelli?
[Richard Caraviello]: This is for asking, it's for the amendment to, that we investigate where to get a million dollars. Discussion for a million dollars.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah. Request. Request that we add a million dollars to the budget. Yeah. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, motion passes. On the original motion, on the main motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by? Second. By Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. And And on the motion by Councilor Layton to use infrared technology. Motion by Councilor Layton, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo.
[Michael Marks]: All those in favor? Councilor, Vice-President Mines. So do we know what this is going to cost, the infrared technology?
[Richard Caraviello]: We do know. We're investigating. We're investigating. We're investigating.
[Michael Marks]: So what is the resolution?
[Richard Caraviello]: that we investigate using technology.
[Michael Marks]: Right. If he could clarify, because we voted on the exact thing not too long ago.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Layton, the amendment would be that the city utilize the newest technology that's out there, which is the infrared technology, just similar to the same way we request the city to use the new technology.
[Michael Marks]: So it is a request of expenditure. He's asking for the city to use this infrared technology.
[SPEAKER_06]: To evaluate the curve, to evaluate.
[Michael Marks]: What if that costs $3 million a year to do the infrared technology?
[SPEAKER_06]: Then the response back would be, it'll cost $3 million a year to do it.
[Michael Marks]: No, you asked them to use that during the assessment. Right? Did you just say, I asked them- To evaluate the utilization. And use infrared, you said, during the assessment. To evaluate the utilization.
[Richard Caraviello]: To evaluate the use of it.
[SPEAKER_06]: To evaluate the utilization. You changed it.
[Michael Marks]: Just kind of like your resolution. No, you're changing it now.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay. Ultimately it was to evaluate the use. It's the same resolution we put forward before. Same resolution we all voted for before.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. The Chair seems to be in doubt. I only heard two ayes. Councilor Knight has asked that we withdraw the B paper. Thank you, Councilor Knight. 17-506, offered by Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, at this point in time, I'd also like to move to withdraw this paper. I've had a correspondence with our city council liaison, Ms. Felch, and she and I have scheduled a meeting to sit down and further discuss the C-Click fixed documents.
[Richard Caraviello]: Upon receipt, I'll be happy to. We're moving 17-506.
[Adam Knight]: Upon receipt, I'll be happy to share the information with my council colleagues. I'd like to thank Ms. Felch. for her proactive response to my resolution and also her assistance in resolving a couple of issues. Thank you. Okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, Alderman and Director for Business, and we take up communications from the Mayor.
[Richard Caraviello]: I am just about ready to get on to that, but before we do that, I want to let everyone know that there's been a slight change to our summer schedule for the meeting. We will be meeting on July 18th, in August 15th in the new media center at the high school, where we'll have the ability to take the meeting and show it at a later date, and maybe when she's ready by then, we may be able to be live, but I wouldn't count on that at this moment. I had the opportunity to go up there yesterday for a press conference. It's a very nice room, and I think it'll serve our council well that we do those two meetings there, and I think everybody will be happy. So please take note. of the change of location and the date.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, will it be true that if this 9-1-1 goes up, there'll be a new venue for those two particular dates?
[Richard Caraviello]: We'll speak to the mayor about having Mr. Clemente do a reverse 9-1-1 to that. Mr. Clerk, if you could make that notation there. All right, petitions. Communications are from the mayor. 17, 5, 1, 2. Dear Mr. President and Councilors, I submit herewith for your approval the fiscal 2018 budget for the city of Medford for the period of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Mr. President, if you would, may I suggest that you give a brief synopsis and we waive the reading? I will give a brief synopsis and we waive the reading. The total submitted appropriations to cover municipal salaries and expenses, including those of the Medford School Department are, municipal departments, $100,686,137. School departments, $56,431, $56,431,000. For a total of $100, and $61,117,437. On the motion by Councilor Knight, the table to the conclusion of the budget. Seconded by Councilor, all those in favor? Motion passes. Let's see. 17 and city councilors. I respectfully request and recommend that your own body appropriate $188,400 from the sale of loss and graves accounts to the cemetery department. The account this recommended appropriation is requested in accordance with the fiscal 18 budget, the cemetery, Department salary count is reduced each year in anticipation of an appropriation from sales of lots. In addition, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appropriate $161,861 for care to the cemetery department expense budget. This recommended in accord with the fiscal 2018 budget. The cemetery expense budget is reduced each year in anticipation of appropriation from... In addition to the upcoming budget hearings, I respectfully request that this be forwarded to the committee of the whole hearing. Yours truly, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. On the motion by Councilor Knight to refer this to the committee of the whole, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Motion passes. Please mark Councilor Dello Russo as opposed. Dear Mr. President and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Body approve the following transfer, $900,000 to be transferred from Water retained earnings to account three, four, zero, four, five, zero, five, seven, eight, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, eight, six, seven, two, zero, one, seven, water capital project. The amount of $900,000 is requested to purchase a water main leak detection system as was displayed in the meeting earlier this year with the water and soil commissioners. We strongly believe that this purchase will not only save dollars, but this commodity, I respectfully request that the paper be forward to the council of a whole for a deliberation during the budget process. The remaining balance in the retained water and earnings after this transfer will be $2,769,199. Motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Falco to move this to a committee of the whole meeting. All those in favor? Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a very important issue that leak detection, this council has been discussing for a number of years due to the high water and sewer rates in this community. Not only leak detection, but INI, inflow. My mic's not on, Mr. President. Oh, mine is, Mr. President. I'm sorry.
