[Richard Caraviello]: Medford City Council, 14th regular meeting, Medford Mass, April 11th, 2017. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo. Present. Councilor Falco. Present. Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor Ronald Kern. Present. Vice President Marks. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present.
[Richard Caraviello]: President Caraviello. Present. Please rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 17326, location of poles, attachment of fixtures, and underground conduits. City clerk's office, you are hereby notified by order of the public hearing The Medford City College public hearing will be given at Howard F. Alder Memorial Auditorium, 85 George P. Hatcher Drive, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 7 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, April 11th, on a petition of National Grid of Northland of a permission to locate poles, fixtures, including the necessary and sustaining, protecting fixtures along and across the following public way. Riverside Avenue National Grid to install approximately 15 feet of two three-inch conduit from existing pole 3162 to propose MWRA control cabinet for new electrical service. Wherefore, it prays that under the due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be granted a location for permission to erect and maintain poles and wires together with sustaining in protecting fixtures as it may find necessary. Said poles to be erected substantially in accordance with the plan filed herewith, marked Riverside Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts. Plan number 23114357, approved, city engineer. No city-owned private utilities or other structures are adversely impacted. National Grid will restore damaged pavement and loom and seed the landscaped island. Any vegetation disturbed will be replaced in kind. Overall, the contractor shall utilize the City of Method standards for restoration as well as remove all debris related to his work. Approved by the Superintendent of Wires. We open this public hearing. Name and address for the record.
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: John Jankowski, 170 Medford Street in Malden, Mass. I'm representing National Grid. And you are in favor of this? I am.
[Richard Caraviello]: Do we have anyone else in favor of this? Hearing none and seeing none, that part of the hearing is closed. Do we have anyone in opposition to this? Hearing none and seeing none, that part of the meeting is closed. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President.
[George Scarpelli]: I'm reviewing the records, and I see that all of our departments and paperwork are in order to move forward. The questions I have is that there are no double poles involved with this? No, not at all. And all the sites are safe and in regulations for the handicapped accessibility?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Actually, for the NWRA, they requested a service. MWRA or their contractors will do the digging, they'll put the conduit, they'll pull in the secondary conductor and stuff. So we'll just have you on the poll. Okay.
[George Scarpelli]: Uh, just for, I, I see everything in order just off the record though on Fulton street, if there are the questions I had, there's a pole on Fulton street right at the corner of Salem and Fulton and they have, uh, it's obviously, uh, uh, one of your poles and it has, um, a cable line that's anchored to the sidewalk. And it's been pulled off of the sidewalk. And that cable is now almost into the street. And there was a cone over the existing hole. But that's been dangling there for weeks. I know that we put something in. If you can look into that, is that the type of, are we going to have that type of construction when we lay these poles in? Are these going fixed in and then being? No, that's obviously, yeah. So that's Salem and Fulton? Salem and Fulton, actually right in front of the, the oil, oil, uh, I think it's Jiffy loop right at the corner. But if you can look at that, miss Jay Kosky, I really appreciate it. And I find everything else in order. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion for approval by councilor Scott seconded by councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor. Oh, excuse me. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: One quick question. Uh, when will, uh, do we know when the work's taking place?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: I would assume, um, I'm not positive. I would assume once this passes, I would think the customer would get started on a week or two, I would assume.
[John Falco]: And do we know how long it's going to take?
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Oh, it should be 15 feet, so I would think it would be a day. It's all going to be done on the grass strip. It's not going to interfere the road itself, which is going to be the grass strip.
[John Falco]: And if I may, really quick, Councilor Scott, probably brought up a good point about a pole. I got a call the other day about a pole at the corner of Fulton Street and Fulton Spring. It was a double pole, and now it's one and a half poles. They literally cut it in half. It's like a stump.
[XA7wYJ4TI4w_SPEAKER_13]: Oh, OK. There's nothing on it.
