[Richard Caraviello]: Are we ready in the other room now? All right. Good evening, everyone. Medford City Council, 27th regular meeting, August 15th, 2017. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Dello Russo? Present.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. Councilor Long and Kern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Present.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Present.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scarpelli? Present. President Caraviello? Present.
[Richard Caraviello]: 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. I want to welcome everyone this evening to the Medford High School Media Center, and I want to let everybody know that this meeting is going out live. So I welcome everyone at home, and welcome to the new media center.
[SPEAKER_23]: Mr. President, motion to suspend the rules to take a paper out of order.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to suspend the rules, seconded by Councilor De La Rosa. All those in favor? Aye. Mr. Councilor Knight, what are you taking out of order?
[Adam Knight]: We'd like to take the sisters for ovarian cancer out of order, Mr. President, if that's possible. Sisters for ovarian cancer.
[Richard Caraviello]: One second, let me find it here. Okay, 17605, petition by Carol Powers, 20 Walter Street, Medford, Mass., member of the Sisters Against Ovarian Cancer, to address the council and to hang teal bows at Medford, in a campaign to raise awareness to the signs of ovarian cancer. Carol is not here this evening.
[Judith Budny]: Carol is not here, so.
[Richard Caraviello]: And if you could please have a seat there. Name and address for the record, please.
[Judith Budny]: Judy Budney, 97 Mitchell Ave.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Judith Budny]: So I belong to an organization, Sisters Against Ovarian Cancer, and our main purpose is to raise awareness and funds, much needed funds, for ovarian cancer research. So as part of the awareness program, in the past few years we've taken part in a program called Turn the Town Teal. which for the whole month of September, which is ovarian cancer awareness month, we hang tail bows around the city for the whole month to raise awareness for this disease. And at the end of September, we take the bows down.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Judith Budny]: So we'd like to ask permission to continue to do that this year.
[Richard Caraviello]: You have a great organization, and I'm proud to be a supporter of your organization. Move approval, Mr. President.
[Judith Budny]: Seconded.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to move approval, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. We look forward to seeing your ribbons around the square.
[Judith Budny]: Okay, I do have a form that needs to be signed by someone from the city.
[Adam Knight]: Is that me? Is that a check?
[Judith Budny]: No. We're willing to take it.
[Richard Caraviello]: It's unofficial. I guess that's me.
[Michael Marks]: We have a website, too.
[Judith Budny]: We have a website, sistersagainstoc.org, and you can go on to our website. There's a lot of useful information. And we have our annual walk, our 10th year now. It's going to be held on Saturday, September 9th. It starts at the Stone Zoo and it's a five mile walk around Spot Pond to raise money. And the funds that we do raise are donated to the Koch Institute at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And they're doing some great research there.
[Richard Caraviello]: And you also have a fundraising night also, correct?
[Judith Budny]: We do, that takes place in the spring. We had that already in May of this year. And to date, we're just a small organization, but we have raised over $225,000 for ovarian cancer. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, motion to return to regular order business. Motion by Councilor Dello Russo to return to regular business. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. This will be a public hearing, 17-590. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and Community Access Studio at Medford High School, 489 Winthrop Street, Medford, Mass., on Tuesday evening, August 15, 2017, at 7 p.m. on a petition from Medford Associates, LLC, Park Plaza, Boston, Mass, 02116, for a special permit. to amend the hours in accordance with Medford Zoning Ordinance Chapter 94 Section 94-145 to operate extended hours at 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway, Meadow Glen Mall, Medford Mass, site being located in an industrial zoning district as follows. Extended hours being requested Monday through Sunday, seven days a week, 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. through 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. This you may be seen in the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall. The city of Medford is an EEO slash AA slash 504 employer. For information and accommodations and aids, please contact the city clerk 393-2425. And this has been advertised in the daily item on August 1st and August 8th. This is a public hearing. Name and address for the record, please.
[Brian Dugdale]: Brian Dugdale from Goulsey and Storrs, 400 Atlantic Avenue in Boston, Massachusetts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. With this said, are you here to speak in favor? We are here to speak in favor. I'm representing Medford Associates, which is the LLC in favor of the petition. So you're speaking in favor. Thank you. And we are requesting a continuance of this hearing until September 19th.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Do we have to continue with the?
[Richard Caraviello]: Is there anyone else here speaking in favor of this petition? Hearing and seeing none, I motion that part of the hearing close. Is there anyone here in opposition to this hearing? Hearing and seeing none, I motion that part of the hearing be closed. Councilor Lococo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I know you're going to extend until September meeting, but I think we did get an email with regards to the towers that are behind the property and the loading times. So maybe before then, you can do some research and see what times the trucks are going to be delivering and unloading, just so even if we do want to extend your permit, we can assure the residents that live in those buildings that even though the hours of operations may Be 6 a.m. In the morning or 11 p.m. And I think it was a 12 12 in the morning That we know that the deliveries will not be at that time So you will they will still have peace and enjoyment of their properties
[Brian Dugdale]: Thank you, Councilor, and that's something we'd like to address, and that's one of the reasons we're extending through until September, so we can hear, better understand the concerns of our neighbors. We want to be good neighbors and address those concerns at the open public hearing.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I think he said that they are planning a meeting with the Condo Association to address them in person and addressing their needs. Do we have a motion to table this? No, Mr. Perkins, just so I can ask a question here. Councilor, Vice-President Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just what are the hours of operation of your other weapons stores around the area?
[SPEAKER_30]: They are generally 6 a.m. to either 11 p.m. or 12 p.m. There are multiple locations, none in Massachusetts that are 24 hours, but there's several that New England Development's been involved with and Lightman's have evolved in 6 a.m. to either 11 p.m. or 12 p.m.
[Michael Marks]: so we don't anticipate any plans to come back at a future date to, if you were to be given the midnight to be looking for one, two, or three in the morning. We don't expect to be returning for that, no, no.
[SPEAKER_30]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Do we have a motion to table this? The motion by Councilor Lochran to table this hearing. All those in favor? Motion passes. We'll see you next time. Thank you. Thank you.
[Brian Dugdale]: Thanks very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: OK. Location of poles, attachment fixtures, and underground conduits, Memphit, Mass. You are hereby notified that the order of the Medford City Council public hearing will be given at the Community Access Building in Memphit Heights, 489 Winthrop Street, Memphit, Mass, on Tuesday, August 15th, on a petition by Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, for permission to construct a line for such telecommunication under the public way of waste.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, motion to waive the reading and have the representative from the petitioner have a brief synopsis
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Name and address of the record, please.
[Dave Flewelling]: Good evening. Dave Llewellyn, Comcast, Woobin, Massachusetts. This petition, Washington Street, will be starting at existing utility pole 5507, excavating in the sidewalk to place one four-inch PVC conduit 37 feet plus or minus to existing telephone manhole located in the sidewalk.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Well, this is a public hearing. Do we have anyone here to speak in favor of this? Would that be yourself? Yes. Is there anyone else in favor of this? Hearing and seeing none, I motion that part of the meeting closed. Is there anyone that is against this? Anyone not in favor? Hearing and seeing none, I motion that part of the hearing closed. Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. If I could, through the chair, ask the petitioner, what is the purpose of this? Is there a new, why do you have to do this?
[Dave Flewelling]: Is there a new building? We're tying into the existing Verizon manhole that ties into the conduit system that we're already into to provide service to 53 Riverside Ave., which is the Middlesex Bank. Very good. Mr. President. Councilor Belko.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of quick questions. Just get a little bit more background on this. How long will this project take?
[Dave Flewelling]: A couple of days. A couple of days.
[John Falco]: Do you know when it's going to begin?
[Dave Flewelling]: As soon as this is granted, we'll have the contractor go in and pull the street opening permit.
[John Falco]: And do you know how many sidewalk panels are impacted, just for the residents in the neighborhood to have some sort of idea as to?
[Dave Flewelling]: I think there was maybe 37 feet. I think there was maybe five panels, give or take a couple.
[John Falco]: And will there be any impact with regard to traffic in the neighborhood?
[Dave Flewelling]: I would say no. I mean, I don't know if there's a lot of, you know, pedestrian traffic in the sidewalk there, but they can, you know, put some traffic control signs there to block the sidewalk and divert them around. And, you know, basically pretty much, you know, almost a day, two's work for the most part once they excavate it all out. And then the biggest part of it will be going back and replacing the, you know, the concrete. That's what's going to take the time.
[SPEAKER_23]: Mr. President?
[Adam Knight]: Okay, thank you. So it's strictly sidewalk work? No. Yeah, nothing in the street. And what materials are used to replace the sidewalk panels? The same existing? Same, yes, it's concrete.
[George Scarpelli]: I think that Echo Council night's one of the biggest concerns we've had in this council the last two years that we've been on set. that whenever there's a utility company that comes in, the way they found the street and sidewalks in a better condition than, if the same or if not better condition than it was left, because we have a huge issue with contractors coming in, representing the utilities, and then leaving sub-par work behind, and then the city is left, and the constituents are left holding the bag, so I think that it's very important that that piece is done. the city's engineering and making sure that it comes to fruition.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President also looks here that the petitioner has agreed to remove an asphalt patch that's been put around another existing utility pole as part of mitigation to help fill those gaps of concrete to keep it consistent with the rest of the sidewalk. So I have no problem with this petition, Mr. President. I move for approval. Second.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to approval, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. 17592, location of poles, attachments of fixtures in underground conduits.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, motion to waive the reading and have a representative from the petitioner give us a brief synopsis of the project. That would be, let me see, Siena Engineering Group.
[John Kennedy]: Name and address of the record, please. With Siena Engineering Group, my name is John Kennedy. We're at 50 Mall Road in Burlington, Mass.
[Richard Caraviello]: Are you in favor of this? I am in favor of this. Do we have anyone else in favor of this project? Hearing none, I close that part of the hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak against this project? Hearing and seeing none, I motion that part of the hearing close. Continue.
[John Kennedy]: Okay, so this is a conduit build. I guess we're starting on Granville Avenue. At the railroad right-of-way, we're replacing a handhold, and we're constructing 200 feet of conduit to a manhole location at the location of Winchester Street and Granville Avenue. Then we're constructing another 722 feet to another structure, a manhole structure. And then from that we'd go out to a Verizon manhole that's actually in the city of Somerville. Councilor Dello Russo. I have a lot of questions. Why? So on Broadway, there's a bridge that crosses it over the railway.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yes.
[John Kennedy]: And in order for them to replace that bridge for the Green Line extension project, we have to relocate our cable, which is running right down the right of way. And the way to do that is to get it up. into the Verizon structure and then take it from the Verizon structure down Winchester, down Granville, and get it back onto the railway beyond the bridge where they're doing the construction.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Tell us about the type of conduit that you're going to be building. Is it a contained concrete tunnel?
[John Kennedy]: Is it a... It's typical construction with two four-inch conduits encased in concrete, 48 inches of depth per pound. And obviously, we're going to be looking to mitigate intersecting with anything else that might be in the roadway.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And are you going to be digging in the road, in the sidewalks? All in the road. And what kind of wiring is this?
[John Kennedy]: So what would go back, what we're relocating is a fiber optic cable for AT&T. Okay.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Falco. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Thank you. The people on Winchester Street have had the heck beaten out of them for the past five years, and they've been shanghaied every step of the way. The businesses on Boston Avenue with relation to construction tied into the Green Line and some related developments that are going to capitalize off of the Green Line have suffered tremendously. On Winchester Street, on the other end from where you're digging, down towards Harvard residents were disrupted for two years with work that was done to accommodate the widening of the Harvard Street Bridge and dealing with a lot of the issues there, some of which were promised to be addressed and never were. I speak of drainage issues in that area. So beneath the Harvard Street Bridge still floods. St. Clement's School, though it's in a transition, still takes on sewage. an elementary school takes on sewage. Now, I'm not saying that you're the cause of this. What I'm saying is that the people who I represent are going to now be faced with another in a series of disruptive construction projects that's going to challenge their egress in and off of their properties, is going to tie up traffic in a cut-through street. that gets people between Harvard Street and Broadway and avoids using the ridiculous powerhouse circle, which has traffic patterns and timing there that is contrary to reason. What are you folks gonna do for the people of Medford on these streets? Who've had to put up with this? Over the several years and I'm not trying to put you on the spot and make you feel uncomfortable But the fact of the matter is these people are hurting Yeah, and they need to be assured and in very concrete ways on on How are they going to be treated? How are they going to be communicated with? Is just a silly flyer going to be stuck under their doors? Are they going to have a normal person who's going to talk to them and listen to them? Or are they just going to be besieged with emails that get put into their spam box?
[John Kennedy]: No, I will definitely have a representative on site while we're doing this dig. To speak to those other items, this is not a project that's not even on that kind of scale. This is a simple two, four-inch conduit duct rework. So it's a typical trench that you might see in the roadway happening for gas, for instance, or anybody else. We're not going to be impacting in that that way. We definitely will impact traffic We have traffic plans that we submit to your engineering department and we will look to make it work with both the police department and Setting up traffic plans appropriately and obviously we'll listen to your constituency in the area while we're working
[Fred Dello Russo]: So will there be someone on site who's going to be available and consistent to just help these people who really feel beat up at this point?
[John Kennedy]: Absolutely. Siena will definitely have somebody on site while the contractor is working. And who is Siena? Siena is an engineering firm and we're representing AT&T. So basically we will work with a contractor that will be on site.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good. Good. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. And some of the similar questions, I guess. But, you know, as far as the length of time this project is going to take, when do you think this will begin? Just so if anyone here was watching at home tonight.
[John Kennedy]: So what we're trying to do is get this done before the December is our goal for the moratorium. We'd like to get it done. We're still working out this grant allocation as well in Somerville And as soon as we get that we're going to get underway, so we're in the process of putting all the pieces together We'd like to get started as soon as possible, and we're looking at depending on how things go and what the impact is in terms of traffic, it would be four to six weeks, I would think. But that's the outside. I can't say exactly, it depends on how long it takes us to get underway and if we run into issues in terms of traffic or if you have special events or any of those things that might be impacted. I don't know if there are road races scheduled for the next couple of weeks, when we could get out there and get it done.
[John Falco]: And as far as the, so would the work hours be just your normal 9 to 5?
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, it would be. And, you know, if we were going to do anything, or if we were looking to get some relief on that, we would obviously come to the city and ask if we could do that.
[John Falco]: And as far as the impact to the neighbors that live in that neighborhood, are we talking about they're not going to have access to their driveways? What will be the impact and how will they be notified?
[John Kennedy]: I think it would be minimal. Obviously, where we're working, it may take a day for us to get out of the way of a driveway, for instance, but we'll be looking to keep pedestrian traffic moving at all times, keep roadways open as much as we can, and keep driveways open as much as possible.
[John Falco]: So will you be, you know, sending a notice to the neighbors? I mean, just to let them know the driveway could possibly be not accessible, you know, during these dates?
[John Kennedy]: We certainly could do something like that if we needed to.
[John Falco]: I mean, I would think, you know, just I think it's a good idea just to let them know, you know, that this project's going to happen. And, you know, just so they're informed. I mean, because I think the worst thing is, is when there's no communication, that's when the phones start ringing. That, you know, I knew nothing about this. You know, the person that might live in the street might not know nothing about or anything about this project or they might have minimal information. then all of a sudden they can't get into the driveway, and they're calling us for answers. So I think reaching out to the community, to those streets that are impacted and those neighbors that are impacted, it's definitely something that I would recommend.
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, and I believe we did send out a listing and mailing already. Okay, good. But once we get started, we can do that again. And I know one of the stipulations was that we get together and sit down. Before we get started, we will have a schedule at that time. We can tell you what we think it's going to take us to get it done.
[John Falco]: Great, thank you. And as far as the, do you foresee any road closures at all?
[John Kennedy]: The way that we have our traffic plan set up right now, there are no road closures. So we're not, we don't anticipate that there would be actual road closures.
[John Falco]: I'm just concerned because I think if I'm reading this map correctly, this leads out to Broadway, right?
[SPEAKER_24]: It does, yes.
[John Falco]: So I'm just concerned that if you're closing a road in Somerville and The residents in Medford don't know anything about it. There's a disconnect there, so if there are any road closures, you know, I would think that, you know, if we could just make sure that the residents know, just because the worst thing is when something insurmountable is impacting them and they don't know anything about it, you know, that's something that we should keep into, you know, take into account.
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, absolutely, if you look at the traffic plan, I don't think we're, we're not planning on closing any roads, and we obviously would like to try to keep traffic moving in all directions. And, you know, setting up the proper traffic plan and also getting some help from both police departments to make sure that we can keep traffic moving, that's the goal.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you very much.