[Richard Caraviello]: I apologize.
[Michael Marks]: That's all right, Mr. President. So, this is an important issue, Mr. President, that this council has been discussing for a number of years, leak detection in the community. We've also discussed INI inflow and infiltration. It's costing the ratepayers of this community millions of dollars a year based on water that's leaking in our old outdated water pipes that are underground. A little known fact, Mr. President, about 90% of the water leaks never surface. So you may think, well, if we have water leaks, we're gonna see water leaking down streets and so forth. 90% of the water never surfaces. According to the MWRA, 17 to 20% of the water used in Medford each year is unaccounted for water that's lost to leakage. So you can imagine that figure. 17 to 20% is water that's unaccounted for. It's not made or anyone else's water. Um, the new system, which I went some six months at the time the company claimed in five years method could save about $5 million with this leak detection system and save up to 15 million gallons of water annually by installing this system. Um, it's, uh, in my opinion, Mr. President, a no brainer. It's long overdue in this community. I believe it's money well spent that over the years will find its way to the rate payer and we can actually start seeing potentially a savings when it comes to our water and sewer bill, or at least not see the steady increases that we've grown accustomed to. Additionally, Mr. President, that with this particular leak detection, we were told by that you need appropriate staff to monitor this system. And right now, as we all know, we don't have the appropriate staff to do so. So I'm hoping, which will accompany this paper, also an additional request for staff, Mr. President. The way the system works, and I think it's appropriate people in this community know is that the company, whoever gets selected, would install an acoustic whistling device on the water mains in the gap valves between streets. They would be spaced out in a big grid across the city. The company would listen to the device overnight and there's and they could tell where the leaks are coming from by taking samples of the acoustic sounds and pinpointing within a couple of feet where we have leaks in the community, and then be able to prioritize those leaks and address them. And hopefully over time, we'll be addressing and lowering the percentage of unaccounted for water within our community. So I've been pushing for leak detection for a number of years. INI inflow and infiltration is a whole other thing. in the community, which is another issue I've been pushing for, Mr. President. That's groundwater that's seeping into our sewer system and being treated as raw sewage, which is costing the ratepayers of this community tens of millions of dollars a year. The one thing I would ask, Mr. President, that my colleagues consider is that currently right now, the school system and the city do not pay for their water. It is not included in the operating budget for the schools and for the city. Everyone knows, any homeowner knows, when you have your budget, you look at your car insurance, you look at your groceries, and water and sewer is part of your budget. It's part of operating, so you can flush your toilet, take showers, water your lawn, it's part of the budget. In our city, for some reason, not part of the budget. And guess what, when it's not part of the budget, Mr. President, what happens? You tend not to conserve. Doesn't matter how much water I'm using, the ratepayers will pay for that. Doesn't matter. We'll just add it on to the ratepayers. They'll grin and bear it and take it, Mr. President. You know, if these buildings are meted, it should be part of the overall working budget. It should be part of the budget, Mr. President. It shouldn't be outside of a budget. And in order to make this system work, we have to account for every entity in this community, and that includes the school system and also the municipal buildings. And there's no reason why, Mr. President, where those buildings are meted that we're not accounting for them in the budget. When I was on the school committee back some years ago, it was part of the operating budget. And then Mayor McGlynn, because he found out a good way of shifting it off of the Prop 2.5 within the budget, and said, I could put that within the ratepayers and also increase my budget on other things that I want to do. And, Mr. President, it should work that way. Just recently, the administration asked us to combine the water and sewer enterprise account. Why? Because it was easy for accounting for them. So why would they approach us and say, you know what, we also want to make sure that our buildings that are already needed, that we include them in the budget. I'm telling you right now, Mr. President, there are several issues that if they're not addressed in this budget, like I did last year, and I know Councilor Lungo, I will not support this budget. I will not support it, Mr. President. The mayor will have to account on the other members. But unless we hold our feet, Mr. President, to the fire, and make sure we address these issues and not just give lip service, that's the time to do it. So, Mr. President, I support this wholeheartedly. I would hope that we also have a discussion on staffing to be able to look at these leaks and instantaneously get a report to show where these leaks are. And also, Mr. President, that once again, the school side and the municipal side include the water and SOAR within their budgeting process.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Councilor Nice.