[John Falco]: There's nothing on it. It's about four feet off the ground. It's kind of odd. You have one single pole, and there's a pole next to it that was a double pole at one point. And now it's just about four feet off the ground. To me, it's a bit of a safety hazard if you have a smaller child that's walking by or running in trips. And I think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I will take a look at it. Thank you very much. It's a corner of Fulton Street and Fulton Spring. Thank you. Councilor Knife.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, the gentleman at the podium answered my question. By looking at the diagram, I had a question as to whether or not any street excavation was going to take place and whether or not there was going to be a need for a traffic management plan. He's informed us that it's all going to take place on the grass strip, that it's 15 feet of conduit, that it's going to take one day to do. So I have no problem. I would second Councilor Scapelli's motion for approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor. On the motion by Councilor Scapelli, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Yes. Councilor Falco?
[gGuuN9ZzYSw_SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Locker?
[gGuuN9ZzYSw_SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Monk? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I move suspension of the rules to take papers, communication for the mayor, 17350, 17351, and 17352, while we have the pertinent department heads present.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. On the motion of Councilor Dello Russo to suspend the rules, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 17350, to the Honorable President and members of Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, Mass., RE, acceptance of Mass. General Laws, Chapter 60, Section 15B. Dear Mr. President, City Councilors, I respectfully move that your Honorable Body approve the following City of Medford, Massachusetts, acceptance of Mass. General Laws, Chapter 60, Section 15B, establishing revolving fund for tax title collection, be it resolved that the Medford City Council accept the provisions of Mass General Laws, Chapter 60, Section 15B, to allow the city to establish by a vote a tax title collection revolving fund for the treasurer collector. Funds collected pursuant to Chapter 60, Section 15B, shall include any fees, charges, and costs collected upon the redemption of tax titles and sales of real property acquired through foreclosures of tax titles, fees, charges, and costs incurred by the treasurer-collector may be satisfied through such revolving fund. However, expenditures shall not be made from this revolving fund in excess of the balance of the fund. All interest earned on the tax-dollar collection revolving fund balance shall be treated as general fund revenues. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. And Anne-Marie Irwin, City Treasurer, will be in attendance for our questions. Name and address for the record, please.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Anne-Marie Irwin, Treasurer, City of Medford.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. If you'd like to explain this, we'd be happy to.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I'd be happy to. Mr. President, through you to the members, this is a very straightforward request. It is to establish a revolving fund that will allow fees and costs associated with delinquent tax cases to be put into this fund and then would be able to pay the costs associated with those cases. It wouldn't be subject to appropriation. It would be pretty much a pass-through account where when we get a bill for our legal fees or our fees from the registry, they would already have been paid by the delinquent taxpayer. We take it out of that account and pay the fees. The Department of Revenue has made a general recommendation that all cities and towns accept this statute. It's a cleaner, more transparent way to see how funds are being expended to recoup tax title funds.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, President Caraviello. If you could explain, I guess, the process we use now and also it sounds like our expenses are going to be taken out of this account. What about properties that are seized or sold? Those money's going to come in and then we're going to expend from the same account?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: So what happens now is when we pursue a tax title case, taxes, interest, fees, everything, the money has been put forward by the city to pursue those cases. And when the delinquent taxpayer seeks a redemption, they only get a redemption once all those costs have been paid. The taxes under this revolving fund, the taxes and the interest would go into the general fund, and the costs would then come back to the treasurer, who could then use them to pursue other cases. Right now, I have a line item of $3,500 to use toward tax title cases, and just this year, we've already filed 30 cases And that's $75 per filing fee, so we're up at about $2,500 already. So it doesn't leave a lot of money to pursue some of the larger cases that require filings in land court, et cetera. So with this, when those fees come in, we can build that up and use it going forward.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So this will allow you to—money that is brought in from delinquent properties or money owed can then be—we can use more of it towards collecting from other properties versus, right now you're limited to the $3,500 and you'd have to ask the mayor's office to appropriate more.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: So this is a way for us to- And this is really being paid back by the delinquent taxpayers. So it's the city getting their money back from the delinquent taxpayer and then using those funds to continue to pursue other delinquent taxpayers.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Now, what if we recouped so much money and this account became obviously extremely high, would we be able to transfer out of it?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, I'm not certain if you can transfer out of it, but you can close it, which I would assume then would then go to the general fund. I don't foresee it really gaining and growing that much because the fees aren't that great. But if legal fees are being paid by a taxpayer, then we're going to have to pay the legal bill. So it goes in and goes out pretty regularly.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And what's the purpose of the DOR recommending this?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I think they think it's cleaner and it's more transparent for cities and towns to show how much money is spent and how much money is recouped through the process. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor de la Ruche. Mr. President, as one who's always been an advocate and supporter of efficiency in government, and in the pursuit of transparency. I support this resolution in motion for approval. Thank you, Councilor Del Rosario.