[John Kennedy]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Actually, I think my questions have been asked and answered. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: This is what it looks like, what, 948 feet of trench work that you want to do? I think it's about almost 1,100 feet. Almost 1,100 feet. Yeah. And you said something at the beginning of your presentation. You said this is going to be common trench work like you see all around the city. And we've had a big problem in this city about trench work that's being performed by public utilities in the community. Just last month, we had a committee of the whole meeting with the city engineer, and we asked a series of questions to the city solicitor as to whether or not we could place a moratorium on trench work. One of the big problems isn't necessarily you guys getting in there and doing the work that you need to do, because you need to get the work done. never coming back and fixing it to the standard that we want to see it fixed. And that's become a very big problem in our community. We're seeing a number of streets in residential neighborhoods and in main roads alike that are getting torn up and torn apart. I mean, if you look at tonight's agenda, for example, you know, if you have 1,100 feet, we've got 115 feet coming up after that. I mean, we're looking at 2,000 feet of trench work that we're going to be putting through the city. You know what I mean? There's applications for 2,000 feet of trench work in the city. And we have some questions that are pending right now before our City solicitor that I think I'd feel a little bit more comfortable getting an answer to before I move forward in supporting this paper. You know, 1,000 feet is a lot of stretch of land. It's 10 football fields. Councilor Dello Russo is absolutely right. That neighborhood has been beat on for the last three, four years between, you know, the reversals of Winchester Street and the direction that it's going in, the impact that the expansions of the Harvard Street Bridge have had. the discussion about eminent domain land takings coming up in the near future to, again, accommodate the extension of the Greenland, which I think is going to be a benefit to our community. Don't get me wrong. I think the Greenland extension is a good thing for us here in Medford. But in the meantime, we have residents that really need to maintain a strong quality of life, and that hasn't happened in that neighborhood. So this evening, I'm having a very difficult time supporting this paper, Mr. President, if we don't have the answers that are going to come back from the city solicitor. based on the committee of the whole that we had. And the committee of the whole meeting that we had was exclusively focused on trench management and the issuing of permits to public utilities and what they do to our streets, and whether or not they come back, and whether or not there's a schedule for them to come back, and whether or not we can limit the number of permits that are issued in a quarter or a year, so that we can better manage the job and better oversee the job that's being done. Because I think that the focus is more on the next special permit than it is on coming back and completing the work from the last special permit that you got. Now, I haven't had the opportunity of working with Siena, and I'm not sure what Siena's reputation is or anything like that. I'm sure you guys are great. You're working for AT&T, which is a multinational company, you know, a $20 company. So I'm sure you guys do a great job. But we need to do some housekeeping here, in my opinion, before I feel comfortable supporting this paper. And I'm not going to be able to support it this evening, Mr. President, for the reasons that we've asked a series of questions to our city solicitor through the administration. Asking for some input and some feedback as to what we can do to better manage The trench work that's being done in our community because it's killing our streets It's killing our neighborhoods and and the residents are speaking to go out against it in this particular street in this particular neighborhood they have been under the thumb of construction for the better part of three years and It is in the work needs to get done.
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, unfortunately We're in that we're on a schedule here with where we're getting forced to relocate because we're in the way of that the apartment That's gonna go and go in And this is the way to get around that so that they can do that construction work. That's what's pushing us to get the work done. I understand that it's a cause and effect situation, I guess you'd call it. Well, we're on the right of way and we happen to be on the right of way in the wrong spot. We're at the abutment where the bridge needs to be replaced and this is the way to get around that so that They can move forward with their construction in December.
[Adam Knight]: In this alternative here that's being presented, I would assume would be the least costly alternative to the provider, right?
[John Kennedy]: I don't know if it would be the least costly, but it certainly is.
[Adam Knight]: Is there another way you can do it where you don't have to dig 1,000 feet in one of our city streets, I guess is the question.
[John Kennedy]: I don't think that there is another way that we could do that. I don't know that we could get our cable out of the way of the construction. You might be able to speak to that a little bit better than I could, but.
[SPEAKER_24]: Derek Anderson with ARUP, design professional representing MBTA, 16 Myrtle Street in Medford. So I understand some of the trenching problems on a personal level. But to why I'm here, yeah, we have the, Design team has looked at multiple different ways to keep the relocation of this particular duct bank within the MBTA right away under the bridge. There is not a way that we have seen where we're able to avoid any disruption to the public streets in the area, the Boston Ave or Winchester. Winchester seems to be the best possible alignment for getting in and out quickly. And, yeah, we've looked at those. To give some sense, Broadway Bridge, there's abutments coming down on either side, a new track. There's just no space between the abutments and the track to put that in.
[Adam Knight]: There's barely any space between U.S. Travel World and, you know, from what they've done over there, it's about this far away from the building, so I understand we don't have a gap.
[SPEAKER_24]: We have absolutely looked to try to avoid disruption in this area, and there isn't another way without getting into the roads.
[Adam Knight]: into our roads? Or can you go underneath the rail bed? Can you go through some of them?
[SPEAKER_24]: One way or another, it's got to come up onto the roads.
[Adam Knight]: And really Winchester is... And what do these conduits service? Are they home telephones? Are they internet IP? Bandwidth? What do they provide?
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, it's AT&T's core network and it's carrying all kinds of traffic. that is not only local, but it goes all over the place. This particular cable has quite a bit of traffic on it that can't be rerouted, unfortunately. The right-of-way was a place where they traditionally put a lot of network as a way to mitigate getting into town and city streets. And unfortunately, where it is right now, we don't have the ability to get it out of his way while he builds the bridge. And this is a way to work it out. And we are taking advantage of some structures that are already there and going through, coming out of the horizon.
[Adam Knight]: I appreciate you for answering my questions. I don't think my positions move much off of Mr. President, although the answer is from the solicitors office.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. I appreciate coming out tonight. I think that's one of the biggest things that we've talked about in this council. I'm sorry that you have a representative of this feedback, but until we make a stand, and really get the feedback back from the city solicitor and all of the utility companies that have been using our streets as trenches and then walking away and leaving our streets a mess. I think that with that and plan in place for those neighbors because those neighbors again, I echo the remarks of my colleagues that they've been impacted so negatively and They're just daily daily Lifestyles and to compound that with more construction road work without a comprehensive plan that they are familiar with from beginning to end I think would be would be negligent and my part as a city council representing those people to not make sure that those concerns are not just supported by yourself, but a plan that would show us and what we can do. So I too would like to table this until we get more information from our city solicitor and what we've asked for in the past for our utilities. to make sure that what's being done on our roads, that utilities are being held accountable for what they're leaving there.
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, we'd certainly work with you guys on whatever you needed to be, you know, comfortable with our construction practice. And anything we'd need to do to help
[George Scarpelli]: communicate with a neighbor so we would you know all the people that are impacted we'd certainly be willing to do that and again I apologize that you know you could be the one situation where it would leave the street impeccable but when you have two foot swaths being cut and then you see them dip and nobody comes back to fix them and then Again, someone comes in and builds a four-foot swap path, and then nobody comes back. And this is what we're hearing over and over again. Yeah, I understand. And this is where it's been very frustrating for us. So thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: I think some of the frustration you're hearing is regarding the number of projects that this city has gone through over the last couple of years. Eversource right now will be trenching two miles of some of our major thoroughfares in the next several months, which is going to be a big disruption to traffic and residents in this community. My question to you is, we hear all too often when we ask when a trench is dug, and we all know after, even with best intentions, it usually sinks after a period of time. And we've asked the city solicitor why we can't request that when you're digging a trench, that you not only just pave the trench, but you do a curb-to-curb restoration. And we're being told that we can't request that. And I believe it has something to do with state law. Correct me if I'm wrong. But we can't request a curb-to-curb repaving. And in my opinion, if I allowed you to dig up some of my driveway, to put something under my driveway, I wouldn't request that you just patch a little piece of my driveway. Because I know what's going to happen in six months from now. My driveway's going to be a mess. And the same thing applies to our streets. So that's the first thing I think we have to look at, why we can't request a curb-to-curb. Was a curb-to-curb requested in this particular case?
[John Kennedy]: It was not requested in this particular case. You know, if we had something that was wrong with our patch, for instance, we certainly would want to try to restore the patch.
[Michael Marks]: So if the city did request a curb-to-curb, would you
[John Kennedy]: But that's something that I would have to bring back to see if that's something that would be an option. That would certainly be quite a big impact to the project. But maybe, I don't know if it's something that we could do. I couldn't answer that question tonight. It would be a bigger impact overall to the neighbourhood as well. I understand that if we did have to do a full restoration for the entire trench, the trench line, that we would be looking at a pretty big impact.
[Michael Marks]: impact regarding what for the neighbors and everybody the construction project would be bigger than it would be sure sure residents who call us up in six months from now saying every truck that goes by their house shakes their house because it's such a dip You know, we hear it over and over again. Right, right. So, I can appreciate the fact that... No, I understand.
[John Kennedy]: The roads are all over, you know, all over the state there's construction work going on and it's frustrating for everybody at times and patches do resettle and there's no question about it that that happens. I don't know that I can say that I'd be able to do a full restoration this evening, but I could certainly inquire about it.
[Michael Marks]: We don't meet again until September.
[John Kennedy]: Third week of September.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, and my concern is that if we don't... We're not going to meet until the third week in September.
[John Kennedy]: Right, right, and that's my concern is that, you know, with the project, with the goals that they have for the bridge, that we're running out of time to get this project done.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I as one member of the council, I'd hate to hold up this project. I understand that you're doing the project based on what work needs to be done. Right. I would have no problem if you would be able to give us a commitment tonight about curb-to-curb restoration. That way I think it would be an easier sell to the neighborhood knowing that this work is taking place, but the ultimate outcome will be a brand new area, a street from the whole length. You know, we go through projects like the The Eversource project I mentioned two miles, it has zero benefit to this community. Zero. I realize we all have to live together as good neighbors with other communities. It has zero benefit to our community. It's going to have a thousand percent disruption to our community. So those are the type of things I think we're struggling with.
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, I understand.
[Michael Marks]: I'd be supportive tonight if you would give a commitment, if you can get on your phone and give a commitment for curb-to-curb restoration.
[John Kennedy]: Is that something that I could come back in, if I could get a few minutes to see what I can do?
[Michael Marks]: If the members feel the same, I feel that way. I think that would be a win for our community if we were able to repave the entire area.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, I wouldn't be so strict as to require that. I'd certainly invite it. I am intimately aware that neighbors, that's the neighborhood I live in. I know what my neighbors have been going through and I've been working on this as the city's liaison on one of the city's liaisons on this Green Line Extension project for 12 years, 14 years, something like that. And they're finally digging, they're finally going, and we want to get it done. People want to see it done. And so I wouldn't want to be part of impeding construction. And I can only imagine that Winthrop Street will be dug up again. And certainly our neighbors up there will be dealing with the ambient noise of ongoing construction for the next several years with the construction of the station, the rail bed, and then also the continued presence of the lower line moving what was it, 18, 27 feet closer to their homes, and then the squeaks and the clickety-clacks of the Green Line streetcars. So, that being said, I don't know. I'd like to see curb-to-curb restoration of the street, but I also know that that might involve its own inconveniences to the people. But my concern was chiefly on their having avenues of communication and a way to get assurances that the concerns are going to be met. But I'll gladly yield to my dear colleagues and support that, but I certainly don't want to I don't see need to table this tonight nor do I see a need to withhold it and hold. So I would like to move on it decisively tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Based upon your plans and construction guidelines and so forth, do you see a need to do any more underground work on Winchester or Granville before the completion of the Green Line extension?
[SPEAKER_24]: As part of this project, we're not anticipating utility work on Winchester or Granville.
[Adam Knight]: Because part of the concern would be if we did go curve to curve, then that would put in effect a moratorium for digging. So we require to go curve to curve. and pave the whole entire street, then we could say that they can't dig for five years.
[John Kennedy]: Are there other plans for other utilities to work through that area? I don't know the answer to that question. That's why I was betting for the D, the new I think. I see if that's what it was. You know, if we could do it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: They did the water and gas, that was two years ago, three years ago. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I see everybody's frustration, and we've had a number of Committee of the Whole meetings to try to remedy it, and we are awaiting answers. curb to curb will be great, but for me, what I keep bringing up in the last several years that this has been a real problem is the fact that we don't have anybody from the city to review the trench work six months from now, a year from now. So, I mean, I'd be amenable as long as we have a condition on there that our engineer or somebody from the administration does a walk-through with somebody from your company nine months from now or a year from now, and if there is sinkage, that it be fixed. I think that might be another option.
[George Scarpelli]: I think everybody touched some great points. the more detailed agenda for our constituents and those neighbors that are going to be affected. I think it would have to be something that's necessary.
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, we definitely are interested in that. You know, I did talk to the city engineer and that was one of the points that she brought up is that we did have to meet before we got started. We were going to have a construction kickoff and I think we could address some of those concerns with the neighborhood. and I've actually been given the okay to do curb-to-curb if you guys would like us to do the curb-to-curb, so.
[Richard Caraviello]: In the petition it says AT&T shall provide a full-time resident engineer approved by the city who will monitor the work on the city's behalf. AT&T will provide detailed scheduled weekly updates, so it is in our contract somewhat.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. So you just said that you've gotten the authority to do curb-to-curb?
[John Kennedy]: I have, I've gotten the approval to do curb-to-curb if you guys would like to do it.
[SPEAKER_24]: Can I elaborate on my response? Please. As you know, this is a design build, so when I say that we're not anticipating any work there, I can't say that there won't be any work, because I don't know what the design build is that was proposed, but we're not anticipating work there.
[Adam Knight]: I anticipate it. The other question I have was, would You have a pre-construction meeting, obviously, with our engineering department. Absolutely. Absolutely. Would you be willing to have a pre-construction meeting at maybe the South Metro Fire Station with the same people that are the abutters that are on your abutter list?
[John Kennedy]: Yeah, absolutely.
[Adam Knight]: Why not?
[John Kennedy]: You know, we certainly want to keep everybody happy. We're interested in having good neighbors and keeping everybody as happy as we can. We are going to be constructing. We are going to be impacting traffic. That's unavoidable. but we're interested in getting the project done as quickly as possible with the least amount of disruption. That's all.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I think we're making good progress tonight. You know, a curb-to-curb solution is something that... So it's just my agreement that you are going to do a curb-to-curb?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, we're in agreement.
[Adam Knight]: And so, could we have that as a condition? If you could put that as a condition, Mr. President. And just another condition that there's a meeting that's held pre-construction with the residents that are at Butters. At Butters, upper Butters.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. Councilor Scarpelli has requested a roll call. Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor McClary? Yes. Vice President March? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: President Caraviello? Yes. Second the affirmative, none in the negative. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. 17, 593, location of poles, attachment of fictions, and underground conduits.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, motion to waive the reading and have a representative from the petitioner give a brief synopsis of the project.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm not going to say it. This is Comcast again. Name and address of the record, please. Dave Pauline, Comcast, Woobin, Massachusetts. And you are here in favor of this project? Yes, I am. Do we have anyone else here in favor of that project? Hearing and seeing none, I close that part of the hearing. Do we have anyone here against this project? Hearing and seeing none, I close that section of the hearing.
[Dave Flewelling]: High Street, placing a new 4x4 manhole over the existing Comcast conduit at the intersection of High Street and Hillside Avenue. From the newly placed manhole, excavating to place a 4-inch PVC conduit 115 feet plus or minus, and continuing into 92 High Street, Medford, which is the Armory building. They've requested our service, and this is the plan to provide service to them. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Similar to a lot of the questions I asked previously regarding the previous project, when will the work take place, and how long will this project last?
[Dave Flewelling]: Once approved, if approved, we're still waiting for an MWRA permit. We have received the permit. We have signed off on it. We've reviewed it. We've agreed to it. It's back with the MWRA. They have a new process now where we sign off on the permit first. then we send it back to them and it basically goes through their board again, takes two weeks to get it signed. So I was hoping to get this work done if approved before Labor Day, before school started. However, it looks like it's gonna be sometime after Labor Day before we get that MWRA permit from them. The work should take, depending upon the digging, it is only 115 feet and a four by four manhole. I would say probably a week, depending upon the digging, weather permitting. two weeks, maybe tops, it's kind of hard to say, not knowing exactly what's in there and what they're going to run into as far as the digging.
[John Falco]: And it's on High Street, right?
[Dave Flewelling]: Yes.
[John Falco]: So I assume the road's going to be open, but I would imagine it's going to be quite tough to pass at times, I would think.
[Dave Flewelling]: Yeah, I did see I printed the agenda this morning and I did look at this and I did see that the chief engineer requested a traffic management plan. I did also request that today from our traffic management people. So I'm hoping to get that and you know, shortly after Labor Day, I'll be able to, you know, bring that into the chief engineer and we can talk about if approved, moving forward with the with the work. Okay. There is a chance that on Hillside Avenue, the existing conduit may be damaged, so I thought that I should put this in here and make you aware of that, just in case we do have to do some additional excavating on that road, so there would be no surprises if this project does extend a little bit longer than anticipated. Hopefully we can get through that conduit, but we think it may be damaged.
[Richard Caraviello]: What information, Councilor Scarpelli?
[George Scarpelli]: How many more feet would that be if there was damage?
[Dave Flewelling]: I'd have to look at the plan here. I'm not sure if he called that out. 180 feet. An additional 180 or 180 total? Additional 180.
[John Falco]: Mr. President, so with that additional 180 feet, I mean, so how long that work would take if you have to
[Dave Flewelling]: Again, it depends upon the digging. I know that's kind of off the, you know, not as busy a street as High Street, but, you know, I'm sure there's a lot of traffic that goes up and down to that area, and I believe, is it the library that's right there also?
