[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm interested in the new TV3 station and had questions with regards to the cable advisory committee. It was the first I was aware that a committee has been established. I'm obviously out of the loop, so I was just wondering if we could get a copy of how many people are on the advisory committee and who they are, as well as have they met yet, and if there are any minutes. I'd like to just amend this. If there's been any minutes, if we could get a copy of those minutes so we can better see. what's been transpired, I think it's great. We have the station up and running to a point and just want to keep an idea of what's happening so we're able to answer people's questions as well. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Council Member, if I could amend that to ask if we're doing interviews for a manager of the station also?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Yes, please. Second.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, seconded by Council Member Dello Russo, as amended by President Caraviello. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. 17-535 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council be to be provided a breakdown from the school department of the number of school transfers from one public school to another. Request in 2015, 16, 17, and the number of transfers allowed by each school. Be it further resolved that the numbers be broken down by school. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I believe within the next couple nights we're meeting with the superintendent of schools to go over. We don't have it yet, but hopefully we'll get it sooner than later, the budget for the school department. I was recently asked how many transfers there are from one school to another by a resident, and I have I had no idea, so I said I would put this on. I'd be curious to see how many transfer requests are out there and how many are allowed per each school. I know there's a discrepancy with the amount of children that are in each school. So I just want to see, and there was an issue with class size for one of the grades at the Roberts that was discussed last night at the school committee meeting. So I just want to see how it is all broken down over the last three years so we can get a better idea. When we look at the numbers, we can kind of have the big picture. I also want to be able to answer people's questions. I know a lot of people do request, I don't know if it's a lot, but people do request transfers. So it's just something that we've never asked and we've never got an answer to. So I think it'd be relevant to get these answers before we meet with the superintendent or at least before we vote on the budget potentially next Tuesday. So if I could move approval with a roll call vote.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo. Second, Mr. President. On the motion by Councilor Lago-Curran and seconded by Councilor Dello Russo, a roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Lago-Curran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Moxley? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 17-536, offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council be provided a list from the school department of all increased and decreased class sizes within our Medford public schools. For example, if a class is adding a class due to class size issues of vice versa. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I put this on last week. I believe it was Wednesday, Thursday, I started getting phone calls with regards to the concern of class sizes, mainly at one school and one grade. And I put this on because there's talk of every year, I'm assuming, depending on the numbers, there may be one or two or three. I don't know how many. where a teacher is pulled from a grade to accommodate another grade, and I wanted to see how many of those we have this coming year so we can obviously get control of it and make sure all our class sizes allow. I believe after last night's meeting, we were guaranteed that all class sizes would be under 22, and I believe the class average is about 20 students per classroom, so I just want to make sure we maintain that level and we make sure that we're gonna provide those little class sizes to everybody, every student across the board.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Lango-Kern, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor. Aye. Motion passes. 17-537 offered by Councilor Lango-Kern. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council be provided with a list from the school department of all new hires and newly created positions within the fiscal year 2018 budget. Be it further resolved that we also receive a list of all positions that have been eliminated. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you again, President Caraviello. Each year we are left with the large school budget and to look and see, try to figure out who's been added, who's been taken out of the budget. Each year we have sometimes a position or two or three that has been created which obviously is something that I think needs to be in bold print if not obviously given to us separately so we can understand what is going on in the school system and be able to vote on the budget accordingly. So I asked for a list of all those new hires and newly created positions as well as all the positions that are being eliminated so we can do our job.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Longo-Kearns. On the motion by Councilor Longo-Kearns, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor?
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, roll call has been requested.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? No. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight, no. Councilor Longo-Kearns?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Box? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative, a motion passes. 17-538, offered by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the lack of attention from utility companies regarding double poles in our community be discussed. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I'd like to, I received a letter from Superintendent of WIRES, Stephen Randazzo. And this is a recent happening, Mr. President. The letter is dated June 5, 2017, and it's from Verizon. As we all know, National Grid, for many years in this community, was the custodian of all the telephone poles, or I should say a good majority of the telephone poles in the city. And just recently, Verizon and National Grid reached an agreement on who the custodian of the poles are, and I think this is pertinent information for this council. So I'd like to read just a portion, Mr. President, as I stated dated June 5th, 2017, from Verizon. This is, dear municipal official, this is to inform you that effective May 31st, 2017, National Grid and Verizon have reached an agreement that changes the way the two companies perform utility pole work in your community. The agreement updates operating procedures in place for more than 30 years. Under the new agreement, custodial areas where one or more other pole owner had assumed responsibility for replacing and installing new utility poles on a municipal basis have been eliminated. Instead, National Grid will be responsible for all replacements, relocations, and new installations of jointly owned poles. Verizon will be responsible for removing all jointly owned poles once the replacement pole is installed and all facility transfers are completed. So right now, Mr. President, according to this letter, Verizon will now be responsible for the removal of all double poles, which is brand new to this community and I think one that people should be aware of. I offer this resolution tonight, Mr. President, to address the lack of attention with utility companies to the number of double poles we have in the community. According to our Superintendent Owais, we have a little over 8,400 telephone poles within the community. And according to the latest list I just received, there are roughly 245 double poles in the community. So if you look at it as a street situation, almost one out of every three streets in our community has a double pole on it. Right now, the current list is Verizon has 88 poles that they're responsible for removing wires, and that's why the pole is still up, the double pole. National Grid has 51 poles they're responsible for, and Comcast has 101 poles. The city of Medford, Mr. President, and I'm proud to report this, back several years ago, was on close to, I believe it was 90 to 100 poles, that we had fire call boxes that were still hooked up, and they were holding the utility companies from removing the double pole. To date, Mr. President, we have one double pole on the city of Medford. And that is a huge accomplishment, and the Superintendent of Wires, Steven Randazzo, should be commended on his work, Mr. President, putting together a priority list and getting our city utility, which is the fire call box, off the poles, Mr. President. But double poles, as we know, are a blight to our community and a public safety concern to area residents. Utility companies are unresponsive and have no incentive to remove double poles in a reasonable time frame. The current system for moving poles is dysfunctional and the state law ineffective. Municipalities need a new approach that holds utility companies accountable, requiring better coordination and improved communication to resolve this problem. As we all know, Chapter 164, Section 34B forbids companies from keeping double poles up for more than 90 days. However, there is no penalty to the utility company for not complying with the law. On July 28, 2005, the Mass Supreme Court, Judicial Court, upheld a lower court ruling overturning a Bedford Mass bylaw imposing $100 a day fine for each set of double utility poles. The court ruled that only the state legislature has the authority to impose a fine for keeping double poles. So based on that decision back in 2005, Mr. President, I offered a council resolution on October 3rd 2006 requesting our state delegation amend chapter 164 section 34 B allowing city or town to the ability to enact local ordinances or bylaws prohibiting double polls beyond the 90 days punishable by a fine not to exceed a maximum of $100 per occurrence per day. Uh, um, rep score Tino, Then on October 6, 2006, based on the council resolution, offered a sponsor to build, Mr. President, with that exact terminology, which would allow, it was House Bill 1675, which would allow local cities and towns to actually find these utility companies. And it got bantered around in the state house, and What ultimately ended up happening, from what I understand, is that the utility companies were upset. The utility companies, Mr. President, were upset because they said it was unfair. to find the custodian of the pole. For instance, at the time, if National Grid owned the pole, they also had Comcast, Verizon on the pole, and they may be the ones holding up the process. So they said, how can you find us as the custodian where these other utilities are holding up the process? And in my opinion, Mr. President, The responsibility of the utility company that's the pole owner, they have license agreements with all these other attachees that are on the pole. And their license agreement states that they have the authority to transfer wires at the attachee's expense. So if National Grid thought Comcast was taking too long removing their wires, under their license agreement, they can go in at the attachee's expense and remove the wires, and we can get rid of the double pole. So you can see how the ambiguity that's out there really lends itself to a process that is not functioning, Mr. President. And this has been an issue, as you can see, it dates back to 2006 and far beyond that. So what I want to offer tonight, Mr. President, with the hopes of getting approval from this council, is that the state create, and this would be the Department of Telecommunications, they create, Mr. President, a statewide database which they oversee and they enforce. Right now, there's a database called Poll Lifetime Management System, and all the utility companies, it's PLM, all the utility companies and many municipalities have access to this system, so they can go online and look at these reports, which I have a copy in front of me, that states who's on the poll, how long the poll's been there, and who's responsible for taking their wires off. And, uh, they have access to this system, but there's no oversight by the state. So my, uh, request tonight through a motion of this council is that, uh, we request our state delegation, uh, to file legislation, creating the statewide enforcement and penalty structure under the oversight and responsibility of the mass department of public utilities. And by doing so, Mr. President, we'll create a state entity that's responsible for the oversight and also serve as an online tracking process that allows review of the state and possible finding by the state. So the municipalities don't have to get involved. It's the utility, Mass. Department of Public Utilities, which currently right now is the oversight for utilities in Massachusetts. They should step up to the plate. and take responsibility. So that would be my recommendation tonight, Mr. President, that our state delegation file legislation to allow enforcement by Mass. Department of Public Utilities and also the ability to find, Mr. President, by Mass. Department of Public Utilities. So we can once and for all put this issue in the rearview mirror and not have to reinvent this issue every year after year when the utility companies just ignoring our request to remove double poles, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Vice President Mox, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor?