[Michael Marks]: Second. Vice President Marks. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Anne, for coming tonight. Do you know what was expended the last three years to collect for these taxed delinquent properties?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: It's been $3,500 on the line item, It's gone into deficit, I'm sure, at some point.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So we don't have an accounting over the last three years how much has been expended to collect each and every year? I realize your budget line item. Right. Over and above the budget line item.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I can tell you how much has been spent in this year, which is $112,000. Right.
[Michael Marks]: So what I'm trying to do is get a picture of what we've done in the past. Have we hired outside? Because I assume that Part of this money will go to outside attorneys, is that not correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Yes, and we have hired outside counsel.
[Michael Marks]: Right. What we've expended in the past, what are percent that we've gained from expending this money? So just say in a given year we expend $100,000 and we get back $300,000 in tax title. Do we have an estimate on every year?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, I can give you a breakdown right now. I checked it today. We've, um, I want to see a few years, not just, well, I would have to look back. I've only been here for a little over a year, so I would look back. But right now, um, under mayor Burke's tenure, we've brought in $2.25 million and spent, um, about $110,000 to do that.
[Michael Marks]: That's great. So I'd like to see a picture, Mr. President, if we could, on maybe the last five years, what has been, in addition to the line item that was mentioned, what has been expended by the Treasurer-Collector's Office and how much money has been taken in for that period of time so we can get a handle on whether or not we're expending too much money or whether or not we're getting our bank for our buck by hiring these attorneys, and what the practice has been in the past. Has it always been outside attorneys? So maybe if we get a breakdown of what the expenses were, too, over the past five years, compared to collections. I, as one member, think that would be helpful to make a decision.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, is seconded by Councilor Falco. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just to make sure I completely understand it, I thought any monies recouped would go into this account. So if we had this account open now and we would have $2.2 to $5 million minus the $110,000? Oh, no.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Only the cost and fees that we recoup would be in the revolving fund. And then that would give us sort of the seed money to continue prosecuting, not prosecuting, but getting those cases to come to fruition. And the taxes and the interest that we get goes to the general fund.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So the $2.25 million would go to the general fund?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: That has already gone to the general fund. Right, OK. And that includes, included in that are all of the legal fees, because the delinquent taxpayer pays the legal fee.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: OK. So if this happened next year, $2.25 minus the $1.12 of costs and fees, $1.12 would go into this new account, and then the rest would go into the general fund.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Right. Provided that those, you know, it's a ballpark. So it's def, it's always difficult for the treasurer to know how much needs to be expended to, to get these monies back. Sometimes it's one letter and sometimes it's, it's a case in land court. So it's difficult to know how much, um, needs to be expended. And we did spend a lot of time in the beginning looking through the cases and then, um, grouping them into group A, B, and C. And group A, we're just finishing those cases up now. And those were the ones that were, if you will, the easier ones, that there were no issues with title or issues with taxpayers no longer living in the city or owning the property. Most of those cases are coming to fruition now. We have a bunch still in land court. And then we're going to move on to batch B, which are going to be more difficult because they have issues.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then the $75 filing fee, that's not lien court. What is that, a filing fee for you mentioned?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: So when the city takes the property, once we send notice and the taxpayer ignores the notice, then we record the lien. Yes. Then we just advertise to, and then we record it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Gotcha. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mux. Thank you. So, and I'm not sure if you're prepared to answer it tonight, but based on the $2 million figure you just gave, is that something that your office has been working on in the past year and a half? Or is that something that may have been initiated three or four years ago that finally went through land court and settled?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: No, that was, um, that's money that has been come into the city starting January 4th, 2016 to today. And that has all been a result of the work that our office has done.
[Michael Marks]: So that was work that was tracked down recently within the past year and a half, letters sent and so forth.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: When I arrived, there was over four, I'm going to say $4.2 million out on the street in tax money.
[Michael Marks]: Currently right now?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: No, when I arrived. When you arrived. What do we have in delinquent taxes right now? We're below 2 million right now.