[John Falco]: Yeah, the library exits from there, and there's a couple of streets that are up in that area. So, I mean, those neighbors, those residents will be impacted, it sounds like, if there
[Dave Flewelling]: I'm hoping we can get through it. We'll send a crew out there before we stop this, before we start the digging out on the main run, to see if we can get a rod through it. Best case scenario, maybe it's just damaged in a couple of spots and we have to, you know, pothole it and dig it up and repair it. That would be the best case scenario. Thank you. Councilor Nutty.
[Adam Knight]: Sir, were you here when we just did the last permit? Yes. And can we have some of your feelings concerning a curb-to-curb pay upon this project as opposed to a trench and patch and a grounded inlet?
[Dave Flewelling]: Okay. Again, I did see that in the comments from the chief engineer, and it did call that out, trench to pay from the trench to the curb. I would also I would need to go back if this was approved I would go back and just make them aware of that that that would be the requirement of the permit and Therefore it would be a business decision on our end if we were to move forward and then physically go apply for the permit so if it was approved tonight and We agreed it was agreed to you know grant the location And then if I go back and the powers to be decide that this is cost prohibitive to do the paving to the curb, then therefore we would not apply for the street opening permit and not provide service to 92 High Street.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Through the chair, President Caraviello, so 92 High Street doesn't have Comcast service at all?
[Dave Flewelling]: They don't.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And who's requesting it? The whole building? I don't have the name.
[Dave Flewelling]: I don't have the name of the customer. I was just tasked with getting the permits to get to the building. And then once it's there, X number of tenants within that building could request the service. So it's at least one.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Council, Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: I believe, and I stand to be corrected, it may be a new dental group that's moving in here that's requesting this. And I would hate for Comcast to go back and then decide it was not cost effective to provide service. This new business is just opening and actually reached out to me as one member of the council seeing when it was going to be on our agenda. So, they're really interested in getting the service to get their business up and running. So, at this point, I would, as one member of the council, just support the current work that's going on and then we can have other discussions regarding curve to curve and so forth.
[George Scarpelli]: I echo the same issues that I've had. Again, this is a little different because it does affect constituents that need to move forward, but if approved, the same stipulation would the residents, would you require that, would you input a plan that our residents would hear, would understand the total agenda from beginning to end, so they understand the complexities of the project and any issues and concerns that might come up?
[Dave Flewelling]: Are you saying having someone on site, or are you just having a point of contact for the project?
[George Scarpelli]: Well, we've had just point of contact. reaching out to the residents and same thing, holding a meeting or getting a detailed agenda for them, scheduled for them so they understand what might happen. Schedule of work. Right. That they would, you know, at least the abutters to this project understand the complexity of the job, so. Yeah, we could do that.
[Adam Knight]: The location that you're requesting to dig, and I'm sure you're from Woburn, I'm around the Woburn area, so I'm sure you're familiar with the area, but right at that particular location, there are points and times where there are two MBTA buses that are driving down the street and they can't even get by each other. I think we have a gentleman from the square who owns a business down there, a restaurant, that's getting killed by construction on the other side of the square. right up the street on the other side. So two points of entrance to certain businesses are going to be blocked or hampered or impeded for a period of time. Now I know you're only going to be out there for one or two weeks tops, as you said, on High Street. And then if any residual effects happen, I'm assuming that the rest of the repair work would go up Hillsdale Road if it's damaged? Yes. Okay. And that's not a major act, I don't think. It's a neighborhood. That's not something I'm so worried about right now, because you guys don't know what's underground over there. You don't know if there is a problem over there. But the concern that I do have is with flow and with the trench repair work. And I'm not going to give the same 25-minute thing that I just did at the last one. But ultimately, you know, we have a problem in the community with the way that our trenches are managed and our trenches are overseen. And I don't think we're doing a very good job at it. We need to do a better job at it. So in order for me to be comfortable with this, I need some insurances.
[Dave Flewelling]: Well, I can say that I'm familiar with the process. And I don't know if you're familiar with this process. But we have an inspection process. And I don't know if we've done a whole lot of work in the city over the past couple of years. This is the first hearing that I've been to in Medford. So the person who had the time before had since retired. So I don't know what work took place before then. I'm sorry?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Did he retire because of us?
[Dave Flewelling]: No. But I believe it was back in the 90s, somewhere along the 90s, the Department of Telecommunications and Energy came out with something called DTE 9822, which is an inspection process. And we have our project coordinators who are assigned to this job go out and inspect the jobs 30, 60, and I believe it's either 90 or one year. And there's a report that goes to the state every year. So that's a task that when we do new trenches that our project coordinators are tasked with doing. Again, I don't know if there's been a whole lot of trenching in Medford, so I can't really speak to that, but that is one of our processes, and we can, you know, it would be certainly part of this. There's been plenty, but not the conquest. Not a lot of trenching in Medford.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Through the Chair, thank you, President Caraviello. I think since you need a permit from the MWRA, I'm just throwing it out there that we table it and get a response back from Comcast for our next meeting of whether or not you'll do curb-to-curb. I just have an issue. I mean, I said in the last petition that I just don't want the trenches to keep sinking. It's not right for a contractor to leave a piece of property like that, a street or a sidewalk sinking. But I have a problem with requiring curb-to-curb in the last one. kind of swaying from that here, so I would like, I'm not, I think it should be, if we're gonna, we need to have a meeting, probably a committee of the whole meeting, and get some answers from you of whether you do the curb to curb, because that's a main thoroughfare, we definitely don't want any sinkage on High Street, and if we're gonna mandate some curb to curb, I think we need to figure out some consistency in how we're gonna do that. I know the business needs, wants Comcast, we fought loud and clear years and years ago that there'd be competition, We don't feel that the business should have it, but we just need to figure out amongst ourselves some way to keep this consistent and uniform and figure out how to do that prior to probably our next meeting.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Typically what happens is it's the city engineer that requires, when they meet with the city engineer, whether it's going to be curb to curb or not. So I think we should leave that up to the druthers of the city engineer. On this particular case, as I mentioned, this particular business has a hardship. And they need this Comcast to run their business. And, you know, I don't feel comfortable waiting three weeks. It happens on the last petitioner that there was someone in the room that had the authority to grant the curb-to-curb. This gentleman clearly does not have that authority. And because of the hardship of that particular business that's going into 92 High Street, I don't feel comfortable, Mr. President, leaving this for another three weeks. So I will support this tonight. And moving forward, I think some of our questions should be directed to our own city engineer and our own inspectional services on why work is not being put back in the manner that we see fit. So I will support this petition tonight based on that, Mr. President. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Through the Chair, I know you said you wouldn't be able to start until sometime after Labor Day anyway, so I think that would only be almost a week postponement if we take this up with some answers from Comcast on September 19th, and I think we need to, again, we just need to be consistent. So I would ask my colleagues how they feel about tabling it for three weeks. Second the motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm ready to vote on it in approval, Mr. President. The money that Comcast gets out of me every month, I'm sure they'll be able to Pape High Street from Arlington to Malden with no sweat.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to table. We have a motion by Councilor Knight to table. Do we have a second? I'm the second. Motion by Councilor Longo to table it. Seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Roll call vote, Mr. President. Roll call vote has been requested.
[Clerk]: Mr. Clerk. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor De La Russa. Negative. Councilor Falco. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Kern. Yes. Vice President Marks. No. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caprio.
[Richard Caraviello]: No.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Four in the affirmative.
[Richard Caraviello]: There's four to three at the table.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Can you get us that, do you mind, through the chair, get us that answer of whether or not you could do curb to curb?
[Dave Flewelling]: I'm sorry?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If you could get us those answers before the next meeting.
[Dave Flewelling]: Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Dave Flewelling]: When will that next meeting be? September 19th. September 19th.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Where are we going to meet September 19th? That'll be determined this week once we have the construction schedule. 17594, that's the location.
[SPEAKER_23]: Mr. President, motion to waive the reading and have the petitioner give a brief synopsis of the application. Do we have someone here? Name and address of the record, please.
[Richard Caraviello]: Matthew Carmody from National Grid, 170 Medford Street, Multnomah. Do I speak in favor of this? Yes. Do we have anyone else speak in favor of this project? Hearing and seeing none, I close that part of the hearing. Do we have anyone here that is speaking against this? Hearing and seeing none, I close that portion of the hearing.
[SPEAKER_22]: Thank you. This petition is installing a traffic control box to operate and monitor our existing gas regulation station. This is replacing outdated equipment to make sure we can monitor for safety and reliability purposes and communicate to our pit itself to monitor the gas system throughout the year. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. If you could just tell us a little bit about the project, how long it's going to take, the hours you're going to be working, how many sidewalk panels you're going to be pulling out.
[SPEAKER_22]: Some of the sidewalk panels were already excavated. They're in temporary asphalt at the moment from our previous project on Wyman at Woburn. So about six to seven asphalt concrete patches. It should take a few days, regular work hours. This has been pre-construction job walk has been performed with the engineering. So it's generally supposed to take three to four days I'd say at most. And all panels will be fully put in ADA compliancy and make sure it's reviewed afterwards with the city engineering department.
[John Falco]: Will they be replaced with concrete? Yes. Even the ones that are temporarily been replaced with asphalt?
[SPEAKER_22]: Yes, so we temporarily repair them, so our concrete subcontractor come in, make sure it's AD compliant, stamped, and so forth. It's also in asphalt because we knew this work would be oncoming, so it's only for about two to three weeks that they certainly have been in asphalt. So as soon as this work is performed, our subcontractor will come in, perform the restoration with concrete.
[John Falco]: And this is sidewalk work, so you don't anticipate any road closures?
[SPEAKER_22]: There shouldn't be any road closures. If there is, it would be for one day max. If so, it would be communicated with the city. This work will be fully communicated with the neighborhood. My cell phone number is on a letter that's hand-delivered to every resident. That's a butter that was given in the petition. Also, we do mail out three separate letters, one with two YouTube videos. to explain exactly what to expect during our work, also frequently ask questions and so forth. But again, we do hand deliver every single letter with my cell phone number to personally contact me to make sure no one's inconvenienced and we work with them hand in hand.
[John Falco]: Thank you. And that's key that you actually have included your cell phone number because it's always good that we have a point of contact and that the residents have a point of contact, especially No, like you said, to supply a YouTube video, which I don't think you hear that too often, but it's always nice that the residents can actually see what's going on or, you know, get more information as to what's going on in front of their homes. So, thank you very much. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. And Mr. Camardi, thank you for being here again. I think we're all familiar with Matt. He's been here a number of times before. I request a permit. This particular permit, I have no problem with. I'll certainly support this evening, and I look forward to the next permit to come back for some street trench works.
[SPEAKER_22]: We can talk about curb-to-curb paving on the front of those trucks. It seems to be a hot subject. Thankfully, I'm in the sidewalk this time. On the motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Second, Mr. President. Approved by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: At this point, I relinquish the chair to Vice President Marks.
[Michael Marks]: motions, orders, and resolutions. Paper 17-610 offered by President Richard F. Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable... Mr. Chairman, I request that this paper be withdrawn.
[Michael Marks]: The Council President requested that the paper be withdrawn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Will you call the roll? I think somebody wanted to speak on this.
[Michael Marks]: I'm withdrawn. There is no roll.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The paper has been withdrawn by request of the Council President. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: 17-611 offered by Vice President Mox, City of Medford, call for election, preliminary municipal election, Tuesday, September 12th, 2017, be it ordered that in accordance with the provisions of the general laws of Massachusetts, the revised charter of the City of Medford and so far as the latter It is applicable that the city clerk, being he, is hereby authorized and instructed to notify and warn such inhabitants of the same method qualified to vote in the law requires to assemble at several polling places as designated in this order for and within the several precincts where there are duly registered voters on Tuesday, September 12th, 2017, then and there to give their ballots for the nomination respectively. seven members of the city council to serve a period of two years from the first Monday of January 2018 to be elected by and from qualified voters of the city at large. We have further ordered that the following named polling places be and they are hereby designated to be used at the city election to be held on September 12th, 2017. The said polling places to be open at 7 a.m. to 8 o'clock p.m. Voting precincts, Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrews Middle School, 300 Mystic Valley Parkway, Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club, 340 Salem Street. Ward 2, Precinct 1, St. Francis Parish Center, Bellsway West and Fulton Street. Ward 2, Precinct 2, Roberts Elementary School, 35 Court Street. Ward 3, Precinct 1, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, 170 Governors Avenue. Ward 3, Precinct 2, Temple Shalom, 475 Winthrop Street. Ward 4, Precinct 1, Tufts University, Gansher Center, 161 College Avenue. Ward 4, Precinct 2, Walking Court. Auburn and North Street, Fond du Carreau Center. Ward 5, Precinct 1, Columbus Elementary School, 36 6th Avenue. Ward 5, Precinct 2, Columbus Elementary School, 37 6th Avenue. Ward 6, Precinct 1, West Bedford Fire Station. 26 Harvard Avenue, Ward 6, Precinct 2, Brooks School, 388 High Street. Ward 7, Precinct 1, Mystic Valley Towers, North Building Entrance. Ward 7, Precinct 2, McGlynn K-8 Public School, 3004 Mystic Valley Parkway. Ward 8, Precinct 1, Senior Center, 101 Riverside Avenue. Ward 8, Precinct 2, Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall, 114 Mystic Avenue. Due to the insignificant number of nominees for the office of mayor and school committee, those offices will not appear of any part of the planning action, just the office of city council. Councilor Marks. On the motion by Councilor Donald Russo, seconded by? Second. By Councilor Scott Felly. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Richard Caraviello]: All those in favor? Mr. President? Yes. Suspension of the rules? Suspension of the rules by Vice President Marks.
[Michael Marks]: To take paper 17-608 out of order. And 606 after that. 17-608. 608 and 606.
[Richard Caraviello]: You want to go in order? So you want 608 first or 608? Correct. 17608 petition by Ray Scarfo, 9th Sunset Avenue, Medford, Mass., to discuss inconsistent parking enforcement problems. Mr. Scarfo. Name and address for the record, please.
[Ray Scarfo]: Ray Scarfo, 9th Sunset Avenue, Medford. I'm here tonight for the inconsistency of the pay-to-park. I have right now two citizens in attendance to explain to you about their mishaps. So I'd like them to explain them, because you'll get a better variable speed on how they have had their problems. And then I'd like to finish up with a statement from another citizen who could not make it tonight, and then a small closing, and I'll be done. So it'll be quick.
[Richard Caraviello]: Could you yield the chair to the people who want to speak? Yes.
[Daniel Papaleo]: Name and address of the record, please. Dan Papaleo, 10 Brooks Park, Method Maness. On July 27th, 1.23 a.m. in the morning, I was issued a citation for restricted parking in grass and dirt for $50. What street is it in? Brooks Park. Brooks Park? Yes. Which there were no signs. posted. I was not parked on the grass. You know, there's hot top that's missing. So I'm in the dirt and it's kind of congested there. And I went up and filed for a hearing, which I never heard until today. I call them and they said they were going to dismiss and just give me a warning. But the parking stuff there and there's no signs. There's no curbing around the park. except for one little section. And, you know, they come by, there's commercial vehicles parked at night, which they go right by, they don't tag them. There's a truck there, the dump truck that's parked constantly, either on Hancock Street, Brooks Park, or Main Street, with junk on it, and it sits there sometimes for a couple of days. He takes up two or three spots when he parks on Brooks Park, and I've told him many a times, you know, he doesn't live there. He lives on Sylvan Street, two streets over his girlfriend. And, you know, it's becoming an issue, parking there. You know, there's no signs posted. You know, they got to post something, put some curbing, you know, to warn people, you know. That's it. Thank you. But your ticket was dismissed, correct? It was dismissed. They were sending me something in the mail saying it was dismissed. I called them because I hadn't heard anything. And the girl in the office, Brenda, said that it's the police department that's enforcing this, telling them to write the tickets, which I had talked to somebody in traffic, and he says we have nothing to do with it. And he says there's nothing posted there. He says they have to post something. People have been parking there for 50 years, and they get a note. put a sign and warn them. Thank you. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President. I've got a couple of questions for the gentleman. Excuse me, sir. Councilor Knight has a couple of questions for you. It's somewhat unrelated to the topic that you brought up, but we've had a number of resolutions that have gone forward from this council concerning Brooks Park and some illicit and what we call unsavory behavior going on down there, maybe behind the new apartment buildings and so on. The council's passed a number of resolutions and I might follow it up a little bit, but I'd like to hear from you as to what impact you've seen. Have you seen an improvement down there in the illicit activity that's going on in Brooks Park?
[Daniel Papaleo]: Yeah. But I mean, something's got to be done around that park. Put up curbing or something. Put up signs because a lot of the people, they've been parking there for years. Put it up and you know. But in terms of the bad element that's been in the neighborhood? The bad element? I really don't see much of that. I don't see it. So aside from this... There were people down in that parking lot that were talking about dealing drugs.
[Adam Knight]: I heard they were ordering pizzas to their cars, staying in the parking lot and hanging out all night. Right. Some of the things I heard from residents. But I haven't seen that lately. So aside from the uptick in the enforcement in the parking over there and some of the communication issues that are going on and everything in the neighborhood seems to be going well. It seems to be all right. Excellent.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you very much. Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I want to point out that this council on two occasions in the past four years has requested that the administration install curbing in the area of Brooks Park.