[Clerk]: Roll call vote.
[Richard Caraviello]: Roll call vote has been requested, Mr. Clerk.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Seven in the affirmative. None in the negative motion passes. Petitions presentations and similar matters. 17 five three nine petition by Lisa defibrillators.
[Richard Caraviello]: 32 Winford Way, Medford to address the council about property owners maintaining minimal standards of care. Good evening. Good evening. Address for the record, please.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: I'm sorry. Name Lisa DeFabritas, Winford Way.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Thank you. I'd like to kindly request the council to consider the implementation of an ordinance to require property owners to maintain their property at a minimum standard of care and cleanliness. Some cities have such an ordinance in place, but Medford does not. The majority of residents do maintain their property in good condition, but the few who do not cause a significant impact to their neighbors and to those who pass by these properties. For example, one, this potential fire hazard for uncut grass that grows to excessive heights that can become a fire hazard in the summertime. Two, the attraction of unwanted animals and pests. For example, rotted wood on structures of a property or lying on their property that can attract termites and easily spread to neighboring homes. The attraction of rats, mice that can cause infestation. Three, the deterrence of prospective buyers who want to purchase or invest in a property that is in close proximity to a neglected property. The depreciation value of a property that is in the vicinity of a neglected or deplorable property. One could argue from a legal standpoint that a negligent property owner could be liable for damages because their negligence causes the loss of value to another property owner. Lastly, it's simply unsightly, inoffensive to see a neglected property in our neighbourhood. In allowing property to be kept in deplorable conditions goes against the efforts of the city to maintain a sense of pride and decency in our community. The city has ordinances in place for dog owners, dog waste, property owners to keep their sidewalks clear of debris and snow, public littering, et cetera. Not having an ordinance in place to address negligent property owners hurts the majority of residents by allowing so-called slum property owners to embarrass our city, cause a depreciation of surrounding property value and increase safety risks. Additionally, without an ordinance in place, the city and its residents are helpless to address this issue, leaving individual residents to try and resolve matters on their own, which could result in bad situations amongst neighbors that could lead to civil unrest and violence. We shouldn't have to wait until a bad situation occurs before recognizing the need for a common sense ordinance to ensure Medford can be proud of its city and its surroundings. I would like to share a copy of an ordinance from another city regarding the cleanliness expectations from its residents and property owners that I'm happy to leave as a reference for consideration. And thank you for your time.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Thank you, Mr. President. If I could, through the chair, ask the citizen, Ms. DeFabritis, is there a particular incident that is inspiring you to ask for this ordinance? And secondly, my second question would be, to ask if she's aware or finds a failing in public health regulations and building code regulations that are often invoked to remedy these situations.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Thank you. Yes, I have. First off, for years, I lived next to a property like that. And for years, I lived next to a property in that in deplorable conditions. Both myself and many of my residents, the neighbors on my street have tried for years to reach out to the city to have this addressed. I personally myself over the past year have spoken to the building department, the health department, the police, the city, every department that everyone has referred me to, I have contacted and I have been told that there is nothing they can do about it unless It's a safety issue. There was limitations and it brought me to this particular point. There is no ordinance in the city that allows the city to address this problem. You know, if there was an audience, the city and the police can go there and say, Hey, this is the audience. You need to take care of this. This is unacceptable. Whatever the conditions as stated forth in an ordinance sort of allows the authorities of the city to enforce it. and or potentially fine property owners if they don't keep them. Again, I'm only asking a minimal standard. I mean, I'm not saying they have to keep it as a palace, but there are certain minimal expectations. I feel that everybody should respect for your community and for your neighbors. I'm not sure I answered all your questions.
[Fred Dello Russo]: You did. Thank you very much.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: My pleasure.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Vice President Max. Thank you, Mr. President. There is an ordinance regarding the exterior of the property. It's a clean it or lean it ordinance. It's been in effect for a number of years. And, uh, I know the building department has used that for several properties throughout the community, uh, and have been, uh, very, uh, responsive to, uh, the owners of the property and cleaning the property itself regarding a property that may have other issues as council Del Russo mentioned, maybe border health issues or road in issues, which would be border health. Um, I, I think they could enforce if they needed to. And maybe it's just a matter of getting the right attention to get down there and have them take a look at the property to see if it's in need. Um, uh, I'm not aware of the property, but, um, like I said, the cleaner to lean it, uh, would apply to the exterior. So if someone has, uh, just say a bathtub on their front lawn, And believe it or not, it's happened before.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: There's a portable toilet in the driveway that's been sitting there for six months.
[Michael Marks]: And to me, that would be ideal for the clean it or lean it. That would be ideal. So I think we could remedy, I don't know if you want to give an address, but we can recommend through this council that the board of health as well as code enforcement go out to the property and do a site view.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: I did go to the building department last week and they were, I explained it and they told me there was only limited resources. They were limited to what they could do based on the clean it or lean it that you were referring to. They did mention that they were going to go there and try and talk to the owner about it. I haven't heard back. I'm sorry?
[Richard Caraviello]: One of the information's Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: The board applauding that? Yeah. Is it, yeah, because we, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just, I, I just, I wasn't, I don't know if someone just put, put a port a party. I think that a building department should know through the permitting process, correct? The board of health. It's probably not a, it's not a legal one.
[Michael Marks]: Sure.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: It's just, I know, but if it's there too long.