[Michael Marks]: For the entire city, we're below 2 million? Mm-hmm. Wow. I thought it would be much higher than that.
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, it grows. I mean, we're going to hit the next quarter, May 1st, and then we're going to get people who are delinquent then, and we're going to add new cases to the roll.
[Michael Marks]: And this amount reflects also anyone that is delinquent in their water and sewer, correct?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Water and sewer goes on to your, when you don't pay your water and sewer bill, that goes on to your real estate bill. It's leaned on your real estate bill.
[Michael Marks]: And then if you don't pay real estate, do we know what percentage out of that 2 million was water and sewer?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I don't know. I'd have to, I would have to look at that.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And my last question back some years ago, well before your time here as treasurer collector, uh, there was a proposal offered, uh, by the previous administration, uh, to look at a tax amnesty. Uh, where do you stand on tax amnesty?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: I'm opposed to a tax amnesty because I believe I see a lot of people who come in and pay their taxes in a timely manner and they're making sacrifices and they're not doing all the things that they may want to do, maybe not taking a trip or buying the new car, but they're making sure that their taxes are paid. And I think that those people are doing the right thing by the city. And I think when people choose not to, and I understand there are people who can't, and we work with those people, but when people choose not to pay their tax bills or their water and sewer bills, we still have bills as a city that have to get paid every month. And so to allow people to forego any interest or penalties and come in and pay the tax just doesn't seem fair to me.
[Michael Marks]: So just educate me. If someone is delinquent for years, and just say there are a number of people that are delinquent for years. Do we assess the taxes based on those that are delinquent? Like you're saying, geez, we have people that are repeat offenders. They haven't paid their taxes or their water bill in 10 years. Do we take that into consideration when we set our tax numbers and our budget numbers?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Right, because those are accounts receivable that we haven't brought in, that we can't get to come in.
[Michael Marks]: No, but are we charging other taxpayers more money based on the fact that those delinquents aren't paying?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: If the delinquency goes on the recap, and then those are receivables that we can't get, then yes. But I would have to, Alicia would be able to answer that better than me, where the receivables would appear.
[Michael Marks]: If she could, I'd like to get an answer on that. Name and address of the record, please.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Alicia Dunlea, Finance Director, City of Medford. No, they're not directly increased based on those losses, on those people that are not collecting. That's why she's trying to actively do tax title. And we could actually do foreclosures if we felt like going that far.
[Michael Marks]: So we absorb, meaning the city absorbs those delinquents?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, they're kept as accounts receivable outstanding. So we're going to keep trying to get them in tax title. And we do have the ability, if we can't recoup that money to try to take it through foreclosure.
[Michael Marks]: Right. So, so at what point do we reach out? Is it when the, uh, amount of property that's owed or the amount of money that's owed surpasses what the assessed value is? At what time do we go out and start pursuing those legal avenues?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Um, that would be a discussion I would have with the mayor and with the treasurer. I can't give an exact answer on that right now. So are they ongoing those discussions?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: Well, if I may, we, we are always, I have a running list of tax title accounts and I'm always reviewing it and, uh, seeing how we can get to these people and get these monies in. Um, it's not something we review once every six months. It's a, it's a continuing effort on the part of my office to bring that money back to the city.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. And my last question is, uh, based on, What we've brought in, you said, over $2 million. How many properties does that actually account for? Are we talking one large commercial property? Are we talking 300 small properties?
[gwIgYT_iFzI_SPEAKER_19]: They're probably, I want to say, I had a report the other day. I'm going to say 50 plus properties brought in. I'm going to say probably that's about 60 properties because we had some that were in litigation and some that resolved short of litigation.