[Richard Caraviello]: There was curbing there at one time and it was never replaced.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It was removed, it was never replaced, and the late, great Sammy Petrella was a long-time advocate for that improvement. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[Claudio Iacono]: Good evening. My name is Claudio Iacono, former Medford. I live now in Reddick. I'm an HVAC technician, so I travel to the city of Medford doing service calls or whatever. Well, a little while back, I pulled up Selma Street, right in the intersection of Spring Street. I parked under a sign that says, 30 minutes free parking. I had to drop off a key to the real estate office across the street. I just saw I came back and said, take it on my cap. Okay. Two weeks later, I had to do the same thing, practice the same thing. This time, I'm smart. I go to the chaos machine, broken. They said, go to the next chaos machine. So I walked by the modern hardware, which is chaos machine. I went there, that's broken. So now I'm gonna move my car to my friend's building across the way, around the corner. Come back there, there's a ticket on my car. All right, so I went up to the main street, which I used to live right up the street from there many years ago. I asked the attendant, I says, I wanna appeal these tickets. She says, okay, it'll cost you $25 to appeal the ticket. So I give her $25 in cash. I got an application. They filled it all out. I haven't heard anything from them. But three weeks later, I got a notice. You read a pay within seven days or we suspend your license or your registration. So I went back. I said to the lady there, can I have my $25 back if I pay both tickets? She says, no. I said, you mean to tell me you took $25 from me for an appeal? And now, you're not giving me a piano, you're giving me my money back. She says, no. She says, unless you pay a debt, we're going to suspend your license. I said, where's your manager? So she gave me her phone number. I called her for a week. Nothing. So I finally, you know, I said to myself, forget, give up. And then my friend there, a gentleman, we happened to have coffee, so he happened to mention about this. And there I am. You know, I work in Method a lot, quite a bit. And it's very, very difficult. I have a commercial vehicle that I do a service call, which in like five minutes, 10 minutes. Now, I had pictures. I showed this gentleman at the, what they call the parking place there, where it says, 30 minutes free parking. I don't know what that means, because then I got smart, so I parked my car in my friend's parking lot, you know, in the rear there on Salem Street, and I sat at Dunkin' Donuts and watched a guy, a lady, a poor little old lady with a cane, from her car, to the chaos machine. He bought a ticket before she had the chance to put the money into the chaos machine. That's disgusting. Somebody should do something about it. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay? Have a good night.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Knight, before you leave, sir. A couple questions. Before you leave, Councilor Knight has some questions for you.
[Adam Knight]: I was just wondering if you had the dates as to when these tickets were issued.
[Claudio Iacono]: couple months ago. I mean, I can get you a date on the next meeting. I have all the paperwork. Show me an email. I'd like to be interested. Take a look. Like I said, in fact, it was a surprise. Okay, I can take a look at those.
[Adam Knight]: I'd appreciate it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Billy. Oh, don't go away. Don't go away. Oh,
[George Scarpelli]: I should have never left Metro. But I think that a lot of us have received some phone calls with these simple issues that are very big. And I think that this council has asked for meetings, and we've had meetings with the Republic Park, or have they changed their names again? No, it's the Republic Park. So good. I appreciate you coming up and talking about it, because we've had a lot of concerns with, you know, I've had a person call that they got a ticket of 201 for blocking the sidewalk as they parked in the driveway. It's something that simple. So the understanding that our residents don't know what what's going on and when it's going on is very important that we meet again and really start pounding and putting some — you saw what just happened when this council works together and putting restrictions in, things happen. So I appreciate you coming out and sharing that, because I think we need to do the same. So thank you very much.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: On that same point, Councilor Schapiro is right, and I think it was probably four months back where we were inundated with complaints. And we did sit down with Republic Park, and maybe this was around the same time that you were getting the tickets, about four or five months ago. And they had a whole new changeover in staff that wasn't trained properly. So we did meet with the head of the company that's in charge of this area, and he did reassure us. And we cracked the whip, and we asked the mayor to do the same. And since then, the complaints that I've received have slowed down tremendously. But there was a time frame, a couple months span, where we were getting I mean, a couple complaints a day, it seemed like. And it was just that the draft was not trained properly, which. they need to get a handle on if they have another turnover. So, just letting you know, we did meet with the company.
[Claudio Iacono]: The only comments I have about this is if the machine is broken, two machines are broken, and you have a picture of them, because these iPhones, the best thing in the world, and you go up to the, someone in the office should say, okay, we made it happen, what happened, I'm going to send someone to fix it. But when you walk into that office two or three times, I have nothing to do with this. Why are you here if you have nothing to do with this? See the city councilor. That's why I'm here. See the mayor. I mean, the mayor is busy. She has a lot to do. City councilor is busy. Someone should be in that office that can answer these questions.
[George Scarpelli]: We'll go after it now.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Just a quick question so I understand. You paid the $25 to have a hearing. Yes. Then you decided to pay the tickets and you didn't want the hearing.
[Claudio Iacono]: No, no, no. That's wrong.
[Richard Caraviello]: He was denied.
[Claudio Iacono]: I was denied. Not denied. I was never denied. never notified, but my next notification was, if I don't pay $45 within seven days, I would have my license pulled away and my registration pulled away. But you never had a hearing. And they never gave me the money back.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we should also request, Mr. President, that this gentleman get his money back, first of all. The $25 is for a hearing, if he never had a hearing.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you can get me the information, I would be happy to. I will. It's my counsel's will.
[Michael Marks]: I will, absolutely.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you give it to Ray, Ray will give it to me.
[Claudio Iacono]: I will, I will.
[Michael Marks]: It's my understanding, Mr. President, when these kiosks are not working, that they get an electronic message to their main office, so they know when these machines aren't working. So it's not even a matter of them going out or having a resident say they're not working. They know when they're malfunctioning, and they should be out there immediately servicing these machines so residents don't have to walk 30, 40, 50 yards to get another kiosk, which is unacceptable in my opinion. So, if we can make that part of the report, too, Mr. President. What is the turnaround once they get notified of a kiosk that's malfunctioning?
[Adam Knight]: And please give that to Ray and let Ray give it to me. I appreciate it, Mr. President. It almost sounds like the gentleman received two tickets, right? You received two tickets and you paid $25.
[Claudio Iacono]: The second one was almost on purpose. The second one? I wanted to see what.
[Adam Knight]: So you came in there and you went and paid 25 bucks.
[Claudio Iacono]: I paid for both tickets.
[Adam Knight]: Oh, you paid for both tickets. I paid for both tickets. Okay, all right. It's sad because it almost sounded like you paid for one but not the other.
[Claudio Iacono]: No, no, no.
[Adam Knight]: When you went in there, you appealed one and paid for one.
[Claudio Iacono]: No. Plus I paid $25 for the appeal and I got the money back. All set?
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Claudio Iacono]: Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. Good luck.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Motion to receive and place on file, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Scaffo has not completed his. He has one more thing to read. Real quick. Real quick.
[Ray Scarfo]: Brianna, I'm going to blow your meeting out of the water that you had with Republicans. July 15th, a resident at Yale Street He purchased a vehicle, no he didn't purchase a vehicle, he changed his plates from one state to our state. Got his plates that day, put them on. At night, he got a ticket for an expired inspection sticker. Now, when you have new plates going on in your vehicle, you have seven days to get your vehicle inspected. For what reason that they give these tickets out without knowing or I don't know if they have a program that they can reach into the registry to be able to see what the situation is. I mean, they shouldn't be just going and giving a ticket for an inspection sticker unless they know for sure that there's a valid reason to give that inspection sticker, a ticket. So this is what happened is that he, like I say, he purchased the new plates. That evening, that same evening, he got a ticket for an inspection that wasn't valid. And like I say, he has 10 days to get that sticker. So, of course, that cost him, I'm not even sure what the amount was, $25. Did he appeal? Did he appeal the ticket?
[Adam Knight]: Because obviously it was issued in violation of law.
[Ray Scarfo]: Well, he has appealed the ticket, but he hasn't gotten a hearing. My question is that if they're going to be tagging for inspection stickers and stuff like that, they should be able to be in their computer, that they should be able to get to the registry to see if they can actually do this.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you could get me a copy of that one also, along with that other gentleman's, it would be appreciated and we'll bring it to the attention of park managers. Do you have it with you? No, I'll have to get it to you. If you can get it and give it to me, I'd appreciate it. And I think maybe it's time that we schedule another hearing, a meeting with the parking benefit people.
[Ray Scarfo]: That's my closing. My closing, if you don't mind, I'm requesting that the council have a public meeting and to have a representative of public parking to discuss these inconsistencies. And I think that would be a good idea to get the citizens involved in this. And then you're really going to see how inconsistent this is.
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, we've had a public meeting with them before, and as Councilor Longo said, tickets slowed down dramatically and a lot of things did get corrected. I think that was about six months ago? Less. Four months ago?
[Unidentified]: Less than that.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, so maybe it's time we have another hearing with them. Again, it is a public hearing and we can bring some other things to their attention.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I think every meeting that we have is a public meeting. I mean, every meeting that the council has when we convene is a public meeting. And I think also that it's important to point out that, you know, oversight and the implementation of the traffic regulations falls under the jurisdiction and purview of the Traffic Commission and Republican come all they want, but if the Traffic Commission is not on board as the oversight agency, then we could be talking to a deaf ear as we're talking to the wall. This is under the purview of the Traffic Commission. This is something the Traffic Commission establishes. They've contracted out with an entity for parking management purposes and the purposes of the contract is to enforce the existing parking ordinances that are constructed through the Traffic and Parking Commission. So, I think that if we're going to do anything, that it should be important that they're involved as well, Mr. President. And I can totally understand, however, you know, also looking at this thing on a Citywide basis there are there there are inconsistencies. There's no question about it, but I Think that we need to come up with a better solution Then you know I have this ticket happened on this day at this place this guy did this at this place You know that that approach doesn't really bring us to a solution mr. President, and I think we need to come up with some solutions as to what it is that we need to do and some of these things that are going on in the community have been what I would call a laughable in moments, and you know what I mean, just wrong in others. And I've had good luck in speaking with Mr. Stackhouse and explaining the situations that are going on in the community. But part of the issue that I have, Mr. President, is that when we said, let's bring parking into Medford, let's bring parking enforcement into Medford, that the focus was on freeing up spots in our central business districts to prevent people from other communities coming in here and taking up spots in our downtowns. And it's expanded upon that. And I was a little bit more comfortable when the focus was on our business districts, not in our neighborhoods, not on streets that are dead ends, not on streets that, you know, have had families living on these streets for 30 and 40 years, like Sylvia Road, where they have individuals that have a system of how they park because they've all lived together and they're good neighbors and they know what's going on. So, they might block a driveway or they might park with two tires up on the curb. so that cars can get by. Now, the gentleman on Brookings Street, Brooks Parker, spoke about a commercial vehicle where the guy lives on Sylvia Road. Well, that vehicle's off of Sylvia Road. Why was it off of Sylvia Road? Because the neighbors went to him and said, you can't park your car here. It's a commercial plate. We can't get up and down the street. And they policed themselves. And they've been able to do that successfully for a number of years. And we're coming into a situation now where I think Park Medford's focus is leaving the business districts and coming more towards the residential neighborhoods. And we need to really realign and refocus the direction that they're going in, because I don't think it's making the residents' quality of life any better. And I don't think that it's really meeting the objective and goal that was stated when they first came up. So I appreciate you taking the time to come up here, Mr. Scott, for all the work you're putting into doing it and investigating. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[David McKillop]: David McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. I just want to touch base a little bit on this one situation. I have traveled just about every business district in Medford, as well as a lot of the residents, and I think that this is, I actually agree with Adam Knight that this is a systemic problem. This is not a singular problem in specific areas of the city. And what I mean by systemic is that I really firmly believe that it's time to take Republican, kind of put their feet to the coals at this point and decide what it is that we want to do with this program. It does not behoove the city to not have somebody that's working with this program that doesn't have a vested interest in the city. And I think that's what's happening. On a customer service level, I think what we've done is unfortunately we've made a lot of people unhappy. whether they're traveling from downtown to downtown or even some of the businesses. I beg to differ in one area in the respect of talking to the business owners. If you talk to a lot of the business owners, a lot of them will blame their current business status on the parking. And perceptions are realities. When someone's perception is that, you know, their business is down, that's their reality. And I think we have to take that into consideration. Number two, what we've also done in creating this situation, again, going back to Adam's, Councilor Knight's point, is that we've actually forced, yes, there are extra parking spaces in the downtowns, but we've forced those commuters into the neighborhoods, even further in, deeper in. So it really hasn't helped it's actually hurt tremendously. So it's either we put Republic on notice And let them know that this contract is not a contract that we're all excited about anymore that we need to kind of put their feet to the fire and make something happen for the for the downtown communities for the for the citizens and allow them to be able to go in and out of their downtowns feeling good and about what they want to accomplish. The kiosks, my personal opinion, do not work in downtowns. They just don't work. They're better in parking lots and garages, but they're certainly not good on downtown streets. That's just my opinion, and I think it's time. I actually feel bad that the city council has to address all of these issues when it actually should be an in-house program for the city, created by the city, controlled by the city, not another outside entity. Thank you.
[Joe Viglione]: Name and address of the record, please. Good evening. Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford, Mass. When Republic Parking first came in, I did a videotape to bring it to the attention of the public, and it never got on TV. Tonight, an elected official allegedly is parked in a fire lane, so I told Roy Belson, You know, if our elected officials are going to flagrantly violate the rules, why should the citizens pay for parking? It's a sin, it's a shame, and that individual should not be re-elected. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Dello Russo to receive and place on file, seconded by... Councilor Falco, all in favor? Aye. Motion passes. 17-606, petition for a sign denial reversal by Pastor Exeter Febrea for Evangelical Haitians Church of Somerville, 400 High Street, Medford. OCD number 2017-4. Sign exceeds allowable face. Allowable face size.
[George Scarpelli]: Is the petitioner here?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Thank you.
[Marie Wolverson]: Good evening, everybody. Marie Wolverson, representing Pastor Fabio. He is not here, and my colleague here, Mr. Ulrich German. I would like to first apologize. I believe that I was supposed to attend a meeting, the last meeting that you guys have, and I was overseas. And I came back and found the voicemail, and I wasn't even able to alert Pastor Fabio of the meeting because my phone was off. So, I apologize if I have wasted anybody's time. I believe that you guys met on the old denial sign as well, which I wasn't supposed to be on the table anymore, because I was told to sign. get started, start over on a new size, new pedestal, because the size of the sign was too big and the pedestal was too high the last time we met. So I went right back downstairs and talked to John Bavuzzo, and we fill out a brand-new application and start it over. So I was waiting to hear from John. the city on either an approval or denial of that second application. So I haven't heard from any, I didn't hear from anyone, so we were just waiting to hear. So when I came back from vacation, I went back downstairs and find out, well, we had a denial the whole time. They just never told us, told the church about it. So that's the second. application that you guys have right now, the second denial that you guys have on the second size. As you can see, the pedestal of the new site is way down to the floor. It comes from 3.6 inches to way down to one inch, and I believe that was one of the concerns. The size went up, went down from 5 by 8 to 4 by 8.
[George Scarpelli]: The point of information, if I can, the big issue was it was 11 feet. Yes. If you remember, it wasn't in inches. The sign was 5 by 8, which I think wasn't something that we had questioned about. The question we had that it rose to 11 feet. Yes. So now it's back down to the ground 5 by 8.
[Marie Wolverson]: Yes.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Do you have anything else to state?
[Marie Wolverson]: That's it. I'm sorry, was I talking too much? No, no, no. We're here to listen. Okay, no, I'm done.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much and thank you very much for your patience going through the process. I know it can be a confusing and daunting task sometimes to get involved in government when you're not familiar with it. Yeah, ultimately the sign was 11 feet tall when it was brought forward. They had a rendering of a gentleman that said it was six feet tall, and next to the guy there was a sign that went way over his head, so we all had a number of concerns about that. It's at the location of the church right next to the book school, so there was some concerns about sight lines and visibility and whether or not it was gonna impact pedestrians and cars driving up the street and so forth. I think in our discussions, we said that we're not really opposed to the sign being five by eight, but based upon the rendering that we have here, confirmation and some assurances that, you know what I mean, it's going to be a little different. So this is something that I've been waiting to hear at the council floor since you came in for your first application. We went through the subcommittee process and the subcommittee did a great job on it. You know, and I certainly don't have a problem supporting the sign this evening and I'll move for approval, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: I second that. Motion on the floor for approval? Second. By Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor, motion by Councilor Scapelli, seconded by Councilor Knight. I just have one question, this is not internally illuminated? This is not illuminated, right? It is not illuminated, sorry.
[Marie Wolverson]: It is illuminated? Yes, it always has been.
[Michael Marks]: I retract that. Okay, I don't recall, I don't see it in the bonds, logos, right now. It doesn't state it in the.
[Marie Wolverson]: It is if you look in the application.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, because what you gave to us doesn't state that it's illuminated. So the application doesn't come before us. That was denied. PVC and internal lighting.
[Marie Wolverson]: Yep.
[George Scarpelli]: The original didn't have that.