[George Scarpelli]: Oh yeah. Oh yeah, absolutely.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there are, there are many issues in this particular property and, and I, um, I'm for sure there are other properties throughout the city. The bottom line is it's just like, there should be a minimal expect, you know, expectations of property owner. For example, what about the, you know, there is no ordinance for currently or anything on the books about grass. When you have a drought, like a situation we had last year where it didn't rain all summer and you have grass, it's, you know, like four feet high. I mean, that's, if I ask it, there should be some kind of ordinance and expectation there.
[Michael Marks]: I mean, it applies to all that, just so you know that it applies to grass. That's I'm happy. It applies to putting items on your lawn or in your yard.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: I was told by the building, I don't mean to interrupt, I was told by the building last week that that was not applicable to the situation.
[Michael Marks]: I think you've got bogus information. Right. And I know it's applied in other circumstances. I don't want to give out where the property was, but that clean and lean, and it was regarding tall bushes, regarding tall grass that was unkept,
[Lisa Defabritiis]: I spoke to two people, one in person, one on the phone, gave them the property address. They said they were going to go out and speak to them. Again, I was told that they were limited to what they were able to do to enforce it, or force you know, the property owner to do anything about it. And again, I've been after this for years and more recently last week. So I have yet to see any results. Uh, I haven't heard anybody back from the building department. And again, if there's an ordinance, if that is applicable, then, um, Is that a written document? Or is there somewhere?
[Michael Marks]: It's a city ordinance. It's a city ordinance. I don't have the site section, but it's a city ordinance.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: And that pertains to everything that I'm describing? Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Absolutely.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: Absolutely. Okay. So they can use that to enforce the property owner to make their property comply to a certain standard.
[Michael Marks]: Clean it or lean it. Clean it meaning clean it up or lean it.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: So I'm very confused because again, I've been to every department in the city for the past year and a half or two years and I have.
[Michael Marks]: Well, if you're that confused, grab a seat and you can come back here with us.
[Lisa Defabritiis]: You have to. So, um, if I could get a copy of that ordinance at some point and if maybe the building department can follow up on this, um, and I can get some answers to know what the next step.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate it. Give us an address. Do you have an address?
[Lisa Defabritiis]: We need an address. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you. Addresses all the time. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I was going to mention the clean and Alina ordinance too. And I feel like, So if we get the proper department, you know, the person in the building department, we can try to get somebody out there for a site visit. So I think the best way to do that is for her to email us all and we can, you know, obviously help work it out. But I agree. I think there's a lot of properties. I was contacting the building department last week on a property on Doonan Street. It's been under construction for about two and a half years. There's no stairs. There's rocks and, I mean, grass couldn't even grow because there's rocks everywhere and I'm So it is hard for the building departments. Sometimes their hands are tied, but for something like this, it seems like our Board of Health and our building department should be able to do a site visit. And if there's no permit on that port-a-potty that's in somebody's driveway, something should be done.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor Nice. Mr. President, I have had great luck with the Board of Health and the Code Enforcement Office in getting some of these issues rectified as well, so I really think it might be that we need to point an individual in the right direction. With that being said, though, the lady was kind enough to pass out a copy of an ordinance that I'm hoping we can all get copies of. At this point in time, I'd ask that the paper be received and placed on file. We have an opportunity to take a look at the draft ordinance that's in place, and we can contrast that with our existing rules and regulations that are established by the Board of Health and the Building Commission, and then we can determine whether or not we need to move forward with a minimum standard of cleanliness ordinance, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Larry, if you can make us copy. Name and address of the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I think on the face, when you look at these properties that are distressed, they're a symptom to a larger issue. And although I appreciate the clean it or lean it approach, it's not just residents that we have a problem with. It's also businesses. So my position is a lot of these instances, when you delve a little deeper, you're dealing with people who are barely hanging on. They're the folks working two jobs who don't have time to mow the lawn. They're being deaf by paper cuts in fees and expenses from the city. And I really think it's a very slippery slope. And if we're going to start to really look at enforcing a clean it or lean it, then it should also be applied, perhaps more heavy-handedly, to the property owners who allow their commercial properties to remain empty and an eyesore on the city for a tax write-off in their real estate portfolio. Certainly those people can afford it far more than some individual who may be is having trouble keeping their property. So I would urge you, as you start to look at this ordinance and delve into it deeper, to consider that some of these folks, it's an issue of finance and time. And this is another one of those methods and approaches that can often lead to gentrification. And I think it's no secret how I feel about balancing our development and our image with not gentrifying our residents out. So I would just ask you to consider those things as you look at it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Nugent. On the motion by Councilor Knight that we review and place on file, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. The messenger is doing that as we speak. All those in favor? Motion passes. Motion by Vice President Marks to move suspension of the rules. Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. I'm a member of this August body. I come here tonight on two very important issues. that directly affect this Medford City Council and the taxpayers of our community. The first one is to address the issue of the CPA, the Community Preservation Act. As we know, when it was passed in November of 2015, it has a lifespan of five years from the date of its passage. It's now going to be just about into its second year with three years to go. The unfortunate part about this CPA is that at an election night some two years ago, almost 1,200 to 1,300 ballots were never acted upon, because a lot of people never turned the ballot over to vote for it. So whether it was going to pass or not, nobody even knew. Apparently, it did pass from those members that did vote. The unfortunate part about this particular act, and I'm going to draw the correlation to the connectivity fee, it's another tax being opposed upon the taxpayers of this community. But unfortunately, they're not getting that for which they voted for. The Enabling Act, which goes back to 2001 and 2002, addressed itself through the years, right up until this past year, to the fact that whatever and however the population count takes place, and however the tax valuation on assessed pieces of property here in the city of Medford, as in all cities and towns, determines the dollar amount that will come back from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, we all know that for the past years, the Commonwealth has been having a tough time. So let's just go back to fiscal year 2013, the state gave back 52%. Fiscal year 2014, 31%. Fiscal year 2015, 29.7%. And this present past fiscal year 2016, they're at 18%. So for every dollar that every taxpayer here in the city of Medford has given up as it relates to the assessed evaluation at the 1.5%, the state will give back approximately 18%, which is nowhere near the dollar for dollar of 100%. I've spoken to members up at the legislature, and I've spoken to other cities and towns, where they feel to some degree that the taxpayer is not getting their real bank for the buck. You guys and gals are into this thing on the second year. You still have no program. There's still no designation where and how that money can be spent, whether it's for housing, affordable housing, parks and recreation, or historical values. Those are the three primary things. at a minimum of each one of those. So what I did is I looked at the law and I found it on page, it's section 18. Larry, he's not here when he comes back. And I think what I would want to do, and I'll pass one off for each of you. The intent of what I'd like to have is to have you as a city council consider the following. Since in fact the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not paying back dollar for dollar as people have been led to believe because of the 158 cities and towns that now make up the CPA throughout the commonwealth. I don't think it's fair that we should keep paying, having our taxpayers pay their 1.5 share for the purposes of hopefully thinking they're going to get a match back. The proposal that I'm asking you as a council to do is to file a piece of legislation to amend Section 18, A and B. And in those two sections, they basically will say, if in fact the Commonwealth cannot meet its obligation of dollar for dollar for which the city of Medford at 1.5 is taxing their residents, then the city can suspend, by a vote of the city council, suspend any further collection of those taxes or that 1.5%, or you could also vote to reduce it down to 1%, until further notice, until the Commonwealth meets its obligation. That's the first part. And the second part, and I think it's very important that it's understood, that if this