[SPEAKER_06]: Your light was on.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Name and address for the record, please. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushman Street, Method Mass. On a positive note, I'd like to thank all you councilors, the mayor, all the salaried employees, and especially the volunteers for doing all the hard work and trying to improve our city. Thank you very much. As far as saving taxpayers' money on the water, it sounds really good to me. Trust is good, but verify would be better. The city is strongly believing this device or system will not only save taxpayers' money, and it may be a good idea, But verifying if it's historically a fact and true is a better, I believe, and a must idea before spending almost a million dollars of the people's money. Is it a wise purchase? Does it work? So, like, who, what cities have bought this system in the last three years? And can we call them and ask if they saved any money? And how much per year? Please. I also recollect the new water meters, they're probably 10 to 15 years old, and those are supposed to be all kinds of bells and whistles, and I believe in those meters, I believe one of the Councilors had brought up, and I'm not sure if that saved the center any money. But I'd like to see from past experiences who has bought this around our locale, under the MWRA system, if they in fact really did save, or did it did they not save and they spent a million dollars or whatever, and was a cost-effective period. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Cappucci]: Name and address of the record, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Rob Capucci, 71 Evans Street. I want to thank you all for this discussion. I think this is one of the biggest pebbles in the pond. When we're paying for water that falls out of the sky, I mean, look at it from the perspective of the businesses. who might have to raise their prices a little bit for goods and services. Other residents who, like the city treasurer said before this council a couple months ago in talking about going after delinquent taxpayers, she said it's not fair to the residents who are, quote, sacrificing new cars and vacations. Well, why do you think that is? It's because they're paying for water that literally falls out of the sky. Is God going to be charged this new connectivity tax? I don't think so. The Metro residents and businesses are. And it would help the overall local community to really get a grasp on this before and not just keep letting it go. I mean, businesses are losing in this square so much money because of that Kratik Bridge. I know one proprietor, since it's happened, has lost close to a million dollars in business. When you add these taxes and fees on it, I mean, it becomes a priority that really shouldn't just slip through your fingers and get away. I respectfully request that you get a firm grasp on this and get the job done, please, sooner than later. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight that this be sent to the Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Before we, I think that's it, before we finish up Thursday, there will be the dog park at the river bend will be The groundbreaking will be there at one o'clock p.m. for anyone who wants to attend. Something that was supported by Vice President Mox very highly, and it will be coming to fruition. The records of the... Mr. President, just before we call the records. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: If we could, Mr. President, a long time Medford resident just recently passed away. Dr. William Wood passed away, Mr. President. He was very active in this community, a big advocate for the disabled community, and I would ask that we have a moment of silence.
[Richard Caraviello]: I agree. Please rise. Thank you. Reckons of the meeting of May 30th. I'm sorry?
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Castagnetti Christian. Someone brought up there's a meeting coming up, what was that meeting? The dog park. I think it's 1 p.m. 1 p.m., Riverbend Park. And that's behind the Dogger Andrews, I presume?
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Yes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Okay. Behind the McGlynn, okay. Also, I think there's two other meetings.
[Richard Caraviello]: The Riverbend Park is at seven o'clock. I'm sorry? Riverbend Park is at seven o'clock. The bike path? And for the bike path, that's at the, I think it's at the Andrews.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: It's also, okay, at the Andrews. And also, I believe there's some, my friend Captain Barry Clemente called about some final traffic meeting. There's also a traffic meeting also tomorrow night on Thursday night. Thursday night's a very busy night. So Thursday night's meeting is about the last meeting for the proposed possible city-wide or part of the city-wide Resident parking only? Yes. Correct? That's correct. Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: And what time is that and what location, sir? I don't recall. At the senior center, I think it's six o'clock.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Six o'clock, an hour before the bike path, Riverside Bend.
[Richard Caraviello]: Budget your time properly.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Tonight is the Muffley Police Community Meeting. this month that is actually back at the Medford Police Station.
[Richard Caraviello]: And what day is that? That's tomorrow.
[John Falco]: That's tomorrow. Tomorrow at the police station. 7pm for anyone that's interested in coming up with a schedule of neighborhood dates beginning in September. We'll be coming out with that schedule soon.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. I yield to the podium first, if you can. Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: G. Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street. If we're going to list off meetings tomorrow, I'd just like to remind everyone, tomorrow night is the ZBA. 252 Main Street and 49 Pleasant Street, and I think there's one other, but I can't recall, are on the... Thank you. And the Conservation Commission.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. From Macklin Road. Thank you. These things are all posted on the city website, so if everybody looks, they can find them there, you know.
[George Scarpelli]: Mr. President, I just wanted to thank the city administration, the mayor's office, for an unbelievable community day this Sunday. The weather was great. The thousands of people that attended had nothing but positive things to say, so I just want to thank, I think hundreds of thousands, I just want to thank them Thank you, Councilor Marks. You just reminded me, hundreds of thousands, so thank you. That was a wonderful event.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. The records were passed to Councilor Lococoon. How did you find those records? What? On the motion by Councilor Lococoon that the records are approved, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Motion passes. Motion by Councilor Knight for approval, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 21.75 minutes total words: 1498  |
total time: 5.13 minutes total words: 561  |
total time: 15.51 minutes total words: 1482  |
total time: 8.19 minutes total words: 752  |
|
total time: 7.12 minutes total words: 318  |
total time: 4.77 minutes total words: 395  |
total time: 37.92 minutes total words: 1401  |
total time: 4.29 minutes total words: 188  |
|
total time: 1.55 minutes total words: 161  |
|||