[Marie Wolverson]: Yep, the first one was and the second one is as well.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It's not being denied because of lighting. It wasn't.
[Marie Wolverson]: It was always size and height.
[Michael Marks]: It was always height. But this council has been on record for many of the previous signs, in particular freestanding signs against the elimination.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Especially hours of operation.
[Michael Marks]: Is there a recommendation with elimination?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just a question. Councilwoman O'Connor. Through the chair, when will the elimination take place? 24, is it during the dark 24-7, or will it be shut off at 10 p.m.?
[Marie Wolverson]: No, just during daylight, just during, because we, a pastor is going to be during, during church, during 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock in the morning. until 6 o'clock at night, we're off, we're done. Because it's only for message during the day, and during service hours, and then it's off again. So it's not going to be on at night at all.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, so it will be in service.
[Marie Wolverson]: Absolutely. It's just message during service. What pastor wants to do It doesn't want – we want to kind of offer a message to the community during service hours and during day. We don't want this to be like just solely a Haitian church. We just want to have services, second service, an English service, offering the community to come in. We just want to put a message out there that they can come in for services during service hours, during Sundays. We don't want this to be solely Haitian church. That's it. We do not want this to be all night because that's electricity. And if you know my pastor, it ain't going to happen. It will not have that electricity going in at night. It's not going to happen. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. Chairman, both chairman of this meeting and all of the side committee, I offer a motion of approval for this Lux Chalorum. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: So if I could make the condition, a portion of the sign is for messaging. Yes. So so you anticipate to have what a rotation of
[Marie Wolverson]: Yes, messaging is coming for Sunday service. This is a message that's going to come in on Sunday. Please come in on Sunday for service at this hour, 9 o'clock service. Sunday school starts. Just general message for people to come in on our Sunday school service.
[Michael Marks]: Are you aware of the current sign ordinance that regulates how often you can change a sign, the messaging on a sign?
[Marie Wolverson]: Um, we don't, but my pastor is kind of not very technical savvy, so somebody's going to have to help him with that. So I'm pretty sure that, you know, one of us is going to have to help him. So that's probably not going to be... It's probably going to be... It's probably going to be on a rotation basis, whatever message that we put in.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So, Councilwoman Gilker. I think to clear it up, it's not going to be a scrolling message. It's going to be like one week it will say the X, the next week it will say something different. So, it's going to be something every 10 seconds. No.
[Marie Wolverson]: It's basically just really kind of like the message of Sunday. Sunday school mostly, like Sunday school date of events mostly. I mean, we had an event in September. We haven't had an event again since September. So basically, there wouldn't be anything to announce again until like every Sunday. Sunday school, this is the schedule for Sunday. We have a service once on Sunday. So if we do decide to go with the English language service, so it's going to be 9 o'clock and 12 o'clock. This is the two services that we have. And this is the messages that's going to be happening. So, that's probably what we're going to be announcing. So, it's not going to be — it's not a business, so I don't see the need to have tons of messages every single day going on on this thing. So, on the week that we have revivals, which we have three times a year, revivals, we probably will have a message, say, this is what the message is going to be tonight, and tomorrow there's going to be another message. Every night there's going to be service for revival, seven days. So every day there's going to be a message for what the message is going to be tomorrow for revival. So that's that type of stuff.
[George Scarpelli]: So Councilor Scarpelli. Again, I think this is why. having that subcommittee. That meeting is so important. Sure. I'm spinning right now. I'll be honest with you. I'm trying to gauge. So, the conversation would have been understanding what the ordinance is so you understood. Sure. The more in-depth conversation would would have been the acceptance of the size of the sign. If it's illuminated, would we accept it? So I don't know. I look for guidance from my senior colleague on this committee.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco has a question. Is that the actual section that has the message piece?
[Marie Wolverson]: Yeah, so the top part is going to be the logo of the church. That's not going to be illuminated at all. That would cost the church way too much money. It's just literally down in the bottom. Just that revival piece.
[John Falco]: That's it. I'm just trying to look at the sketch here. Is that three feet? It says you have one here and then four.
[Marie Wolverson]: Is that three feet of?
[John Falco]: This here, is that?
[Michael Marks]: It's probably two feet worth of.
[Marie Wolverson]: Is it two feet? Yeah, that's about like maybe. Three feet of messaging? Two feet? That's about two feet.
[John Falco]: So it's about two feet of messaging?
[Marie Wolverson]: That's a lot less.
[John Falco]: It looks like that's a foot there, so two, three, four, that's three feet of messaging.
[Marie Wolverson]: This one is the pedestal. That's the pedestal.
[John Falco]: Okay, so that takes you a foot out. Yeah, that's the pedestal. So one to four.
[Michael Marks]: No, no, no, the whole width is four.
[Marie Wolverson]: All the way to the top is four. Yeah, the whole thing is four. So that's half of it, it's two feet.
[John Falco]: Oh, okay, so that's two feet, okay, okay. I thought there was a line there, I'm sorry, that's my mistake.
[Marie Wolverson]: So two feet is going to be.
[John Falco]: So two feet, so it'll become almost like a mini movie screen almost?
[Marie Wolverson]: Yeah, that's it, yeah.
[John Falco]: No. No, because if you, that's actually, that's graphics. It's four. Oh yeah, yeah.
[Marie Wolverson]: The top part of it is going to be the logo, and then it's going to be the Evangelical Haitian Church, so that's just basically paper. That's not going to be illuminated. It's just the bottom part of it. That's it. That's going to have to be the message of the day.
[George Scarpelli]: I mean, Councilman, I might have a resolution, but I think that maybe that's what I'm looking for.
[Adam Knight]: Councilman? I personally, Mr. President, have lived next to churches and across from churches with my address on High Street where I have two churches that are right next to me. One church has a sign and one church doesn't. The church that has a sign that's in non-conformity with our sign ordinance always has message posted on it. The church that doesn't have a sign, instead puts two stakes out there and puts a banner out there. And they change the banner from time to time and it looks awful. It looks absolutely terrible. It's an eyesore to the neighborhood, really. And I think that, you know, this isn't going to be harmful, provided that we can put some restrictions on it. It's a special permit request. They're asking us to issue a special permit and we have some concerns about internal illumination. Assuming that the concerns of my council is have about internal illumination are that they don't want it lighting up the sky at night So we can put restrictions on it eight o'clock nine o'clock ten o'clock Whatever it is that we feel comfortable And we could also put restrictions on it if we approve the sign to say that they won't put any hang any banners or any other type of materials in the front lawn, so ultimately we'll have a clean, crisp look. It may be a little bit bigger than we're used to, but at least we're still protecting the quality of life in the neighborhood, because I think a big sign that's lit up that's controlled in the certain hours that it's controlled to be litting up is much better for the neighborhood than two posts that are stuck up there with an old sign that's hanging down the middle, and then it gets changed every three days, and it flaps in the wind, and it looks terrible. So I'm inclined this evening, Mr. President, to support the petition as filed. However, I know that my colleagues have concerns and I want to be a part of coming up with a solution that we can all have by putting our heads together. And I think that putting restrictions on the application would probably be a solution that could kind of satisfy everybody behind the rail.
[Michael Marks]: My recommendation as chairman of the committee would be because it's a freestanding sign, because it's internally illuminated, because it involves movement, I think it merits a subcommittee meeting. We can get one within the next week and a half, two weeks, very soon. We had one already that I know you were out of town and couldn't attend. So that would be my recommendation to this body that we meet in subcommittee just to iron out and put forward the best proposal.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, I too, I wouldn't, I just think, I concur with Councilor Knight putting some restrictions, but I think that has to be done in subcommittee. So again, I support the subcommittee, moving this to subcommittee and doing it relatively soon. which we can move pretty quickly, but I think we need that. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Okay. Mr. President, I withdraw my motion for approval and second the motion that this be sent to the subcommittee on signs, et cetera.
[Adam Knight]: I no longer have a second. Second. I no longer have a second.
[Michael Marks]: Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All in favor?
[Adam Knight]: Aye. Mr. President, please mark me in opposition. Are you still chairing? He is still chairing.
[Michael Marks]: Mark Councilor Knight in opposition. This will be sent to the subcommittee on signs, economic development and signs, within the next week or so. You'll get notice from the city clerk.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you for your patience.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we can, I don't know if we're still in suspension of the rules. We are still in suspension of the rules. If we can go to a paper in the committee to have friends from Wegmans if we can. Mr. Marks is the chairman of that committee?
[Fred Dello Russo]: I did.
[George Scarpelli]: I sat as chair in that subcommittee prior to our meeting. And if we can, point me in the right direction. I apologize. It was tabled. We took up the sign. The issue was for the liquor, wine, and beer sign that was tabled and moved to subcommittee. We voted in two in favor to move that paper forward in approval. So we now bring it to the floor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I second that.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion to accept the committee report. It's been accepted by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Is the paper on the committee?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Has the paper come off the floor? Has the paper come off the floor to approve it? We just adopted it. We just adopted it? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Dela Ruzzo to revert back to regular business. Aye. All in favor, aye. Okay. 17-595, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the administration provide the following to the council. One, a list of all C-Click fix complaints made regarding the operation of stone and skillet located at 186 Wytham Street. Two, a list of all complaints made to the code enforcement officer made regarding the operation of Stone and Skillet located at 186 Winthrop Street. Three, a list of all code violations issued to Stone and Skillet located at 186 Winthrop Street. Four, a list of complaints made to the Board of Health. regarding the operation of Stone and Skillet, located at 186 Winter Street. Number five, a list of all complaints made to the police department and traffic commission regarding the operation of Stone and Skillet, located at 186 Winter Street. Six, a list of all permits, licenses, or similar documents issued by the city of Medford to the entity known as Stone and Skillet, 186 Winter Street. Councilor Knight. approval mr president no table didn't allow him to speak when he gets back it's back okay if we could table that to council uh night gets back all those in favor motion passes 17 596 offered by council along occurring being resolved that the Medford city council is presented with a potential Expenditure bond requests with our bond requests. We are also presented with an itemized breakdown Of how the monies will be spent be a further resolve that we will be That we be provided with the information at least one week prior to the city council meeting rather than in the night before Being told it's an emergency. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Um, thank you President Caraviello this sparked off of our july meeting. Um, I believe We were here about 5-ish in the evening and our meeting went until about 12, 12.30 in the morning. And one of the last agenda items was an expenditure of $4.5 million. I just wanted to, you know, we did vote for it, but I woke up the next morning. I voiced my frustration with regards to a lack of a breakdown of that money, and then I woke up the next morning, and I, you know, was a little frustrated. My frustration continued. So I did email finance department, treasurer's department with all my additional questions, and I did eventually get the answers I wanted. And it was a project that obviously needs to be done, but I just wanted to make a point to put it on the agenda to let people know that I was frustrated. We were given, again, $4.5 million. We were given an explanation. Besides, you know, a couple of lines in our agenda, we were given a four or five page explanation of the project broken down by individual streets. the night of our meeting. So when we notice it, it all depends on when we read additional information that's on our desk. I was paying attention to the meeting and I didn't see it until it was actually before us. Scrambling to read it the night of a meeting at 11.30, 12 o'clock at night, it's difficult. Lights were beaming on us and we were tired and it's some information that I would expect to receive at least a week prior to a vote of such magnitude. So I wanted to get a vote by the council. And to continue with that, the explanation didn't have a breakdown of the money. It was broken down two different ways how we were going to get the money, but it wasn't broken down by street. Thankfully, I got it the next day, but I would just like to request that the administration provides us You know, we always talk about transparency. I just would like that we be provided information on expenditures a week prior to the meeting. That it be something, you know, we stuck strong tonight and we obviously hopefully will create some change going down the line on trench work and road work within our city. We stuck strong and had parking enforcement. a few months ago, and we made significant changes. I think we need to stick together as a body and say to our administration, we need information before it is presented on our council agenda. We should not be given information on a project, on an expenditure, on a bond request, the night of our meeting, at 7 o'clock at night. It should be weeks, if not days, before our meeting. And that expenditure should be broken down in detail. And that's something that wasn't done for us. And it's something we're, as a body, not mandating. And I think I'd like to take a vote tonight that we request and mandate that we be given an explanation and a expenditure breakdown seven days prior to our meeting and make a change, and all stick together and try to be able to—I mean, it's very frustrating when you know, oh, the next day somebody's going to be asking you questions about it, and you don't have it. You don't have the information of how much money is going to go to Parris Street, how much money is going to go to Evans Street. We didn't know that. We voted for it. It was very late. And that's the way it happened. But I think going forward, we owe it to the taxpayers of this community to get information prior to taking such serious votes. So I'd ask for a roll call vote on this. And hopefully we can stick together and make a stand.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Did you want to speak? Name and address of the record, please.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Rob Capucci, 71 Evans Street. This is a fraud. This kind of pertains to what Councilor Breanna Lungo-Koehn is talking about, but I had to leave that meeting that night. Now, with the breakdown of that money, can I ask, was Evans Street a part of that?
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll forward you the breakdown. It was a page or two. I don't believe it was.
[Robert Cappucci]: From what I heard, what happened was after being told the street was going to be fixed this year, it's not this year. That's true.
[Adam Knight]: That's right. Mr. President, I think you may be correct. Evan Street was not included in that expenditure request that came forward as being funded through another process. And from what I understand, Now, I'm pretty frustrated about the 7th Street thing, too. You know, we're looking at this 24, maybe 36 months now. It's been going on. You know, it's going out to bid. It's going to be out to bid in May. Well, the bid never got awarded in May. Then, you know, work's going to start, you know, May, June. Well, now it's August. Work still hasn't started. So I'm a little frustrated with the situation as well. But the answer to your question, no, it wasn't included in that. It's being funded through a different mechanism and a different paper.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Well, I have it in front of me. Just to go through the list, Grove Street and Linden Street, new water mains, $830,000. Parris Street and Pinkert Street, new water mains, $790,000. Hydraulic models citywide, $30,000. Water meters, $150,000. MTUs, $75,000. Project is $350,000. And then the $125,000 in enterprise budget. Private lead service replacement was $200,000. it goes into more detail, and then it says the contract is broken down as follows, year one, $1,298,445.09, water service and water main replacement as followed, and then Evans Street is listed under water main replacement. So there's no construction of the road within this, but Evans Street, they do plan on.
[Robert Cappucci]: This year?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: year one of the contract, so I think that would be 2017, beginning of 2018, if I can recall.
[Robert Cappucci]: So how are they going to do that work in the winter? Exactly. And how can you say that they're going to do water main repair without, I mean, to get to the water main, you have to dig up the street, so obviously.
[Adam Knight]: That's why they haven't resurfaced the street, because they want to dig it up to make a water main surface.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That was always the plan, we're just hoping it would be repaved by now.
[Adam Knight]: What happened was the contract got awarded to Mr. Capucci and then when the engineering department said that this is your construction schedule and your construction criteria, they said we can't meet those criteria, so you have to re-bid the construction. So they backed out of the deal after they were awarded the contract. But from what I understand, they weren't one of the preferred vendors that the city uses anyhow. So the product that they put out isn't necessarily one of the better ones, but based upon the public bid laws, that's who we were stuck with. Although it's been taking a long time, the delay may be a blessing, because from what I understand, the workmanship of that entity isn't necessarily the best of the best.
[Robert Cappucci]: I don't know about it being a blessing, Councilor Knight. The residents on my street, knowing that I come to a lot of the city council meetings, they have been asking me for months now,
[Adam Knight]: Mr. Capucci, I'm in full agreement with the residents in your street that know that I come to a lot of city council meetings too, call me and say the same thing.