city and this council wants to not renew the CPA after its fifth year, at present, the only way you can do it is it becomes automatically taking place unless the city council, by a vote, puts the question on the ballot and the people vote for it all over again. My amendment to that portion states basically this, at the end of the fifth year, it automatically dies. If in fact, if in fact the people of this community and whoever the council might be at that time wishes to go forward and renew it again for another five years, then the question goes on the ballot. You are dealing with right now your second fiscal year on this CPA. I don't think anyone of you behind this rail have even been informed as to where and how that money is going to be spent. And there are provisos in there. It's a 12, it's a 12 page document. There are 18 sections to go with it. And in those 18 sections, it's very important to understand and to read. There's a great latitude that up to a nine member board or a commission has with that money. And you as a council haven't even been right into the picture. No public meetings and hearings have been held to find out where and how that money can be spent. While 30% can go to housing, historical and open space and recreational. The remaining 70% can be likewise used for the same, if not similar, situations that CPA will approve. I think you folks really need to take a deep, hard look at this particular law. Because as of July 1, as I said, once people start getting hit with a connectivity fee every other month, and then begin to realize that their 1.5%, which is in excess of $1 million, is being collected here at City Hall, and the state is not giving back the dollar for dollar, as people thought they did when they voted for this, That's two unfair taxes being placed upon taxpayers at the present time. The second thing I would like to talk about is the money that on October 7th, 2014, after many weeks of, excuse me, on October 7th in 2014, I don't know what's going on here, on October 7th, On 2014, after the then Medford City Council was reviewing Park Medford's application before the city of Medford, and Mayor McGlynn at that point in time signed the contract on October 7th, 2014, five additional addendums, five additional addendums were included into that Park Medford contract. And the one that stands out is the following. It says he's recommending $250,000 of the revenue generated on a yearly basis to be dedicated to business district improvements. Now that's a result of the mayor making the comment after deliberating and discussing concerns issued by many business people in the community, the mayor is recommending the following. And he did that the same day he made that announcement. On December 18th, 2015, the mayor sent out a Notice to the members of the city council, which basically said in part, a representative of each business district will recommend to the mayor some proposed uses. I respectfully request and recommend that the sum of $250,000 be transferred from the sale of real estate to be used for improvements to the five business districts with kiosks as I recommended earlier this year, which would have been effective calendar year 2016. Now we go a little bit further and we go to December 23rd, 2014. Once again, in the press release issued by the local press from the mayor's office, it states $250,000 annually would be subject to appropriation for district improvements. And as a result of that, that came from then the mayor's secretary, Lisa Evangelista, and she was given that by then budget director, Stephanie Burke. And then lastly, we have on January 24th of 2016, once again, after a signing ceremony of a 10-year contract for the program, Mayor McGlynn said $250,000 of the city's annual revenue would be used for improvements to business districts. This is the catch. The prior mayor made a commitment to that, Burke said. When we initially rolled it out, my interpretation was that that would be about and beyond the fixed amount that we collected. Now, how could that be about and beyond when the mayor specifically said it would come out of your real estate account? Each district right now is $100,000 behind in what they should have been getting for the past two years, inclusive of Medford Square. I believe as council members, you have a deep responsibility right now to get answers from this mayor as it relates to not only the $50,000 for each square, where is the money because that money should be designated in the real estate account. It's unfair to the business districts in this community. This is an election year. You're going to see a lot of puffing going along. Well, we're going to do this and we're going to do that. Well, I don't think any of these districts have seen anything going on right now that makes them a lot better than they were when they first started when Park Medford came in. You're talking about $500,000 that should be accounted for right now that should come out of that account sale of real estate for which the mayor indicated. You folks have not received one document from this administration telling you that that money would not be forthcoming and not be forthcoming from that account. I just think it's unfair. I think it's unfair to the taxpayers, the business people in this community, the Chamber of Commerce, who are all led to believe that that money would be forthcoming and to be there. Mr. President, I would like to ask that someone on the council, maybe all the council members ask the mayor, where is the money? When is it going to be forthcoming to the business districts? And how can we see it? So the people of this community will have an understanding that this city keeps its word. It's just not political puffing. Is that Mr. Um, I'd like to pass out the site and sections of the law for which we just talked about. Could you give one to each one, including the clerk? I'd like to have you look at it, and in the July meeting, I'd like to come back and see what your thoughts are. You know, ratepayers in this community are paying an awful lot, not only for their taxes and their water bills, their sewer bills, now a connectivity fee, you know, and now we're looking at a CPA tax, that all intentions were good. And I think a lot of people would say if we were getting the 100 percent back from the Commonwealth, we'd be in good shape. But if it's only progressed for 18 percent of this year, It's just unfair to keep it in the Medford tax base. Whether it's $50, $60, $70, $80 a year, that's not the point. It's another tax, another tax that cannot be accounted for. And this one comes from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So this would probably be easier for you folks to even deal with, because it's not even coming from the city of Medford. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. But I just think, you know, when you start looking at these things, it's election year, and walking the streets and talking to people all day long, this is what I hear. Why are we paying for these things? Why are we paying for a connectivity fee when we have $850,000 in a water and soil surplus account? Why are we paying for a CPA tax when we're not even getting 100% reimbursement? And it just doesn't make any sense. And when you go into the business districts, they're just completely fed up. They just can't understand what's going on in this building here. There's absolutely no communication. There's no transparency as to how and what money is to be spent around here. I'd be more than happy to answer any question if anybody has it.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. To the gentleman at the podium, I do believe, and refresh my memory, because I know you got a lot of good notes there. At one point in time, the previous administration did put forward a paper for the council to appropriate $250,000. Isn't that correct? Yes. Yes. And do you know when that happened?
[Robert Penta]: December, the first time it came about, after the discussions, like I said, it was October 7, 2014.
[Adam Knight]: October, 2014.
[Robert Penta]: That's when the contract was signed.
[Adam Knight]: OK. And then the paper was introduced to the council floor, I believe.
[Robert Penta]: I believe it was presented before the council floor. A representative from the mayor's office was here on that particular night. I believe it was the following January. And I believe on January 28 of the following year, the full-blown discussion. Even maybe Mr. Nash was here the other night. I could be wrong. Don't hold me to it, but we've had so many of those meetings.
[Adam Knight]: But so that— There was a request made of the council to appropriate $250,000 to the building districts, but the previous council didn't act on it.
[Robert Penta]: The administration absolutely said it. That money was going to be earmarked on an annual basis. from the sale of real estate to the five business districts.
[Adam Knight]: The previous administration did send us a paper requesting an appropriation.
[Robert Penta]: Oh, yeah, and we got that, as a matter of fact.
[Adam Knight]: And then that money was never appropriated because the council failed to act, correct?
[Robert Penta]: You never got it. You never got the request to have it appropriated.
[Adam Knight]: See, I'm remembering that we got a paper requesting the $250,000 be appropriated. That's why I ask, because my recollection is a little bit different than that that was presented. But with that being said, I rest, Mr. President.
[Robert Penta]: But you have, Mr. President, approximately $500,000 that needs to be accounted for for the years 2016 and coming into 2017. It's a lot of money. And where is it? And why is it back into the business districts? That's one of the reasons why Mayor McGlynn back then decided to amend it by adding those five additional things into the contract on an annual basis. This was going to be out of the sale of real estate, not something over and beyond that for which Park Medford was paying us. as the former budget director, now present mayor, has indicated. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I thank prior Councilor Penter for coming forward and refreshing our memory. I believe that, I agree with you, if it should come out of anywhere, it should be the sale of real estate. And I'm sure you're aware, the latest we've heard is that we are going to be asked to vote out of it, take the money out of free cash at some point in the near future to give $50,000 to each business district. So I, too, I mean, I feel that it should come out of the budget rather than free cash, but that's the way, that's what's playing out now.