[Michael Marks]: about 60 properties. So I would just ask, Mr. President, that we receive the questions that were asked tonight regarding the three or five years, which, you know, either one would be fine with me, of number of the amount of money that was requested, not just within the budget, but requested by the treasurer-collector to collect on these tax delinquents over the past three years. And what percent have we brought in based on those particular years? So if we could see a run and tally for the past three years.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo and seconded by Councilor Falco as amended by Vice President Motz. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lockhart? Yes. Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caprio?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 17-352. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Metro-Mass. Oh, I'm sorry. 17351 to the Honorable President, members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, and Medford Mass. Dear Mr. President and City Councils, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve combining the Water Enterprise Fund and Sewer Enterprise Fund into one enterprise fund per Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 53, F1 and 2. To that end, I hereby, I recommend your approval of the following resolution. Be it resolved that the City of Medford accepts the provisions of Chapter 44, Section 53 F1 and 2 of the Massachusetts General Laws and combines the Water Enterprise Fund and the Sewer Enterprise Fund into one enterprise fund, effective fiscal year 2018, attached is the combined Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds Memorandum that was provided to the Water and Sewer Commission, highlighting the benefits of consolidating the two enterprise funds into one enterprise fund. Also, a letter from the Water and Sewer Commission is provided, which demonstrates their support. Finance Director Aleesha Nunley is present to answer any questions from the council regarding this matter. Good evening. Name and address of the record again.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Aleesha Nunley, Finance Director, City of Medford. Good evening, Honorable President and Councilors.
[Richard Caraviello]: Would you explain the proposal?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Absolutely, yes. So what we would like to do is combine the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund into one enterprise fund for reporting since everything is under MWRA here. It just makes more sense for reporting to have it all in one fund. Yes, for financial reporting.
[Richard Caraviello]: Any questions?
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knightth. It's my understanding that this matter has made its way through the Water and Sewer Commission, and that's a recommendation that they've made?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Knowing that there's always been a distinction between the water and the sewer accounts through this enterprise account, and also the budgeting is based on or some of the budgeting is based on what is in with these particular accounts. I was just wondering, what else, maybe if Alicia can specify, why else, other than this makes it easier for accounting, why else would we change over, knowing that, to me, like the budget, having separate budget line items is more accountable than having just one total budget line item when it talks about appropriations and to making sure that money is spent, the taxpayer money is spent appropriately. So what other reasons can you give us for this change?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, it's easier also for tracking for expenses. So instead of trying to split it up between how much somebody is working on sewer versus how much somebody is working on water, for recording fixed assets, it's easier for me than to see what I want to attribute to water, what I want to attribute to sewer. We could also break it up within the one fund. It could still have those separate lines showing a water revenue, a sewer revenue. It would just be in one fund. So it wouldn't be necessarily it's one line item. It would still show those differences, but in one fund. Does that make sense?
[Michael Marks]: But if you're still taking the time to account for them within one fund, what's the big cost?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: It gives more flexibility as well. So, for instance, when I had to come to you guys in December and I had to get that appropriation to cover The $563,000, I believe, about, I was short in the sewer fund. If they were in one fund, if I have a surplus in one and a deficit in the other, I can put them together. I don't have to go forward and it can clean itself up. And it's all going to MWRA anyway.
[Michael Marks]: Right. What do we have currently within the combined accounts?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Now, when you're saying you're asking me as far as revenues, you're asking me as far as expenses.
[Michael Marks]: No, what do we have in the water and sewer enterprise accounts?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: That's what I'm saying. Are you asking me as far as money and revenue collections?
[Michael Marks]: Money. What do we have in there for money?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: In the sewer account, I have $10,297,330.19. Yep. And in the water fund, I have $8,213,355.33.
[Michael Marks]: And what do we anticipate the surplus to be in these accounts?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: I would have actually had to bring that with me from the Water and Sewer Commission. I actually didn't bring that with me. I apologize, but I can provide that to you.
[Michael Marks]: Are we looking at about $8 million, $9 million? Because that's the last figure I heard.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: No, that's as much as revenue that's come in. That's not a surplus. That's just revenue that's come in near to date. This figure, correct. Yes.