[Robert Cappucci]: Right, I do not hold this council accountable for the street and road repair on Medford Street pertaining to this year. It's been decades since the street has been serviced. I speak tonight in favor of Councilor Lungo-Koehn's resolution to have the specificities on future appropriations outlined because The Administration put out you know a letter that in good faith these Councilors looked at and then notified the residents on my street who for years have been wanting heaven Street to be fixed and I think it was appropriate for you to do so, but then the along the chain of departments that it has to go through, the engineer's office, the purchaser's office, then out for bids, then back to the mayor to choose the bids. It was a serious ball dropped. I wish the residents on my street weren't told that it was going to be done in May. I hope that you stand resolved to hold whatever administration is in power to, you know, doing simple things like street and road repair, especially when it's gone for decades neglected In a city that, through different accounts, I mean, I sat through all the subcommittee meetings on the budget, and I see how expenditures not paid get thrown back into the general fund, to where it's now ballooned into tens of millions of dollars, and to tell any resident, the people that came up before, on brookings or curbs, or go up Adam Street on the hillside, go on any street up in the heights, for this city to be sitting on so much money, And simple things like road repairs aren't being done. It's a little disheartening, for lack of a better term. I hope that you all vote in the affirmative on Councilor Brianna Longo's current excellent resolution. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[David McKillop]: Dave McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. I think this just goes back to a testament of having a yearly comprehensive strategic plan in place for these processes. To actually sit down and actually have to vote on something at midnight on something that needs to be acted on relatively quick is absurd. It makes no sense for a city to work that way. When you want to sit down and come up with a comprehensive plan for the following year, that discussion should have already taken place in the month of August. It should already be ready for the following year as to what we are going to do as a city and what actions we are going to take and what monies we need to do that. That is a proactive plan. And I think that, you know, Council of Cohen's suggestion to at least have seven days is admirable But I think it really has to be something that the council should really come together on Team spirit wise and say hey from this point on we will not accept anything. That isn't a comprehensive plan that gives the city And the budget enough time to plan for this and move forward And feel comfortable that it can be done and can be done on a timely basis So the citizen citizens can feel good about the projects that are in front of them Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Loco-Curran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Through the Chair, just my last vote, my last point, I do ask for the support on this. Having been frustrated and emailed the administration the next day, I received a detailed breakdown by, I think it was 1.05 p.m. So there's no reason why we shouldn't be provided a breakdown of expenditures prior to our meeting. It's a lack of respect, and I think that needs to change.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Lockern.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I feel my council colleagues' frustration because this is something that's not new. This has been happening for years, that either this administration or the previous administration present expenditures to us with no supporting documentation and either the council may or may not support it. And in my opinion, I know what you're trying to get at through this resolution, but all it is is a request. Madam Mayor, will you please give us supporting documentation when you ask for expenditure? Now she could say, okay, I'll take that under advisement. The bigger issue that we have as a council is our council rules. We have a council rule that states any request of expenditure only needs one member of the city council to stand up and say, you know what? I want this tabled. You don't need a vote of the Council. It's one member of the City Council saying, I need this tabled, and it gets tabled automatically. And that's our check and balance. So when something's presented to us and you feel there's not enough information, you evoke the Council rule. that would request that it be laid on the table. And there's no vote on it. It's automatic. So I would state that, you know, we do have options out there. And a request to the mayor now is great. And if the mayor starts adhering to that, super. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. I think we as a council have to use the remedies that we have, and one of them is our own council rules. So I would highly recommend to my council colleagues that if there is expenditure and you feel that there's not an appropriate amount of time or information, that that rule be evoked and automatically gets laid at least for one week so we can get additional documentation. I will support the paper tonight in principle, but I really don't think it has any teeth. But I'll support it in principle.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Councilor Dello Russo. I agree with Councilor Marks on the matter. In fact, with the way the resolution is written, I don't even know who it's addressed for to. So, thank you, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor Layton. I think Councilor Marks is on the right track, Mr. President. I think our council rules can dictate whether or not this is something that we can handle ourselves without having to make a request to the mayor. Also, if we look in our council rules, it says every ordinance and every order for a bond issue shall before its passage be referred to the solicitor who shall forthwith examine its legality and respond back to the council in writing thereof.
[Curtis Tuden]: Rule 22.
[Adam Knight]: You know, there are a couple of remedies in there for us to take, and I think that we should just do them ourselves as opposed to kicking it across the hallway. We've voted on this in the past. I've supported this measure in the past, Mr. President. Some of the frustrations that my Councilors share. I don't see as much of a, I have a strong working relationship with the administration, past and present. I pick up the phone when I get my agenda and I talk about issues that I have questions on. But maybe some people don't have that type of access, I don't know. I do the best I can to get the information and be prepared for the meeting. But I think that our council rules could really dictate what direction that we can go in and how we can police this ourselves as opposed to relying on someone else to do it. But it's something I've supported in the past, I certainly have, but this evening I won't be.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Naito. On the motion by Councilor Langlois-Carrick, it's getting late. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Rob Capucci, 71 Evans Street. Just really brief. I completely understand what Councilor Marks is saying, but on the flip side, what Councilor Lungo-Koehn is saying is the presentation of these appropriations coming in as dire and needed and at the last minute to invoke that It's it's almost it's almost like sets up the council to look bad. It's it's I think it's quite frankly the
[Adam Knight]: item doesn't have to make the agenda if we don't have the information that we need. Just because the mayor sends a paper and says, put this on the agenda, it doesn't have to happen the next week. We control our own agenda. We control when the items and matters come up. So if we get a paper that says, put this on the agenda, we say, well, let's talk about the council, but when do we want to put this on the agenda? Maybe we have six papers that are coming up for bonds, and let's talk about bonding for a whole meeting and have a universal picture of what's going on in the city of Medford in terms of bonding instead of doing it Play and connect the dots.
[Robert Cappucci]: So, you know, there's different ways that we can handle the question, right? I understand that council of Councilor Knight, but when they do come up at the midnight hour I I don't think that this resolution lacks teeth. I think what council Lungo current is doing astutely is Sending a message not only to the mayor but a separate message to the the people that you guys represent that we are gonna do something about your taxpayer dollars.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. On the motion by Councilor Longo-Curran, seconded by Dello Russo, a roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Richard Caraviello]: No.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Naik? No. Councilor Longo-Curran? Yes. Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scott Peli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative, motion passes. Motion to revert back to 17-595. Councilor Knight. Stone and Skillet.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Stone and Skillet, Mr. President, is located on the corner of West and Winthrop. It is a bakery wholesaler that over the past several months has not been the greatest of neighbors, Mr. President. I've received a number of complaints from area residents concerning their hours of operation and the cleanliness of the facility. and some parking concerns that they have. Ultimately, this bakery wholesaler has operated in excess of our hours of operation. They're permitted to operate from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Between May 1st and June 22nd, I personally reported 16 violations of operation after hours. This coupled with the fact that there's a dedicated parking spot beside the building for 30 minute parking which has turned into stone and skillets personal loading zone for their renter car, renter truck, 18 wheeler that sits there for 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 hours a day without moving. The facility and the grounds around it are in deplorable condition, Mr. President. And I'm asking for these materials so that we can move forward and investigate whether or not there's anything that we can do to designate them as a public nuisance and move them out of the neighborhood. So, it's been brought to my attention in recent weeks since I filed this resolution that a gigantic for rent sign has been placed on the side of the building, which would lead me to believe that Stone and Skillet is on their way out of the community. The bakery wholesaler does not fall under the jurisdiction by state law of our local Board of Health. They're controlled by the state Board of Health. So we have very limited recourse concerning our concerns about the cleanliness of the facility and what's going on around it. With this good news coming forward that they are putting the place up for rent, I'd still ask the paper to move forward and for us to be prepared, because they said they were going to move last year, they said they were going to move the year before that, and they haven't, Mr. President. They've certainly outgrown this facility, and I think it's time that they find a new location. Whether that location is in the city of Medford or somewhere else is to be determined, Mr. President. But right now, I think that these residents have been subjected to enough quality of life issues down there that the benefits that Stone and Skill are bringing to the community are lacking. And the impact on the quality of life that they have is major. And for that reason, I bring this resolution forward and ask my council colleagues to support it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Nays, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion passes. 17-597, offered by Councilor Locario, be it resolved that the Medford City Council set up a Committee of the Whole meeting on the 19th or the 26th of September to discuss and review a potential new ordinance to help remedy Level 3 gas leaks within Medford. Councilor Longo, if you're current.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. A few months ago, well, not even, I don't think, probably June, I brought up a City of Boston ordinance that was regarding gas leaks, Level 3 gas leaks, and the City of Boston is taking measures to hold the utility companies accountable and to remedy those gas leaks. in-depth ordinance. I did forward it to the city clerk, who I then saw forwarded it to the rest of my colleagues. So this is almost just a reminder to maybe hopefully take a read and we can do something about it. This issue was brought to me by a citizen who probably is going to speak on it, Mr. Tudin. And I think it was led in Boston by a group of moms who are trying to prevent gas leaks because of all the damage they do to the gas bill, number one. But it's a safety issue. wildlife and the environment. It's not a good thing and we'd like to see what they're doing, read about it and hopefully craft our own ordinance to accommodate our needs and hopefully get the city engineer on board and give her a tool to make sure that when a street is dug up, gas leaks are looked into and fixed. So I would hope that we can review and come up with an ordinance sometime in September so we can move approval on this.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor De La Rosa. President, we have a paper from the mayor tonight that I think addresses part of this issue, Mr. President, that is being taken up by the state house to address it on a state level by creating an act relative to protecting consumers of gas and electricity from paying for leaks on unaccounted gas, which will of course force the gas company to deal with leaks because it gets them where it counts, in their pocketbooks, because that's what it's all about. Mr. President, I don't know if this has to go to Committee of the Whole. I would think that procedurally the best thing to do would be to send this to the Committee on Ordinances. to review the draft of the Bardston ordinance to ask the city solicitor to be in attendance at that meeting to add his expert legal advice and then report it out as is often outlined by the proper procedure by Councilor Knight.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Langlois-Carrion, would you prefer this go to the subcommittee and audiences?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think it's a good ordinance the way Boston has it written. I think it just requires a review, and the city solicitors sit with us as an entire body, which is going to end up in Committee of the Whole anyway. I don't think it has to be redrafted in much a way. I think Committee of the Whole meeting would be preferable to move it forward quicker rather than take months and months to get two meetings set up. I think we can do it in one meeting.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Luebker to have a Committee of the Whole meeting on the 19th and 26th of September, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passed. Mock Councilor Dello Russo in opposition. Also Mr. President. Sorry? I'd like to be mocked in opposition. And also Councilor Knight. I'll do my best. We'll see what's on the calendar for the 19th and 26th.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And I think somebody might want to speak on it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yeah, I've been disposed of.
[Curtis Tuden]: Hi, I'm Curtis Student, 340 High Street, Medford, Massachusetts. I just wanted to invite the council to a meeting on August 22nd, which is of the 350 Massachusetts Mystic Valley organization that has been dedicated to looking at this gas leak issue. We're going to have a meeting specifically about level 3 gas leaks in Medford, so if any Councilor or any resident of Medford doesn't want to wait until September to learn more about it, they're welcome to come to a meeting here at Medford High School, 7 o'clock, and you'll learn everything you need to know about the issue. So I just wanted to make sure people were aware of that meeting. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you for that information. 17-598, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Director of Purchasing provide the City of Bedford Council with an update on the implementation of the Wage Theft Ordinance, and be it further resolved that the Director of Purchasing provide the City, provide the Council with a list of all vendors awarded contracts for fiscal year 2017 and 2018. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Back a few months ago this council passed a wage theft ordinance, and a wage theft ordinance is designed to ensure that taxpayer dollars that are being paid to public contractors are then passed on to their employees pursuant to the public wage laws. What happens a lot of times in these instances is an individual that works for a private contractor that lays pipe, for example, with all these groups that we had this evening, that's working on a public works project laying pipe. is going to have to be compensated at the prevailing wage rates established by the Department of Industry. And a lot of times what happens is when a private contractor gets a public contract, they continue to pay their clients, their employees at a rate that's far less than the prevailing wage rate, and then they pocket the difference. And the laws are clear in what they call for. They call for individuals working on a public work project to be compensated at the prevailing wage rate. Taxpayer dollars are being funneled away from workers and being funneled into the pockets of profiteers. So we passed the wage theft ordinance, Mr. President. Part of the wage theft ordinance called for the city to examine whether or not any of the existing contracts have been included on the disbarment list at the Attorney General's office or found in violation of any wage and hour laws that are established at the state and federal levels. ordinance is now up and running and in effect, Mr. President, I'd just like to get a report back from the administration as to what steps they're taking to implement and whether or not any of the contractors that we've awarded contracts to have actually been found in violation of any of the state of federal wage laws or have been included on the state disbarment list so that they're exempt and precluded from bidding on future public works projects, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Name and address of the record, please.
[David McKillop]: David McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. My question to Councilor Knight is, does this also include in the initial part of it when they actually put the bid out, they usually put in a labor amount. That labor amount could be ballooned. In the respect of an hourly versus an hourly wage, so in I'm not sure if a contractor city contract is the same But in general contracts when contractors come out and they do work The labor amount is based off of what they're charging for a labor amount some some places could charge 45 some places could charge 75 Some places could charge $80 per hour. It's irrelevant to actually what they're paying the employees Does that also encompass that?
[Adam Knight]: The Wage Theft Act just ensures compliance with the existing wage and hour laws. And it requires the applicant for the public bid to make certain disclosures to the community so that if in fact they are found in violation, then they have to take certain steps to ensure that if a complaint is brought forward to them, that they have bonded funds that are available to cover the payroll if in fact they have funneled or diverted this money from the worker and into the corpus of the business. So it doesn't really necessarily speak to the actual total amount of the bid. What it does is say if you have seven people that are designated as a municipal street sweeper, you need to pay the municipal street sweeper rate of $37 an hour for the hours that they work on the contract. And you're gonna work the contract for this many hours, so that's the rate that you have to pay them. And the rate's established by state law, by the Department of Labor and Industry.
[David McKillop]: So that protects the actual employee. That protects the employee from having to wait. It does not protect the city from a ballooned rate.
[Adam Knight]: Well, the rates are established through the Department of Labor and Industries based upon the creation that you rent.
[David McKillop]: For the employees. For the workers. I'm talking about the actual bid itself. There's nothing in there that would actually help.
[Adam Knight]: Right, the public bid laws are relatively specific, and the city's ability to go and put restrictions in that would exceed the requirements that are established by state or federal law is not available to us.
[David McKillop]: OK, that's what I understand. So in other words, we couldn't come in and say, you cannot go any further than 15% above the actual rate that you're paying per employee. So basically that's where the companies would actually take the additional amounts and funds as opposed to that area.
[Adam Knight]: Or say you work a 40 hour work week, but you really worked a 60 hour work week and they paid you 40 hours at straight time and then the 20 hours under the table. Or say that you worked a 40 hour work week, a straight 40 hour work week and they only paid you at your previous rate from the job that you were working on a public work project and that rate is 50% less than what you should be making when you're working on the public work project. I think that that's some of the, it's really an effort and attempt to get some of these unsavory contractors that do business in municipalities out.
[David McKillop]: I guess the reason why I make that point is because if they're being Enforced which is great, and it's it's it's an absolute important point Then the the contractor themselves will find their way to make their money anyway And that's kind of where they're gonna find their way is the labor ballooning actually in the The thing that they like to say in the industry which would be called the change order.
[Adam Knight]: I believe they call it. I think that's a Code for more money Thank you
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Suspension of the rules. Suspension of the rules by Councilor Alango-Kern.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just to allow a citizen to speak.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Opposed, Mr. President?
[Richard Caraviello]: Second. Do noted. Name and address of the record, please.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: First of all, I want to say thank you to all of you, and I know it's been a long evening, so I will not try to take up too much of your time. But I did want to address the councils. On Friday, August 11th, the incumbents and the candidates for the Medford City Council were invited to present or be present to witness the city clerk and three members of the Registrars of Voters Department draw the names of the primary election ballot to be held on September 12th. While we were all together, all candidates had agreed and signed a letter addressed to the city council to the attention of President Caraviello to place our request on tonight's agenda. We are proposing with the city council's approval to waive the primary and request a homeroom petition. I'm here to state that yes, we all have the right to the democratic process, but in this particular situation, I believe the money spent for a primary can be utilized in a much more productive manner. There is one additional person on the ballot that requires the city to have a primary. What amplifies the democratic process more than for all candidates to have equal opportunity on the day of the election? A primary will cost anywhere between $35,000 and $45,000. And I, for one, do not want to add additional expenses onto our taxpayers. For those who believe the money has been allocated for the primary, then why not utilize in different areas, such as education, public safety, drug prevention programs, or simply towards the maintenance of our streets. I am here to be on record with full disclosure and transparency as a candidate of the Medford City Council and a resident of this city to respectfully request the Medford City Council vote on waiving the primary and submitting the request of our home rule petition. I do have the letter. I'm not sure if you are all aware. I do have a copy of the letter that was signed by all eight candidates, and I'll be more than happy to give it to all of you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I think they all have it.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: Do you all have a copy of this?
[Richard Caraviello]: It should have been in the packet this week.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: It should have been. OK. Here you go. This should be there.
[SPEAKER_23]: Mr. President, if I may?
[Adam Knight]: I guess the question that I have, Mr. President, is This letter that's been signed, do all eight candidates still stand in support of it?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I can answer that.
[Richard Caraviello]: I put the motion on with the agreement that all eight candidates support it. One candidate notified me on Saturday that they did not want to continue on it, and it prompted me to withdraw the motion.
[Adam Knight]: Would you be willing to disclose, Mr. President, which candidates? I will not. We know it wasn't Ms. Conyo.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: Yeah, I think people changed their mind. It wasn't Ms. Conyo, no. And for the record, if there were eight candidates, I guess I have a question. If there were all eight candidates that had signed that letter, then I think we all had the respect to know who had decided to withdraw because everyone has the right to make their own decision. That decision was not made by me, and I believe I have two other candidates here. that the decision was not made by them. And for the record, we do have a letter with our signatures on it that still are saying we would like to waive it. And again, if we're going to give everyone the respect that they decided to change their mind, then I ask this committee to give me the same respect of not changing my mind. And I also have the letter with the three of us who had decided, or we never changed our minds.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of order, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Point of order, Councilor Dello Russo. Mrs. Cuno, the matter has been disposed of.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: And again, I just want to be on record because it was assumed that I was part and the other two members of the candidates that were running were part of that decision. We were not the part of that decision. It had never been discussed with us. It had only been discussed to waive the primary. So as I know, with all due respect, I understand that you've made your decisions, but I also want it very clear and on record that I was not for a primary.