[Robert Penta]: Part of that argument, so to speak, back then that was present is it would be on an annual basis that the squares, a representative or representatives from each one of the squares would meet on an annual basis for the purpose. Now, let's just say if they were into their second year, which would be up to $100,000, This could be an ongoing project that maybe needs $50,000, $100,000, $150,000. and they could be able to correct whatever it's going to be needed. But it's not being done. There's been no meeting. There's been no allowance of the money even to come before the council to be spent and have a presentation said, we're giving this money to Haines Square, this money to West Method, this is what the money is going to be used for, and a representative from each one of the people to come here. You know, this is still taxpayers' money. No matter how you want to cut it, no matter how it's garnered, the fact of the matter is you have a responsibility as councillors to say, well, if this is what the deal was, $250,000 a year, you haven't even have it. You don't even have a financial report coming back to you, as you've asked on numerous occasions on an annual or semi-annual basis, revenue coming in. We could just go on and on. But at least on this particular issue, there's nothing. There's nothing to talk about, because there's nothing that's been presented. And going back to the CPA, the fact that Larry, could you just do this, please? Did you pass them up? Oh, OK. The thing in the CPA, we're not taking it away from anybody. All we're just saying is you're just going to suspend it. Because if you're being told that you're going to get X amount of dollars back for every dollar that you put up, and you're not getting it, why would you want to still keep going back out there and taxing the rate payers? And if you're taking the million dollars that you have already now for the first year, and you should ask for an accounting, it would be nice to have someone behind the rail ask for an accounting of how much money did the city of Medford take in in its first year? You're going into your second year of a CPA. What's the intent of spending that money? Where is the committee? What's their findings? Where's the public meeting? Where's the public hearing for input? You're into the second year of it, three years to go. It just doesn't make any sense. You've got to read the law. The law is very specific. On the CPA especially, after it was passed and introduced, you put anywhere up to a five to a nine member board. It's got to be done right after the fact. You're supposed to have meetings. You're supposed to have this presented to the people.
[Richard Caraviello]: Pardon me? We do have a board.
[Robert Penta]: You have a board. Where's the public meetings on how to spend the money?
[Richard Caraviello]: They've already had one.
[Robert Penta]: Can you tell me what it was? I don't know. Was it a public meeting before the council? No. That's what you've got to read and understand. Read the 12 pages that make up the law. It's very specific. And what I'm offering to you is here is not to abolish it, but just to put it on hold. If you're not going to get reimbursed from the state, then why take it out of the taxpayers of this community? And if you can't get it till the end of the fifth year, then so be it. It was a nice try. And if you look at the makeup on how they go, they go by a population standard, and they also go by a tax rate on the appraised property. And then it goes into a skew. It's a very complex situation. But if we're generating, Mr. President, over a million dollars a year or thereabouts, and we should be getting that back from the taxpayers of this community, we shouldn't even have to worry about historical things in this community. We shouldn't have to worry about our parks and open and recreation. We shouldn't have to worry about doing things in the area of public housing in that area or anything else that CPA would allow you to do. But we don't even know that. None of you know that because you haven't been told what it's going to be used for. You haven't even had any input. This is about as transparent as the number six.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Any questions from anybody? Well, I'll be back in June and July and hopefully you'll have some kind of an answer to that because if this council feels that they don't want to go forward, then I will just go to the state legislature and ask some representative to pass it because a lot of these cities and towns, they're starting to feel it now because people are being taxed for something that they're not getting their money back on.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Good evening. Name and address the record.
[Joyce Paul]: Hi, my name is Joyce Paul and I'm in a Mason street in Medford. Um, I was recently elected to the state committee. And I had no idea how many people would talk to me about how many issues they would talk to me about. And money is the number one. I definitely support Bob Penta saying that if we're supposed to get money back from the state and we're not getting it back, then we need to address that. It doesn't seem fair to say to people, if you give us 1.5%, the state will match it. and that will be helpful to the area. If we're not getting the money back, we're not getting the money back, and it's not fair to the people. I also support having a little bit more understanding about this 250,000, this 500,000 in the business district. I don't know very much about that, but I do know a number of people have talked about the Preservation Act, and I'm not sure we all know in any way all the details that you know, but I do think that I would like to see us get a little better care and I don't feel like we're getting, you know, the care that we should. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Cappucci]: Good evening. Name and address of the record, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Rob Capucci, 71 Evans street. Just to bring up some of the points that Mr. Penta was talking about, excuse me, Tomorrow night, there is a meeting of the Community Preservation Commission. It's at the high school, I believe, at 5 o'clock. The funds collected so far is $1,200,000, as I believe you know from the subcommittee meetings on the budget. What you also know, too, is that—I mean, this also connects to what Lisa was saying. I forget your last name. I'm sorry. in Medford, as the assessor said, are going up an average of 10% to 14%. And he said that based on historical records. So the CPA tax is going to be collecting a lot more money, too. One other clarification I want to make is I was opposed to the CPA in 2015. And when it passed, the very next day after the election, I went to the Office of Elections secretary of state's office, and I asked them, how do we get rid of this? And they said, you don't. There's only one way after five years. Now, maybe what Mr. Penta said is true, but they didn't tell me that, about the city council being able to put it on the ballot. But what was told to me from the secretary of state's office is, It can only get on the ballot to be repealed the same way it got on the ballot to be passed. And that's, you have to go out in citizen effort drive to go out and get the signatures, to get this thing on the ballot, to get it repealed. And one final thing I want to say about the matching from the state is only half of the cities and towns have the CPA. but all 351 cities and towns pay into the fund that funds the towns that have it. So an unfortunate aspect of this is that lesser affluent communities that don't have the CPA end up through their taxes funding more affluent towns. We really don't need the CPA. I definitely agree with the purposes of it. The preservation of historical landmarks and open spaces, But Medford already sits on surpluses and budgets. We have a property tax that goes up every single year. We have surpluses in other accounts. There are other ways that we can do the objectives of the CPA without having the CPA. And if Mr. Pinter is right of some way of freezing this or reducing it, please, By all means, do that, because as the last speaker said, this is what's on the mind of the people. How are people going to upkeep their properties when they have the connectivity tax coming at them? When they have the perpetual property tax, when they have the meals tax, and the sales tax, and two income taxes, and fees to go to Wrights Pond, and fees for this, that, and the other thing. Gene Neuzil's right. This is death by paper cuts. And this body has the power to do something about that. I mean, these are our neighbors. We know the people who own these restaurants out here. We grew up here our whole lives. Please, common sense. Please, thank you, Mr. President. It was voted on by the people. If you can get it repealed, we'll review the paper. The people voted it in. Right, and I sat at a polling center on election day, and as people came in, Mr. President, and they looked at that doctor's prescription of a ballot question, they went up to the poll worker, and they said, hey, can you explain this to me? And when they were told, basically, it's a surrogate on your profile, oh, I'm not voting for that. You're right. You're right. It was a citizen effort drive, and kudos to Roberta Kammerer for what she did. I don't agree with the CPA, but I definitely admire her efforts. It was a job well done. But it was also done in a way that wasn't specifically clear to the voters of this community as to what was actually going to happen. And Matt, you're right. It was voted on by the people. What did he say? 1300 people didn't even vote on it. Most people didn't even turn it over. More effort should be made to clarify exactly what was being voting on and that there was even a ballot question. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street and the CPA did pass, much to my dismay, but because I didn't feel that the question was as clear and everyone had the information. But now that it has passed, when I heard of the Riverside Plaza, I thought, oh, that's a perfect use of our CPA funds. And I'm hoping that there's some way that maybe this commission can say, you know what, let's pay for that Riverside Plaza, even if we have to delay the start of it a few months. and take that $250,000 and put it back into the budget and maybe pave four or five roads in the city and beautify the area because who wants to go to a park that's surrounded by streets that are filled with potholes? Maybe we can cover up that railway line on Salem Street because if we have a specific fund that is created for parkland, historic and low income, then that is definitely the first place that we should go for that. A half a million dollar project that's funded partially by grant money could be completely funded if we use the CPA money. And that would be a benefit to the community since that has passed. And I hope that will happen.