[Michael Marks]: But what do we anticipate to have as a surplus?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: That's what I'm saying. I don't have that figure with me. I'd have to get that. You don't have a ballpark estimate? I didn't bring that paperwork with me. But I do have it from when we did the Water and Sewer Commission when we were looking at rates. We did look at what the projected would be, and I can get that to you.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, if I could, this council has requested on several occasions within the past six months. One time we took a unanimous vote, I believe it was, to ask the Water and Sewer Commissioners whether or not they're looking to implement a connectivity fee in water and sewer. And we have yet to get a response. And I know Councilor Lungo-Koehn asked recently about new construction and having a connectivity fee. But the issue that I brought up several months ago was through a conversation I had regarding the Water and Sewer Commissioners voting on creating what they refer to as a baseline charge. And I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. Are you familiar with that? Yes, I am. As far as I know, Mr. President, the Water and Sewer Commission has just recently voted to implement the baseline charge to every water and sewer ratepayer in this community. And you can call it a baseline charge. You can call it connectivity fee. You can call it Mickey Mouse. You can call it whatever you want to call it. What it is is a connection charge that they're charging. And I've been told that this baseline charge is going to be roughly about $1.5 million, divided among all of our ratepayers in the community that pay water and sewer. And I think it's extremely important now, before we change any accounts or consolidate any accounts, that we get a handle, Mr. President, not only on this paper and the ramifications this paper may have on the accounting and tracking and transparency in this community, but also, Mr. President, on the recent vote by the Water and Sewer Commission on this baseline charge. I think it's extremely important. I would ask my fellow colleagues that we have a Committee of the Whole meeting with the Water and Sewer Commissioners, Ms. Nunley, and anyone from the mayor's office to discuss the baseline charge and also discuss this paper, Mr. President, and see if really it provides the benefits that's mentioned. And what impact will the baseline charge have on residents in this community that are already overpaying? We have surplus in the water and sewer enterprise accounts, over $8 million lost. I remember the surplus account was. And now we're adding what I refer to as another hidden charge that supposedly will eventually be used to offset rates, but I think this council really needs to get a handle on this, Mr. President. And I would respectfully ask my colleagues to lay this on the table for two weeks until we have a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss this very important baseline issue, which has a lot to do with water and sewer charges on behalf of every ratepayer in this community.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor, Vice President Mox, to table this for two weeks.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Second and by the whole the committee hold me and do I have a committee the whole bit second and by Is it okay if I make a comment to you Through you the chair to Councilor Marks in regards to the connectivity fee Councilor Marks. I just wanted to elaborate just a little bit The can I was at the water and sewer commission meeting and the connectivity fee is actually for more of a maintenance fee We have to give them that service and provide that service to the people to give them the water and the sewer and the upkeep of those pipes. And actually, they need to have that. And that's actually a common theme throughout different cities.
[Michael Marks]: And right now, that's part of what we pay as water and sewer rate payers. We pay for personnel. We pay for maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure. And this is in addition. So we've been providing these services all along. And I don't buy the fact that this is now going to be used for upkeep of the system. Who's been upkeeping the system? We, the ratepayers, have been.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: It's a part of upkeep and the administration and the people that are going out and tracking, that are maintaining. That's a part of it. But we do have the paperwork that shows the need for the fee that's included.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not doubting that. I think this council should be privy when everyone gets their water bill, and they're going to be built, by the way, just so you know, it's depending on the size of the pipe that comes into your home, and they're going to be built every pay period. So residential homeowners could be seeing an additional $25 or $30 every pay period that's listed on their bill as a baseline charge. So these are the things, Mr. President, I think that we have to discuss, because we should be the first to know about when residents call us and say, hey, what's this? And believe me, they will. What's this additional $30 that I'm seeing on my bill? And then we're going to have to explain, well, ma'am, that is for infrastructure and maintenance. Well, why do you have $8 million surplus? What's that for? So these are the questions I think we need answered. I'm not saying it's not a bad idea or a good idea. I'm saying it deserves deliberation and dialogue, Mr. President. And we should be in the loop. Did anyone know about this baseline charge? Anybody know about this? Seven Councilors? No one knew about it. That's a good question. When is it starting? It was approved by the Water and Sewer Commission. I don't know when it starts. And that's a good question. So these are the questions, Mr. President. I don't think we should be quick to act on anything tonight. and get some answers.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Mr. President, the table by Councilor Marks. Mr. President, Councilor Marks has the floor. Do you yield Councilor Marks?
[Michael Marks]: I yield to the gentleman, Mr. President.
[Sorrell]: Name and address of the record, please. Mr. President, John Stirol, 20 Metcalfe Street. Councilor Dello Russo, point of order. Mr. President, he cannot speak.
[Richard Caraviello]: There has been a motion made to table.