[Adam Knight]: It can make sense, it makes sense. It certainly makes sense to save money, but then we also have to think philosophically about the way government works. We have to think a little bit more about what dictates why a primary election is supposed to occur. I, for one, came forward and stood with several of my colleagues against a home rule petition to change our charter. I stood with my colleagues and I said, I think that this is something the voters should address. Right now we have a charter that dictates the way our election should work. If we're going to change that document, that that document should be done by the initiative petition process and should be done from the ground up based upon the will of the voters. So I'd have a very difficult time this evening supporting a paper that would waive the requirements of a primary election because the primary election is dictated and outlined. in the charter of our community, the document, the blueprint, the constitution of how we're supposed to run our government. So I'd have a very difficult time waiving the primary. I guess it's a moot point at this point because Councilor Caraviello has withdrawn the paper and there's no paper that's before the council this evening addressing that issue. However, I can certainly see the benefits of it and the financial aspect to it. However, the question comes as to what's more important, process or the funds. And I would have a very difficult time if this paper was still on the ground today to vote to win the primary election, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Capucci, 71 Evans Street. I was one of several candidates who reconsidered this letter that we signed on Friday during the day of the lottery, a letter that was just hastily written. It wasn't notarized. It wasn't written under perjury or penalty, going back on it. Considering the costs, I mean, I've been coming to these city council meetings for 10 years and I've been asking for costs to be redirected. And these are monies that are gonna be allocated and spent elsewhere, whether it's on the primary or not. The money essentially is already gone. Essentially, it's already gone. I wasn't the only candidate who reconsidered. I don't want it to be presented tonight that just one person, because we did... I was only notified by one person. Right. I don't know who else has bowed out. And here we are tonight, notifying you, Mr. President. After discussion from some of the candidates, it wasn't hidden from other people who signed. It was presented that way. But with all due respect, the prior speaker was texted on Saturday and informed. I don't know. Right. I'm just saying it in full disclosure because I don't want it to be portrayed or perceived that anything was covertly done. In considering not having a primary, I mean, the weight of denying citizens an election is something, you know, Something that weighed heavy on my mind. So I thought about it and I reconsidered speaking for myself. I am not obligated to to have to disclose reasons Why I reconsidered? Two people. I'm 47 years old. I'm an adult. I can make my own decisions. I reconsidered based on discussion with a sitting council member, as a matter of fact. And I won't mention any names. I'll just say that it made better sense, and it was better judgment, and it was better part of the democratic process to have an election and let the voters decide. Full disclosure, I'm just up here tonight letting you know that everything was above board. It was a simple thing. I greatly respect you for bringing that home rule petition.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I think I explained to everybody on Friday what signing that meant. Right.
[Robert Cappucci]: And I understand that, but things happen and people change their mind. Things happen. People change their mind all the time. Thank you. Your mind changed as well at times. I don't think we should deny an election to the citizens of Medford in a primary.
[Richard Caraviello]: And there will be no denying of anybody. Thank you, Mr. President. Name and address of the record, please.
[Ray Scarfo]: I just want to bring the timeline in to everybody that was notified back and forth. So I was the person that brought forward to all the other seven candidates about not having a primary. With the direction of the Council President Rick Caraviello, I contacted all of the seven candidates on the matter, on the cost to eliminate one candidate for a primary election. Because of that thought process, all candidates agreed to sign a statement on Friday, August 11th, to not have a primary. On Saturday, August 12th, President Caraviello called me and said he spoke to one of the new candidates who reconsidered his position wanting to have a primary. Because of that conversation, President Caraviello told me he was withdrawing the home rule petition to cancel the city council primary. I then proceeded to text all the new candidates about President Caraviello's to withdraw the motion of the Home Rule petition. On Monday morning, President Caraviello informed me at the coffee shop he was not going to withdraw the motion of the Home Rule petition. I then proceeded to inform again all seven candidates that Council President changed his mind and not to withdraw the Home Rule petition. It's getting confusing? I asked all candidates if they would be willing to sign a document saying they wish to have a primary and to respond to me as soon as possible. I myself, having given considerable thought and receiving feedback from other candidates, along with some citizens, feel that the citizens have the right to have an election and to follow the process. And as Councilor Knight said, as I remember two years ago, there was an issue on a charter review. And certain councilor, Councilor Knight, made a statement that the citizens that wanted a charter review should follow the process and not send it to the state legislatures. Again, who am I to stop that process on challenging a primary? There were men and women who have served and died to give us that right to a fair election. I had a cousin who died at the Battle of the Bulge, and an uncle who received the Bronze Star and Purple Heart in World War II. And me, who served seven years in the military. After listening to fellow veterans along with concerned citizens, I don't want to see that right given away and demean their memory. We also discussed the cost of our last primary two years ago for city council to eliminate one candidate. That process of election went forward. This year's cost, would it really be a savings? It would be just to move the money to the general fund or the free cash account spent elsewhere. It wasn't gonna be earmarked for anywhere. They could spend it anywhere they wanted to. Personally I would not like to see the primary canceled. I believe in the right to have a fair election That was given to us by the men and women that fought for us And I do have four names signed on a I know it's a move point, but we do have four names that did agree to change their mind. And if it need be, I can give it to the council.
[Richard Caraviello]: No, we don't need them. All right. The matter has been disposed of.
[Ray Scarfo]: I just wanted to make the record straight.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could Mr. President, because there's been a lot of discussion around this issue and I can tell you first hand that in my opinion when we talk about conflicts of interest, about having a vested interest in something and how we as a legislative body problem with elected officials canceling elections. I have a real problem with that. I think that's probably one of the most unethical things that an elected official can do, Mr. President, to be quite honest with you. And to also do it in the name of savings, to me, is just a smokescreen. Because, first of all, there is no savings. And secondly, Mr. President, when you look at the budget, and if you want to make a savings, the tax pays and the rate pays in this community have been paying for peg access, which they haven't had for four years. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where's the outcry of that saved the rate payers of Comcast and Verizon this money that the city's been stealing from them, Mr. President? If you want to look at savings, canceling an election is not the way you save in a $160 million budget. And in my opinion, Mr. President, We're everyone even non incumbents and incumbents have a vested interest in the process. We shouldn't be involved whether or not Election is canceled and our city charter dictates what should happen double the office plus one you have a primary Now we're trying to circumvent the process, no matter how you cut it up. We're trying to circumvent the process of allowing residents of this community to get out and vote. Now I realize a primary election from previous elections, probably 10 to 12% turnout. And I know that's probably around 4,000 voters. And that is a lower turnout. But how do you say to 4,000 voters, sorry, we don't believe that this primary is important enough. We don't believe your right to get out and vote is important enough. I don't understand that, Mr. President. I really can't fathom that. And, you know, year after year you hear, why are the city turnouts so low? You know why? Because of these things, these type of things, Mr. President, when we have low turnout and we want to gather interest in the community, and the quickest way to put a fizzle on that is to do away with elections. Think about it. We're trying to build up elections in this community. This council is asked to promote elections by putting banners out and A-frame signs and other social media to get elections out. And here we are saying, that's canceled the election. It just doesn't make any sense to me, Mr. President. It's not a savings. That's a red herring. This is all about, Mr. President, about affording the right to people in this community to get out and vote. And even if it's just one person that wants to get out, Mr. President, I'm going to support their right to get out and vote.
[Richard Caraviello]: There is no motion on the floor, Mr. Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: I know there's not, but there's been a lot of discussion around this, and I want to let people know where I stand on this, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: Ann Marie Cuno, 871 Felsway. I came here a little while ago and I stated what I stated. I am not saying that we shouldn't have an election and I am not saying that we do not. everyone has the right and deserves the right for an election. What I had said was, is that when we were together on Friday, that was the discussion that we had had. And I know that other people have come up here and said that they've spoken to other people and they've spoken to all of us, and that's fine. I, on the record, have not received a text message. I have my phone with me. I didn't receive a text message. The only reason I was coming up was just to make it very clear that the discussion that happened between Friday and I guess Sunday, when you were all at the coffee shop, is that I was not part of it, and I believe that there were two other members that really weren't part of it. But that is for them to say. I am not trying to eliminate the due process. I am not trying to take anyone's rights away. I'm just trying to be, you know, it's funny, people say we have to be transparent. I'm just saying I was not informed of it, so I did not want other people to make a decision for me. That was it.
[Richard Caraviello]: There was nothing to be informed of.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: Well, I don't know. Everybody else is saying that they've texted and phoned everybody.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm just going by what people said. Move the end of the question, please.
[SPEAKER_23]: Point of order, Mr. President. Point of order, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: There's nothing to be informed of because there was nothing official. So, again, that was an agreement amongst the eight candidates. So it had nothing to do with the city of Medford.
[Ann Marie Cugno]: You're absolutely right, but there are other people up here that said that I didn't receive things.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, point of parliamentary procedure? I'd like to make a call for the orders of the day, Mr. President. The paper that's, the discussion that's being held before us is attached to a paper that's been disposed of already by the council.
[Richard Caraviello]: The paper has been disposed of.
[Adam Knight]: We're going to continue this discussion. We can do it during the public presentation of the meeting, but we do have some agenda.
[SPEAKER_23]: Move the revert. Move the revert back to order. One more person.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Oh, sorry. I didn't speak at all. Someone else spoke twice.
[Adam Knight]: They were allowed to do that.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. Apparently the game is afoot, but I hope that this is the last thing that we're gonna have.
[Richard Caraviello]: The motion has been disposed of, so there is no other discussion on it.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: No, not on this side of the table. Let her finish, let her just. It'll be faster, yeah. But I just wanna say that when I was approached about not holding a primary and then about holding a primary, I insisted that all candidates be notified. I wasn't notified about a paper that was signed for people coming here tonight that didn't want to have a primary. So I just caution everyone that all the candidates, we should be working together, because theoretically, we all want what's best for the city. So I hope that there isn't any backroom deals. When I was approached by candidates, I did speak to them. Point of information.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information. So for the record, do you want to waive the primary?
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I didn't have strong feelings about it either way.
[Adam Knight]: Oh, because I'm looking at the letter and your name's on it, and I just wanted to figure if that was... Okay. That was all, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: So, I thought that everybody put forth solid arguments about it, and we're going to have a primary, so that's fine.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, that was an agreement amongst your eight candidates.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Exactly.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. President, a motion to revert back to the regular... Motion by Councilor Knight to revert back to regular business. All those in favor?
[Michael Marks]: Please be waiting, Mr. President. We got it this far.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Paul Castagnetti, 23 Cushing Street, Medford, Massachusetts.
[Unidentified]: My phone number is 781396-TIPS, T-I-P-S.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: If I may try to put this in proper perspective for if there's ever a viewing public of this meeting in the future. I believe the formula is, because it is confusing.
[Richard Caraviello]: This meeting is being taped live, is live. It's live. It's on television right now.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Okay, thank you. Excuse my appearance. I had a bad injury at the bike path that doesn't exist in the Mystic River. The formula for a primary, I believe, is seven positions for the city council, which you all hold, times two is 14, add one is 15. If there's 15 or more candidates running, and there are, I believe, triggers a primary according to the city ordinance or charter. Is that accurate? That is correct. Thank you, sir. I, when Mr. City Clerk Finn had the drawing for the post positions, I did sign as a council candidate for this election a so-called document, I believe all eight of us signed it, of the challenges, I should say. And that's the only document I ever signed to that nature. And the document was stating, I believe, to let's waive the primary and save the taxpayers $30,000, $45,000, I hear sometimes $70,000. I don't know what the actual figure is. So I said, sure, it makes sense to me, common sense. that why spend 30 to 45,000 to eliminate one out of the 15? And God forbid someone gets eliminated, if there is a primary, that person's not gonna feel very happy, I presume. It seems like a lot of big chunk of cash to eliminate one person. However, if you put it in perspective, as Councilor Marks was alluding to, 45,000, when this city spent, first of all, they collected from our pockets, the taxpayers, a billion dollars, over a billion dollars, not including the bonds they borrowed and extended our debt, the public debt. And from real perspective, I believe the 45,000, is 2 hundredths of 1% of this year's $167 million budget. Furthermore, bottom line, this might be the best $45,000 this city has ever spent in 55 years. It's going to open up some conversation, I would think. Thank you. You're welcome. I'm not finished. And maybe we can get some leadership that can improve our situation in the city and lower our real estate taxes, et cetera, et cetera, and improve the quality of life. So frankly, Charlotte, have the primary, don't have the primary, it might be a good thing to spend that $45,000 after all. Thank you. You're quite welcome, sir.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to revert back to regular business. Yes. 17-599, offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved that the Energy and Environment Office provide the City of Medford City Council with an update on test borrowings behind the Andrews School and Clippership Park. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Just wanted to reach out and hopefully get a written response from Energy and Environment, Ms. Hunt. I know she was working hard on this project, and it was unfortunate what was discovered on Clippership Park. We also, as a council, asked that there be test pourings done at the Andrews School. So I want to make sure, that's one of my two reasons. Obviously we want an update, but I want to make sure that those test pourings were done behind the Andrews School where hundreds of children play during school hours and play soccer on the weekends. And I just want to make sure that that soil is not contaminated. So I move approval on this and ask for a written response.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, I think this is a good resolution and I second the recommendation. Ultimately, we just this morning, I should say this morning, it feels like this morning, but a little earlier in the evening, we had a presentation by the Massachusetts Area Planning Council and our Office of Community Development concerning the master plan for Medford Square. And that plan focused a lot on the Clippership Connector. So I think it's very important moving forward since we have this draft plan for the Medford Square that they're looking at that we understand what's going on over there environmentally. on the Clippership Connector, because that seemed to be a major part of connectivity between the square and other parts of the city.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On to motion by Councilor Lungo-Kearns, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favour? Aye. Motion passes. 17-600, offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the DPW repair the pothole in front of 12 Golden Avenue. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Steve Tanaglia, Brian Cairns, and the members of the Medford DPW. I placed a phone call and put this matter on the resolution on the council agenda, but because we're meeting sporadically over the summer, the issue was taken care of in 24 hours. So with that being said, Mr. President, I withdraw the resolution, and I thank the DPW for their prompt and quick response.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to withdraw 17-600. 17-601 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn be it resolved that the final fiscal year 18 budget be posted online in detail and that any candidate for office be allowed to review and receive such a copy of such. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I learned about a week ago that there was a candidate for office who couldn't get the budget book for fiscal year 2018. which was passed and approved the end of June, and I was surprised. So I just want to make sure that any candidate, anybody, any person who lives in this city who wants to review the budget can do so online, or go to the city clerk's office and read a hard copy, and any candidate should be able to, or the mayor's office, wherever that may be, to be able to review the budget in detail. I think it's essential to, transparency, obviously, but it's just essential to know what is in that budget, where the money is spent. We just spoke about $160-plus million budget, and I really feel that every candidate and resident in the city should have access to it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. I'm under the impression that it is posted and that there are especially the devotees of the budget process, the citizen participants who are often there year after year to participate in the budget. receive one, just as we do.
[Richard Caraviello]: There is a hard copy available now, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, we got a hard copy this week. I don't know when it was made available. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I do believe, Mr. President, the public records law would dictate the provision of public documents to individuals in the community. That's the state law. I find it nonsensical for the council to think that they can move forward and put more stringent requirements on something that's already been established by a higher governmental jurisdiction.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may, through the chair, I believe the detailed budget that we were given in June with specific information, very detailed information, not all of that is online. I feel like that should be open to the public.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name and address of the record, please.
[David McKillop]: David McKillop, 94 Rockland Road. I do want to speak on this point because I was the one who was actually trying to get my hands on a budget. I did go in two consecutive weeks in a row to try and get my hands on a budget towards the end of July and was met with a little confusion as to why it wasn't available throughout the actual city hall itself. I know that the city clerk tried really hard to try and figure out how I could get my hands on one. The city assessor did put a little effort into it and was reverted back to the mayor's office to find a copy not available. I did ask if I could get it online. the young lady that actually tried to help me with I don't know anything about that. All I know is that the budget is out to print. Now, in my impression, you want to talk about transparency. If you have passed a budget and that budget is enacted the first week of July, every single citizen, not just candidates, every single citizen should be able to get it at any point immediately because if you're working with a budget and that budget is operating, That means it should be in our hands period. That is not transparency. That is not what this administration is showing in the regards of one of the most simplest documents for that reason. So I strongly suggest that this time next year when a budget is being presented and passed, it is ready to go July 1st because everyone should have it in their hands.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. And I mean, I too, I mean, I feel that the budget, I mean, what we do in passing the budget, reviewing the budget is one of our biggest responsibilities. And transparency is key when it comes to the budget. I mean, everyone should be have access to the budget. I've always felt that way. I think especially when you think about it, there's so much money, and everything that runs, runs through the budget. And, you know, we should be encouraging people to get involved with the budget process and actually taking a look at the budget. And, you know, one of the biggest, to me, a big initiative that we passed this year, and everyone's still behind, was the legislative software. It was a motion that I brought forward in the spring. And this council stood before it, and it's in the budget. And that is actually to make sure that the materials that we receive With legislative software, all those materials should be in that software package. So, everything we get, you'll be able to see in the general public. It's all public information, but it's going to be easily accessible with legislative software. We have that. That's passed. That's in the budget. It hasn't gone live yet, but to me, in my opinion, I mean, the draft budget, at least, should be part. It should be actually online for people to look at. So, if they come to the meeting, they can be, you know, they can look at it in advance and say, okay, this is how much we're spending here. They can ask good questions. They can be prepared at meetings. And it also, you know, it helps us prepare ourselves, too, when all this stuff is at our fingertips. So, you know, I do, I've always been a big fan of making sure that, you know, the budget, it's transparent, people can see it, and people can access it. So, I just wanted to go and just give my thoughts on this process. So, thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. 17602 offered by Councilor Longo-Curran. Be it resolved that a State Delegation be contacted to reach out to MassDOT in regards to the way they are handling the Gratic Bridge cleanup and the lack of handicap accessibility. Councilor Longo-Curran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. We haven't met in a few weeks, so last week I was I received a number of complaints with regards to the cleanup and the splash of almost cement on the business owner's facade and a number of issues with regards to potential handicap accessibility issues down in that area. And it's very concerning. I did reach out to the mayor's office. I know a number of us have been making calls and trying to get in touch with MassDOT. I know people have been calling Representative Donato, but as a council, I would like to take a vote that we ask that this cleanup be done in a better way. whatever businesses are down there, they should be able to operate with a clean, friendly environment where a wheelchair can pass through or a mother with a stroller to get into a restaurant. And from the pitches I've saw, I'm extremely concerned. I know that, unfortunately, really nobody from the administration has been down there often. Thankfully, our new Our new diversity director did go down this week. I'm not sure he found anything not in compliance, but there was a few days last week where I saw the ruler to the door, and it just It's very concerning, so I would ask that we, as a body, take a roll call vote to ask our state delegation to get involved.