[Richard Caraviello]: There is a meeting tomorrow night at 630 at the high school, the superintendent's conference room. You can go there and make your suggestions to the members of the committee. Thank you. Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti. Cushion Street, Method, Massachusetts. The CPA tax, it does not hurt me that much at $60 a year approximate versus the $6,000 per year with the real estate tax. So putting it on a scale in the scheme of things, I would like to see my owner occupy real estate tax exemption pass at the full 35%. The state would give us, and that would save us the $400 future increase under Prop 2.5 and reduce it $400, which would be $800 savings that we've missed out for many, many, many years, as Somerville, Everett, and Malden has been doing so, if you lived in one house, your own house. And as far as the CPA, the vote was I don't know how to explain it, but it was on page two and it seemed like 10,500 people voted for the mayorship. And it seems to me about only 8,500 voted for the CPA. To me, it was about $2,000 on my memory that never turned it over. And CPA tax is supposed to be used if it ever gets used. For one is open space. Well, all of a sudden we possibly have a dirty 21E where I want my bike path to go the one half mile out of the 20 miles that's already built. It's 1 20th is incomplete and that's right behind your council president. I can't understand that. If there is a dirty 21E, that is open space. And if someone started to dig around there for whatever reason, why it was initiated and found arsenic and lead. I don't like that. And as Brianna was quoted in the transcript, which I finally read today, that what about the soccer fields over there? And I had said previously at one of these meetings, well, how about those pastor already there by the proposed new dog park? I don't understand this country and the city. Something is amiss.
[Richard Caraviello]: Tomorrow night, 630 at the CPA meeting at the superintendent's conference room at Medford High School.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: That's too far for my bicycle. Thank you, sir.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you very much. Mr. President, I'd like to have a point of clarification.
[Robert Penta]: The two sections that I'm referring to on the section 18, basically what the proposal says is as follows. At any time after imposition of the surcharge, the legislative body may approve by way of a vote to put on hold any local surcharge tax that cannot receive the matching dollar amount from the state upon population rank in real estate property tax levy calculation, as promulgated by Chapter 44B of the Massachusetts state statute. This allows citizen taxpayers to their fair return of their tax payments until such time Until such time, the state has the ability to match the intent and return amount as originally intended, as legislated, and voted upon. This is not killing it. All it's doing is, how can you tax somebody for something that you're not getting for what you're supposed to be getting? And the second part of it is basically saying, very simply, at the end of five years, after the date of approval, and after Sections 3 to 7, which is inclusive, have been accepted by the city or town, said sections shall come to an end, and the surcharge imposed for the past five years shall end. If the city or town want to continue on with sections three to seven, that's the inclusive part for which the city of Medford accepted, of the Preservation Act, said act shall once again be placed upon the ballot for the taxpayers to vote upon. Just the way it was the first time to be voted upon in November of 2015. That's fair, but to turn around and leave the law the way it is, If you want to take it off, you've got to go out there and get the signatures to have the people voted off. No, I don't think that's right. There's a sunset legislation. That's what it should be after five years. And if it's really working out that if it's working out that well, then maybe the taxpayers will vote it and maybe the taxpayers won't. But if you don't give them that chance in that choice, this will just keep going on at it for item. And it's a tax that'll never end because it doesn't have the opportunity to end. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? To receive and place on file. All those in favor? Motion passes.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, just as a point of inquiry. Point of inquiry, please. I understand they just received it and placed it on a file. I asked the council to review it so we could have a discussion. We could review it for the discussion for the July meeting.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, President Caraviello. Is there any way you can put the argument in writing for us?
[Robert Penta]: It is. I gave it to you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Well, I just have, like, just this?
[Robert Penta]: One is present and the other one is proposed. That's the section of the law. To the left on the top, it'll say present. And the next one down says proposed.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'd like to just know exactly the argument, not necessarily the, the law of what the city count, you believe the city council can do.
[Robert Penta]: If you want, I will send you a letter as it relates to that. Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. Counsel Dello Russo.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to take hands papers in the hands of the clerk by Councilor Dello Russo. Offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the City Council discuss concerns with Airbnb's. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that we've talked about this issue in recent past, but I just wanted to revisit this. I had a few phone calls from a few constituents that were very concerned that we have a functioning Airbnb in our neighborhoods and probably more than one and we're not and we're really not Following what's happening in those those areas and and and look into You know any ordinances or Rules or any health codes that have to be passed. So if we can I don't know if we can Ask the If we can look at what subcommittee we can move this to, if we can.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think we already have this paper in subcommittee.
[George Scarpelli]: It still is. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Which one is it? Do you remember? Councilor Knight, I think you can refer to that. I think it was you that proposed it.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I've actually drafted a draft ordinance regulating short-term rentals, and I'm just putting the finishing touches on it. I'm actually waiting for a little bit of feedback from two neighboring communities, and once I received that information, I was going to produce a paper. Ultimately, the paper that I put together with the proposal was to require a short-term rental operator's license, and it would define a short-term rental as a book stay of 29 consecutive nights or fewer. The state's division of local services has offered a number of opinions on this relative to whether or not we could tax them as a motel or as a short-term lodging facility, so there are some technical questions and some technical expertise that's going to be required, Mr. President, before we can put together a working ordinance. In my research, one of the other things I found is that in a lot of places, they've drafted and implemented ordinances that are so restrictive that they make it impossible to enforce. And that's something that I think we need to take a look at as well. Because if we're going to craft an ordinance, we're going to have to craft something that's going to be able to be enforced. Because if it's an ordinance that can't be enforced, people are going to continue with their behavior, and they're not going to comply with the regulations. There's been several conversations that I've had between you and I, actually, because we were both working on this together, to address the issue. But I thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing it up, and I can send him a copy of the draft proposal as soon as the finishing touches are put on it.