[Sorrell]: Have you read Robert's Rules of Debate? Councilor Dello Russo has asked for a point of order. He cannot do it. According to the Rules of Debate, he cannot speak and neither can Councilor Marks. Nobody here can speak. Once a motion is made... to table, all debate is closed, and a vote must be taken immediately, and it's not even necessary to second. Now you should follow the rules.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, it was my intention, with all due respect, to kindly point out that there was a motion to table on the floor, which ended debate, yet we continued on in debate, and I wanted to kindly and respectfully point that out. Thank you. And hope that we can take a vote on this or dispose of the matter.
[Michael Marks]: On the motion by Councilor Marks, the table for two weeks. Mr. President, if the gentleman would like to speak, I'll withdraw my motion and then I'll, if Mr. Strong- Do you want to withdraw your motion? I'll withdraw my motion so Mr. Strong can speak.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Marks has withdrawn his motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: May I speak as a member of this body, Mr. President?
[Sorrell]: Mr. President, the motion has been made. Councilor Marks has withdrawn his motion. Well, if you withdraw your- He's withdrawing his motion. I'll allow you to speak, John. You want to speak or no? Do you want to speak? Yes, I do. I am speaking. Yes. He withdrew his motion so you can speak. Please, no interruptions. Now, a motion has been made to table. Debate has to be closed immediately. None of the Councilors can speak. A second is not needed. You should have a copy of Robert's rules here and a vote should be taken immediately. It is tabled or it is not tabled.
[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Councilor Knight. Section 17 of Robert's Rules of Order would say, to lay a matter on the table, you move to lay a question on the table. A second is required.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor March, do you want to take Councilor Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Since the motion to table has been removed, I have a couple of things I'd like to point out and a question through the chair to Ms. Nunley. First, I'd like to say that In recent years, we have not seen such activity, research, seriousness, and sophistication from the Water and Sewer Commission, and we should be grateful for that and for their efforts. It would be helpful for us to have some information from them regarding what has been presented by my colleague as some sort of service fee, an additional fee. I can only speculate at what that might be directed towards, but I won't do that out loud, Mr. President. I would like to request kindly, because what seems to me is the question doesn't necessitate or prevent us from addressing a very pertinent issue, which my colleague has brought up, a very serious issue that we need to address as a body, and I agree. We're dealing with what seems to me to be an accounting issue here. How do we keep the books? What style do we use? I can only imagine that when this water and sewer enterprise account was initiated some many decades ago, that it was a style of accounting that might not be in practice today to have them divided. Yet, they will on the books appear separately. The money will just be in one pot, if I understand correctly. So, through the Chair, to Ms. Nunley, if I could ask, is there precedent for this? Is there a new guideline that has come out from the Commonwealth? Is this a practice that is being adopted by cities and towns who have a water and sewer enterprise account?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Through the Chair, Councilor Dello Russo, yes, Winchester actually has a combined water and sewer fund, and it is permissible to combine it. Correct. Just an accounting reporting. Yes, there would still be separate lines within the one fund.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. Mr. President, I have no problem with this matter before us as far as seeking permission, because we are the authorizing body, obviously, to address this matter of bookkeeping, a matter of bookkeeping and account keeping. It in no ways, in my opinion, abdicates or, uh, minimizes, uh, the matter that my colleague, uh, brought up, which we should have a clear and a significant, uh, uh, conversation with the water and sewing commission about, especially as we're entering the budget season. So I move approval, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, Councilor Knight. Uh, Mr. President, thank you very much. Ms. Nunley, in reading the memorandum that you put together for the Water and Sewer Commission, it explains a little bit about a lot of duplication of efforts that your office performs now because you have these two separate funds. Could you go into that a little bit for me and make me understand it a little bit better, please?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Sure. So as far as personnel is concerned, we have to split them between the two for reporting. And if I had it in one fund, if they were working on the enterprise fund, they could be 100 percent just charged the enterprise fund instead of trying to figure out, okay, they're spending 60 percent of their time doing sewer work. 40% of their time doing water, then trying to split out their benefits. The different liens, when we're billing liens, we can now just put it in one fund instead of having to put liens into two separate items. It makes it a lot easier, a lot cleaner.
[Adam Knight]: And that's in terms of operations and in terms of administration?