[Richard Caraviello]: If I can interject, I have spoken with Representative Leader Donato, and he is in the process of arranging a meeting with the state delegation.
[Unidentified]: Great, great.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you want to send them an official letter, but he was notified, and he is in the process of doing that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If we could just vote to support his endeavors in trying to help that location.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn and seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I too got the same phone calls that the Councilor refers to. And I've had conversations with the project manager, Mike Winnick, as well as Dan Fields, the DOT contact and liaison. And it's been brought to my attention that probably the start of September, all the work's going to transfer to the other side of the bridge. All the public utilities are going to be able to be moved. That was the side of the bridge that had the most significant amount of public utilities underneath it. That was the side of the bridge that was going to be posing the most trouble and complications during their what seems like once in a while construction that they do. And come September 1st, it was my understanding that they would be moving to the other side of the street and all the work done in front of Carol's restaurant and the Zamperrelli building and so forth would be complete.
[Richard Caraviello]: So it looks like the sidewalks are pretty much all done, they're all poured today, over the last couple of days.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, but if I may, I think that maybe in terms of the direction we're going in, calling the state delegation and telling them to do something, why don't we have the state delegation tell us what they're doing and see if that's something we want to support. So maybe it might be nice for us to have a conversation with the representative and the representative share with us what efforts that they're taking to see if that satisfies us as opposed to standing in line.
[Richard Caraviello]: He is in the process of setting up a meeting with the delegation and he said he would have an answer to me probably in the next week or so. So maybe and we'll get a meeting.
[Adam Knight]: Why don't we just ask to be invited to the meeting that he's setting up.
[Richard Caraviello]: We will be at that meeting. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. The meeting was a meeting that this council voted on and requested, and it was my resolution to ask that the state delegation be present, and also that the primary conversation be surrounded by not really what's taking place over there, but mitigation.
[Richard Caraviello]: I informed the representative about that.
[Michael Marks]: Right. Mitigation and the impact it's had financially on these businesses. I realize the area is in disarray and some of those businesses have been going through this for two years now. But what is the state going to do regarding the business loss? When it's lost business, you can't bring it back. And in my opinion, Mr. President, the state needs to step forward, and we, as a city, need to step forward on behalf of our businesses that have been impacted by this. That's a state bridge. It's in the city of Medford, but it's a state bridge. We hear all too often, oh, we can't do this on a state road, or we can't do anything regarding tree trimming or sidewalk repair or street repair on state roads. Now we have a state bridge, Mr. President, and we have no say in what's going on. in a bridge in the heart of our city, which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. But that meeting that we have is to discuss mitigation. That is correct. That is what I told him. To discuss how we're going to make these businesses that have been impacted financially for the last two years whole again, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: You are 100 percent correct. And that is when I had an official meeting with him, I did tell him that your motion was for mitigation. And he understood that. On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, seconded by Councilor Marks. All those in favor?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Aye. Aye. Aye. 17-603.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion passes. 17-603, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Amanda and Patrick Collins on the birth of their first child, Ella McKenna Collins.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much, and a lot can happen in 18 months. As the corner office transitions to a new administration, we saw former Mayor McGlynn reach his 50th wedding anniversary, and we also have seen his daughter bring another grandchild into the world for him. So I'd like to take a moment to congratulate Amanda and Patrick on the birth of their first child. They've just purchased their first home as well. And I think it's a great momentous occasion to see a family that's five generations in Medford continuing to stay in the family and hopefully have a sixth. So with that being said, I just hope my council colleagues would join me in congratulating Amanda McGlynn Collins and Patrick Collins on the birth of their first child, Ella McKenna Collins.
[Richard Caraviello]: seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. 17-604 be it resolved that the Medford City Council send its extended Stephenson's Day congratulations to Patricia and David Downey on the momentous occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. If anybody remembers their time at the Brooks Harb School or at Medford High School, they'll remember Mrs. Downey standing in the front door saying, how can I help you, lovey? And she did that for a good 35 years. And her son, David, is my closest friend. I met him the first day of school in kindergarten at the Brooks School. And we keep in touch today, even though he's moved overseas across the country about 20 years ago. But with that being said, it's with great happiness and great pride that I stand here today and I congratulate my friends, Pat and David Downey, on the momentous occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary, especially on this night, because this is a very night that's, this night's very special to me. So with that being said, I'd ask my council colleagues to join me in wishing Mr. and Mrs. Downey a very happy 50th wedding anniversary and wishing them another 50 more.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Petitions, presentations, similar matters. 17-607, petition by Andrew P. Cassane, 23 Cushman Street, Medford, to address the Council on new growth and real estate taxes. Mr. Castagnetti.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor, President. Part of my appearance, I had a bad bicycle injury on Mystic River last Wednesday, right where the Clippership connected path is supposed to be. Unfortunately, it's not there. There's a couple of sinkholes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Not quite a path yet. It's boring.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yeah, I noticed. I've been through a thousand times. I get distracted, and it costs me dearly. Head injuries and broken bones. If I had some power in this, I would be the first on the agenda that I would take care of. It's public safety, not just that. Mystic Avenue, cars that should not be parked there when five lanes becomes two lanes.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm talking about new roads, Mystic Avenue.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yes, we are. In a nutshell, Andrew Castagnetti, 23 Cushion Street, 781396. TIPS, T-I-P-S. This new growth, we've had this for many, many years, probably every year since pre-my birth. However, I don't understand why we don't use this new growth, which basically is real estate tax that never existed before from a development. Why don't they use that new growth to offset Prop 2.5 increases? Directly, it should be directly applied to Prop 2.5 increases. I don't understand why. Two years ago, I did the math, my real estate tax bill went up $400. if they apply the $1.5 million of new growth, brand new real estate taxes against the 2.5%, which was $2.5 million, it would have went up $80 instead of $400. And this has been going on since before I was born. Basically, I believe this new growth, it should not be encouraged the way it is. I'm for smart growth, great economic growth. However, if you don't use that new real estate tax to offset two and a half increases, not only does it hurt us, it hurts us five fold. First of all, you need more fire, police, school teachers, buildings, vehicles. and infrastructure improvements. It doesn't make sense to me. I'm asking if you could formally ask the mayor for an answer, a formal answer, because I've tried on my own with the head of the city assessor's office, and I have not received a straight answer, although I was told he would mail me something that was three months ago. I understand I'm not tech savvy. Snail mail can take time, but it's been three months. Could you please, can one councilor make a formal request to ask the mayor why aren't we using new growth to offset Prop 2.5 increases? Sure.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Please.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. Who will make that?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: All of us. All right.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you very much.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Do we have approval?
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to receive and place of file.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We're going to ask the Mayor's.
[Richard Caraviello]: Ask the Mayor to make a motion. You want to make a?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Formal request of the Mayor.
[Richard Caraviello]: A motion by Councilor Langevin to request. Amended by Councilor Langevin that the mayor give an answer why the new growth money is not applied to the taxes. Is that correct, Mr. Guese? To the two and a half taxes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Langlois-Carrion. All those in favor?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Aye.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion passes. 17-609, communications from the mayor. Yeah, Mr. President, City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honorable Body consider the attached resolution in support of House Bill 2683 and Senate Bill 1845, unrepaired gas leaks not only emit dangerous gases into the air we breathe, but the cost of this gas, this lost gas, is passed on to the consumer. Please support this measure on behalf of The citizens of Medford.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And- Citizens. President, I think we discussed this in substance earlier. We did?
[Richard Caraviello]: It's a little different. It's a little different than what, this is actually, as the gas and electric company do, not charge us for
[Adam Knight]: the energy use. Mr. President. Councilor Knight. I'd like to amend the paper to be added as a co-sponsor. And if you could add, Mr. Clayton, if you could add.
[Richard Caraviello]: Does that make me be the one that has to read it?
[Adam Knight]: I'm sorry? Does that make me be the one that has to read it? Oh, it's a long one. Do you want me to read it?
[Richard Caraviello]: Do you want to waive the reading? I think we can waive the reading and give a re-synopsis. Waive the reading. Would you please add Councilor Knight as a co-sponsor? to the bill that the mayor has proposed. What are we all adding? A resolution. We all should be co-sponsors. Why don't you add the whole city council?
[Clerk]: Yeah, add the whole city council. Add the whole city council. We're all co-sponsors.
[Richard Caraviello]: The whole council supports it. She's asking for the whole council's support. So the whole council hopefully will support it. Councilor, Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: I think this is worthy, although I'll be quite frank with you, I haven't read both bills, but my only question I had was regarding if we're going to require them not to charge the the homeowner, which I think is a novel concept. And I assume that would require them to then, on their end, start fixing these leaks. Ultimately, who's going to end up paying for this? Um, and I'd like to hear from someone, uh, you know, stating, I don't know, maybe Mr. Tudin can answer that, but, uh, ultimately, I would assume they're going to pass that off to ... The consumer.
[Richard Caraviello]: The consumer. Correct.
[Michael Marks]: Um ... So we pay one way or another. Right. So secondly, Mr. President, and it's good, uh, you know, we have, uh, level three leagues, which, uh, they don't even look at level three leagues. They only look at level one and two leagues, uh, in our community. I would also ask, Mr. President, an issue that I've been talking about for years. The mayor supports looking at unaccounted for gas and making a savings to the gas payers so they're not paying for that. And I would ask the mayor respectfully, why doesn't she look at unaccounted for water which every single ratepayer in this community has been paying through the nose for years. It's roughly 20 percent. It's millions of dollars, Mr. President, of unaccounted-for water that we're all paying for. So I realize the mayor is hip on this and wants to see the people have a savings. I would hope she'd also like to see The people have a savings on unaccounted-for water, which has been a real major concern for many, many years in this community. The cost and the rate pay is millions of dollars, Mr. President. So I'd like for that to accompany this paper in asking her what her thoughts are on unaccounted-for water, because there's ways, as a community, we have over $7 million in the Water and Sewer Enterprise account that we can address unaccounted-for water. So there are ways, Mr. President, that we can look out for the ratepayer in this community regarding water.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. As amended. On the motion that we as amended by Councilor Marks. Motion to sever. Motion by Councilor Knight to sever the paper. We'll vote on the first paper. All those in favor of the Mayor's resolution on the first one.
[Fred Dello Russo]: As co-sponsored by the City Council.
[Richard Caraviello]: As co-sponsored by Councilor Knight. All those in favor?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Roll call vote.
[Richard Caraviello]: Roll call vote has been requested.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Clerk]: Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lockhart?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Vice President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. On the second paper by Councilor Marks, That the mayor look into- The administration look into- The administration look into- The unaccounted for water.
[Michael Marks]: Unaccounted for water. So we can save the water rate payers money as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: And we can save the rate payers money also.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Have we not sent a similar resolution to the mayor's office in the past six months?
[Richard Caraviello]: I cannot recall. Send it again. Mr. Councilor. Send it again. We may have, we may not have, but we can send it again. Thank you. Roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dela Ruccio? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Nays? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Unfinished business. Motion to take a paper off the table, Mr. President. Motion by Councilor De La Russa to take the paper off the table. $17,581, Your Honor, for $2,075,000 in water system improvements. This is the third reading this evening. Bless you. Mr. Clerk, would you please call the roll on the third reading of this? Is the paper before us? It is. The paper is before us.
[Clerk]: Motion for the third reading.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion for the third reading by Councilor Dello Russo. Second. Seconded by Councilor Knight.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Richard Caraviello]: Affirmative.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Kerr. Yes. Vice-President Martins. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Vice-President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Paper takes its third reading. Under suspension. 17612, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council extend its deep and sincere condolences to the family of Annette and Michelle on her recent passing.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. It's with deep sadness that I put this resolution forward. Annette was awake last evening and was given her burial today. She's a good friend. Her son John and I grew up together. Her son Tommy and I grew up together. And very sad to see her go. She struggled for a very long time with multiple sclerosis and was also bravely battling cancer towards the end. And the illness got the better of her body, but didn't get the betterment of her heart and soul, Mr. President, through the whole time that she was ill. She was a constant fighter, and it's just a tragic, tragic situation to see it happen. I want to just offer my deep, insincere condolences to the family. You know for those of us that remember Annette, we'd always see her down in Mario's Classic Barrel working down there for Mario or over at the liquor store, clerking at the liquor store on Mr. Gabb. So, you know, she's a face that's been in the community for a long time. She raised two great kids here in the city of Medford and she's going to be sadly missed, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: She was also an election official. Yes, she was.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I second that.
[Richard Caraviello]: And we get please stand for a moment of silence. Does it just affect it also? Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: On Annette, Annette was a staple in the Wellington area with her and her sons. As was mentioned, she was always a friendly face at WAD 7 Precinct 2, and she was a terrific mother, a friend, and she will be sorely missed.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Mr. President, we're on suspension. Paper 17575 off the table, please. 1775.
[Richard Caraviello]: 17, what was that?
[Adam Knight]: Community Preservation Act Homework Petition. Councilor Knight, motion to receive and place on file.
[Michael Marks]: No, but the petitioner's not here.
[Adam Knight]: The petitioner is not here, Councilor Knight. I say that the paper's out of order, Mr. President. It's not really a petition because it's not a use of the petition process. It's really something that should be referred to public anticipation. You are correct. Thank you. Move to questions.
[Unidentified]: Let it open.
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, what is the question? Would you want to move? Receive and place a file. Receive and place a file. On the motion by Councilor Naita, receive.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: If I could, Mr. President. The petitioner was here at our last meeting in July. The hour grew late. That's correct. He asked that it respectfully be laid on the table. The petitioner had a death in his family, Mr. President, and he would respectfully ask that it continue to be laid on the table, Mr. President, so he can come up and speak on it.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Like I said, Mr. President, it's more of a procedural issue than anything else. I feel as though it's something that should be done in the public participation process of the meeting. That's not something that can be filed at the beginning of the next meeting and be put on the next meeting. It doesn't have to be something that sits on the table for the entire period.
[Richard Caraviello]: Again, like I said, it did go to the last meeting at a very late hour, and they did ask that we move it over to the next meeting.
[Adam Knight]: I just have a little bit of a concern, Mr. President, about the way that the petition process is being used and not necessarily maybe in the right way or in the right frame. I think the petition process is starting to become overly politicized and a lot of these items that are being brought up through petitions should really be done during the public participation process.
[Richard Caraviello]: Where it is already on the agenda, I feel that we should just keep it there. I withdraw my motion, Mr. President. We currently don't have the support. Okay, we have one last one offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Adam Knight on celebrating the eighth wedding anniversary. Counsel Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Well, thank you, Mr. President. I know Adam prides himself on wishing everybody every luck in the world, so I know that the person that deserves it more than anyone is his wife, and so we just congratulate them in making eight years. I said nine, but he corrected me. The rumor has it you might be nine now. You better ask your wife. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Congratulations. 20 years all together. Thank you. I'll pat my own wife on the back. Next week will be 41 years for me. Wow. Wow. Imagine how lucky my wife is. Does she know? Congratulations to my wife. Does she know the records?
[SPEAKER_23]: The records. Mr. President, I moved to table the records of last week.
[Richard Caraviello]: The records were passed at Councilor Knight will be tabled to the next meeting. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Knight. Seconded by Councilor Scarapelli. All in favor, aye. Motion passes.
|
total time: 28.56 minutes total words: 2848  |
total time: 15.87 minutes total words: 1203  |
total time: 30.77 minutes total words: 2688  |
total time: 17.62 minutes total words: 1530  |
|
total time: 9.17 minutes total words: 625  |
total time: 5.9 minutes total words: 642  |
total time: 8.56 minutes total words: 634  |
total time: 7.22 minutes total words: 562  |
|
total time: 5.04 minutes total words: 470  |
|||