[Richard Caraviello]: At least for safety reasons anyway, no other reason.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, and I appreciate that. I know that Councilor Knight does an unbelievable job with his homework, so I think it's very important. You know, the concerns loud and clear about the safety and letting our public safety officials, fire, police know what's going on. Um, and right now we don't have that. So I appreciate your effort and, uh, um, I will let those residents know that we'll have something soon. So thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. A couple of the items that, um, would be being looked at would be an annual license, um, a residency requirement for the operator that has to reside in the property. On-site and off-street parking must be made available and utilized for all patrons in their vehicles. So on-site, off-street parking. That means that they're not going to be parking in neighborhoods. No more than two adults per bedroom per stay. No more than foreign-related individuals staying during the same stay. The provision of a copy of the noise, trash, and parking ordinances posted inside the rental dwelling and included in the rental contract. The provision of a 24-7 emergency contact hotline for all the neighbors. to be posted on the front door in case anything happens, a physical safety inspection of the dwelling by the city on a quarterly basis, the cost of which will be borne by the short-term operator, the ability for the city to institute discipline that's progressive up to and including fines and the revocation of license, and the requirements for a general liability insurance policy, Mr. President, and a figure that has to be determined to ensure that personal property and individuals that are staying in the place are protected appropriately. So those are the, some of the things, some of the things that we've looked at, uh, thus far.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I just want to thank councilor Scott Pollack for bringing this forward. This actually did come up at the last, uh, community police meeting through a number of residents from actually different sections of the city, different neighborhoods that had that same concern. And it really does impact the quality of life. I mean, take a look, uh, you have more cars in the road, more cars parked in overcrowded neighborhoods. cars coming and going at different times of the day and night, so it really does become disruptive. It's something that we need to make sure we do have an ordinance in place. I'm glad that Councilor Knight has been working on this, and hopefully we can meet soon to review this in a subcommittee, but it's something I definitely support, and I thank my colleague for bringing it forward.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think last time I looked, I think there was like 74 B&Bs operating in the city of Medford. There's a lot, there's more than- And this is becoming the Uber of houses.
[John Falco]: Correct. I mean, it's a, it's a major concern and it does impact all neighborhoods. So, um, it's something that we need to look at sooner than later.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by councilor Scarpelli, seconded by I'd like to amend the paper.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, get an update from our state delegation. I know that there was, um, a paper going through the house of representatives to regulate short term leases. And I know that there was also a paper in the Senate that was very different that was going through. So if we could get an update from our state delegation, as to the deliberations regarding any implementation of state law. I think that will be helpful as we look forward to constructing our local ordinance. It needs to comply with the state standard.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. If we could just make sure that the whole council gets a copy. I know it's going to go to subcommittee, and Councilor Knight's working on it. If we could just all get a copy so we can review it in the next month or so, that would be great.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm going to give you the next one to watch coming down the line. is Tackler. Tackler is an app that allows anybody to do anything on license plumbers, cognitive electricians, to do work on people's houses just by going on an app. That'll be coming down the line next. You'll watch.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco, as amended by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. And by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Motion passes. Offered by Councilor Dello Russo, be it resolved that the Medford City Council offers sincere condolences to the family of the late Philip Harko, longtime Democratic Committee chairperson or chairman. And we have one other also, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: If I could, before we take the next one, speak, Philip Harko was a, He's retired. He had retired to Florida recently, uh, and passed away unexpectedly down there. He comes from a very dedicated family in the city of Medford. Um, he was very active in, in democratic, uh, uh, local politics. He was a fierce campaigner, a one-time candidate himself for the school committee. Uh, his brother Steve served on the school committee for many, several years. Um, and, uh, he comes from a very dedicated family and, uh, They were up for his funeral, uh, this week. And, uh, he was a decent man. He had a happy retirement and the city was blessed by his activity here.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo. We have one more. Offered by Councilor Dello Russo and President Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council offers sincere condolences to the family of Peter Taki Kolias, late proprietor of Demet's Donuts on his recent passing. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I know we're both frequenters of there. Taki, as he was known by so many people, is a immigrant to the United States, a hardworking man, worked in the restaurant business, opened up his own coffee shop, developed recipes, and produced one of the finest donuts in greater Boston. Award winning many times, and those of us who have had them know why. Very, very good. Decent family man, heart of gold, and a good businessman, and he'll be missed as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Dela Rosa. If we could all rise for a moment of silence, please. Thank you. We have two papers here that were in committee. 17. 17, 513. 17, 513. Dear Mr. President, City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that the general body appropriate $188,400 from the sale of Lawson Graves' account to the Cemetery Department's salary account. This recommended appropriation is requested in accordance with the fiscal 18-year budget. The department's salary account is reduced each year in anticipation of appropriation from sales of lots and graves. In addition, I respectfully request and recommend that your honor body appropriate 181,000, 186,861 from the perpetual care to the cemetery department expense budget. This recommended appropriation is requested in accordance with the fiscal 2018 budget. Cemetery expense budget is reduced each year in anticipation of an appropriation from Perpetual Care. In anticipation of the upcoming budget hearings, I respectfully request that this be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole for a budget hearing. We had that hearing this evening and it was passed. Motion to accept this paper. Offered by Councilor Dello Russo. Seconded by Councilor Layton. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehnan? Yes. Vice President Martins? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Regent Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 17-514. 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 Retainer Earnings to accounts 340-450-5780-0000-867-2017 Water Capital Project. The amount of $900,000 is requested to purchase a water main leak detection system as was displayed in a meeting earlier this year with the Water and Soil Commissioners. We strongly believe that this purchase will not only save dollars to this community. I respectfully request that this paper be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole for deliberation during the budget hearing process. The balance remaining in the water retained earnings after this transfer will be $2 million 7, 6, 9, 1, 9, 9. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. We spoke on this earlier this evening, and the paper was adopted. Do we have a motion to accept this paper?
[Adam Knight]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Donald Russo. Councilor Marks. I'm sorry, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just for the edification of the people at home, This has been a longstanding issue in the community, leak detection. I know former Councilor Penta, this was a big issue of his. Currently right now, Mr. President, it ranges, but the last estimates we received from the MWRA is roughly 17 to 20 percent of our water in the community is unaccounted for water. And each and every ratepayer pays additional on their bill for this unaccounted for water. This particular new system is a technology that is an acoustic whistle. It's a device they put on the water mains and the gate valves. And it pinpoints where leaks are throughout the entire city. And roughly 90% of the leaks that we have out there don't surface. So these are underground leaks that we're not aware of. And according to the company that we met with, Aklar Technologies, the city over a five-year period If we spot out these leaks and fix the leaks, we could save roughly $5 million from this $900,000 investment and roughly 15,000 gallons — 15 million gallons of water annually. So I would ask, Mr. President, in the interest of moving this forward on behalf of the beleaguered ratepayers of water and sewer in this community, we move this forward. I would also ask, Mr. President, that we get a report back because This is a great system and we're going to be alerted of many new leaks that we're not aware of and we also need the capability within our water and sewer department to follow up on these leaks. And I have yet to see any new additional water and sewer employees with the main focus of this particular project in the budget. I also ask, Mr. President, that part of the water unaccounted for in this community, some of its leaks, other of the unaccounted for water is the fact that our whole school department is not paying for water, even though it's needed. That's considered unaccounted for. and every municipal building, even though it's meted, is still not being charged, and we don't include that in our operating expense under the budget, which it should be. That should be an operating expense in the budget. We've already sat through the budget side on the municipal side. I didn't see any additional money for water or sewer on the city side, and tomorrow night we're meeting with the schools. I'm gonna ask that question, but I guarantee ya, it's not part of the operating expense of the school side, Mr. President. So if we really want to get a handle on unaccounted for water, to me, that's hydrants, that is leaks. It's not needed property. That's not unaccounted for. When I can tell how much money and how much water you're using, that's not unaccounted for. That's accounted for, Mr. President. Like every taxpayer and ratepayer in this community, their water is accounted for. And, you know, it'd be nice to have a budget where you don't have to put that in as an operating expense, but that's not reality. That's not reality, Mr. President. That's hold the school department and the municipal side accountable for the water they use. There's no incentive there. They can let the faucets run all night here. They don't care. It gets put onto the rate payers. So, Mr. President, we really need to address that. I'm happy we're moving forward on this. I also think, as I mentioned, I and I inflow and infiltration with the sewer department, with our sewer pipes. It's costing the ratepayers millions of dollars a year to treat groundwater that's seeping into our sewer pipes as raw sewage. That's a huge issue that needs to be addressed. This is one step in the process. But it has to be accompanied with additional personnel. So that would be my recommendation, Mr. President. I think we already voted on this a couple of weeks ago. Do we get a response back, Mr. Clerk? on our recommendation? No, there was a resolution offered a few weeks ago. I think it was the same exact resolution. Yeah.
[Richard Caraviello]: And then we, I think it came with this. Right.
[Michael Marks]: So we haven't got a response from that.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: So we should get a response soon. Mr. President on the, why the schools and the municipal side, uh, are not paying through their operating expense of the budget on the motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm sorry. Name and address of the record, please.
[Jeanne Martin]: Gene Martin, 10 Cumming Street, just real quick. I just wanted to point out, I know that this is Debbie Downer time, but it's a hidden tax. When the water is put on through the water rate payers, it's another hidden tax, and it gets around Prop 2 1⁄2, and I just wanted to make everybody aware of that. I know nobody wants to hear that, because it's not good news, but it's a hidden tax, and so that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, Bob Penton, Zero Summit Road, Medford, Mass. Two components on this particular issue. I'm glad it's coming up now. The first one is I think it's about $112,000. That's all that it would cost. This is what we were led to believe and what we were told when we changed over from the old metering system to the new one, to have a computerization program upstairs in the engineer's office. that would detect and identify anybody's house in the city of Medford where water would be constantly running or wherever leak might be. And on a daily basis, it would be reviewed, and that homeowner, taxpayer, ratepayer, would be identified either by a phone call or an email or what have you. That still hasn't taken place. And I think the next big thing you really need to address is that 10 years is already up relative to the meters that are in the houses. And that's going to have to take a second look on those batteries that are in there and just how accurate they are. So I would suggest that you make a resolution to investigate that with the Water and Soil Commissioner. What's their intent going forward as it relates to the accuracy of the batteries that are there, the meters that are there right now that are over 10 years? And second of all, why can't some money in that multimillion dollar surplus account be used to put that program You don't even have to have an employee. It's an automatic program that just spits it out on a daily basis. Someone just looks at it, and it's just, you know, as Jeannie Martin just said, you know, why keep hurting the taxpayer rate payer for no reason at all? These are just simple, common sense, everyday business practices that should be employed. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion, as amended by, I think we had it in the paper, by Councilor Marks. actually report back on the priority of the leaks and how we're going to address this properly. The original paper we were going to report back on the report on the administration will let us know on the priority of the leaks also. As long as we get an answer. Thank you. As amended. As amended. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Nays? Yes. Councilor McCurran? Yes. Vice President Monks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Richard Caraviello]: Absence.
[Clerk]: President Caprio?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absence. Before we adjourn on Sunday, January 25th at 10 o'clock at Veterans Memorial Park, we will be dedicating some more, I think about 36 more names will be added to Veterans Memorial Park. Again, if everybody could turn out there, it would be a nice day. 10 o'clock on Sunday, Veterans Memorial Park. Records of the meeting of June 6th, 2017 were tabled and passed to Vice President Knox. Oh, I'm sorry. Adam, do you want to report on the second meeting? Yes. Motion by Councilor Knight to report the subcommittee report.
[Adam Knight]: Um, Mr. President, earlier this morning, uh, this afternoon, uh, the subcommittee on zoning and ordinances met to discuss paper, I believe it was 11 474, um, related to, um, wireless telecommunication towers in the city of Medford. A presentation was put on by the, uh, city solicitor and the building commissioner. Um, Upon conclusion of the presentation, the council moved, uh, the subcommittee moved to, uh, refer the paper to the committee of the whole. So, uh, the paper is going to go before the committee of the whole for further discussion and deliberation. Uh, it was a rather well thought out and technical ordinance that governed the placement of cell phone towers and wireless telecommunication facilities in the city of Medford.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor on the motion by council on the motion by council night that we accept vice president marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank my council colleague for calling the meeting. This particular ordinance was something that was proposed back in 2011 to address concerns of companies coming into this community and erecting cell towers in residential areas. And at the time we put together, I believe it was a seven or eight page ordinance, that protected neighborhoods in the first place, and secondly, made it difficult for those who wanted to come in here and thought they just had to apply for a building permit and an electrical permit. And I think what this ordinance does, Mr. President, it really puts some teeth out there that keeps these particular cell towers to industrial and commercial zone 2 areas and keep them away from neighborhoods. It also puts a number of restrictions, height restrictions, setback restrictions, and, in my opinion, will go a long way to ensuring neighborhoods that all of a sudden a 74-foot cell tower is not going to appear in their neighborhood. Now, we all are aware, and it was recently on the news, I think it was Channel 5, they did a spotlight report on the MBTA. The MBTA is looking to raise revenue now, And as part of that, they're also offering riders on their commuter rail the ability to access the Internet. And in doing so, Mr. President, they have to erect a number of these cell towers along the route of the train. And the city of Medford, as far as I know, we're getting three now. It was two, and now there was just a third request. We're getting three, Mr. President. And like I said, the intent is to provide cell communication and Internet access, which is great on the train. I'm not opposed to that. But we've got to make sure when these cell towers are erected that they're erected in a way that is not a blight to the neighborhood. And as far as I'm concerned, the one near Tyler Ave or the address of Tyler Ave is in a neighborhood, Mr. President, even though it's on train tracks that abut the neighborhood. And Charnwood Road, again, in a neighborhood, abuts train tracks. The other one, I believe, is in the Wellington area. On River's Edge, thank you. Which does abut residential areas, too, Mr. President. So this ordinance will go a long way for protecting our neighborhoods. And I look forward to the eventual sending this to the Office of Community Development for their recommendations, and then eventual passage, Mr. President, on this ordinance.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor, for taking that out of my balls for us. How's the knife?
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President. I think it's also very important to point out that although this is an ordinance change, it will have to go through the legislative process, but it's also a zoning change. So because it's a zoning change, it's going to take about 180 days from start to finish for the paper to come to fruition. I don't want to think that people will think this is something we're delaying. Um, it has to go to the community development board, come back to the council. There has to be a series of public hearings before, uh, we can move on it, so that's why it's good that we're starting the process now.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Nunez, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. The tabled records of the meeting of June 6, 2017 were passed to Vice President Marks. Mr. Vice President, were you able to review those records, and how did you find them?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, I reviewed the records. I find it to be an honor.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Motion by Vice President Mox, seconded by Councilor Knight, for the approval of the records. The records of the meeting of June 13th, 2017 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records?
[George Scarpelli]: I found the records in order. My motion will place on file.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Falco, all in favor, aye. Motion to adjourn. Offered by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Motion passes, meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 5.64 minutes total words: 593  |
total time: 12.58 minutes total words: 1003  |
total time: 18.98 minutes total words: 612  |
total time: 1.95 minutes total words: 150  |
|
total time: 1.68 minutes total words: 161  |
total time: 5.38 minutes total words: 582  |
total time: 21.29 minutes total words: 909  |
total time: 4.74 minutes total words: 110  |
|
total time: 0.82 minutes total words: 92  |
|||