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Ms. Dunley.
[Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin]: Very welcome.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: As I stated originally, I'm not opposed to this, Mr. President. They're asking for a consolidation of accounts. I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad idea. The issue that I brought up regarding the baseline charge, where this money actually goes into these accounts, I think is only appropriate at the time that we look at both, Mr. President. You know, it only makes sense to me to review both issues. You know, this is an accounting issue or a bookkeeping issue. If it's such a simple issue, why hasn't the administration been before us in the past 25 years saying, how do we simplify this? And it's great that you're taking the initiative, if it was your, if it came from the mayor, who knows? But I'm glad to see them streamlining, Mr. President. But there's no rush to do this, Mr. President. This is how it existed for 25 years in this community and awaiting two weeks. to sit down with all the interested parties and find out about this paper and also about the baseline charge, I think is prudent government, Mr. President. And I will support tabling the issue, Mr. President, and ask for a roll call vote on the table and that we meet within two weeks as a committee of the whole.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Marks to table this for two weeks, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Aye. The Chair seems to be in doubt. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? No. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehnan? Yes. Vice President Barks?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion passes. I will do my best to get this done in the next two weeks, Vice President Marks. We may have to do it on a Wednesday or Monday night. We just took a vote, right. Because a lot of the Tuesdays are already full up, up until the end of the month.
[SPEAKER_07]: Point of personal interjection.
[gGuuN9ZzYSw_SPEAKER_08]: Well, the matter previously before us is closed, and while this has no parliamentary root whatever, I'll just kindly point out that for 25 years, people have been complaining about the way the books have been kept. I'm delighted we're having an update.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Miles. Well, considering my fellow colleague has never spoken on the issue and has yet to recognize the taxpayers of this community, I feel it's only appropriate, Mr. President, as an elected official in this community, to make sure each and every rate payer is heard. And that's what we did tonight, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. 17352, to the Honorable President and members of the Methodist City Council, City Hall, Method Mass. Dear Mr. President and Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honorable Body confirm appointments to the Community Preservation Committee as follows. Joan Sear, two-year term. Roberta Cameron, three-year term. Elizabeth Carey Sewell, one-year term. Joseph Pecora, one-year term. Copies of their resumes have been provided in our package. Additionally, please be advised that in accordance with the Massachusetts General Law relating to the Community Preservation Committee, the following boards have voted and appointed Heidi Davis, From the Conservation Commission, a three-year term. David Fields, from the Community Development Board, to a three-year term. Doug Carr, from the Historical Commission, for a two-year term. Michael Cugno, Park Commission, two-year term. Michael Lewis, Housing Authority, one-year term. Since the vote of the Community Development Board, Mr. Fields has been offered and accepted an appointment in the Office of Community Development. The matter of a vote for a new designee to the Community Preservation Committee will be held at the earliest date possible. Thank you. So Mr. Fields' name has been withdrawn from the Community Development Board. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. In recent weeks, this council has requested that the administration provide us with a list of her appointments to the Community Preservation Commission. which is a function of the Community Preservation Act that was passed last November by the voters in this community. As we go through the list here and we see the individuals that have been appointed by the administration, four of these individuals are voluntary, five are statutory, Mr. President, and the council does have the power to approve the appointees that the mayor has put forward. In reviewing the resumes that have attached and looking at the voluntary appointments that the mayor has put forward, we see Joan Cyr from 40 Cedar Road, appointed to a two-year term. Joan served on the CPA Ad Hoc Subcommittee that helped craft the CPA language, the CPA ordinance here in our community. And she's someone who I think did a great job also. She was instrumental in getting the Community Preservation Act passed here in the community. We also have, she also has a background in project management, Mr. President. Then we see Roberta Cameron from North Street, also recommended for a three-year term. Roberta was also a member of the Ad Hoc Committee that helped put together the ordinance that's been adopted by this council. and she has a long background in community planning. The other two appointees that are before us this evening are Elizabeth Kerry Sewell from Douglas Road, appointed to a one-year term, and she has a very long and extensive history in landscape architecture, Mr. President. And then we have Joseph Pecora, a resident from Adams Street, appointed to a one-year term, who is a real estate professional. If we look at the Community Preservation Act and we see that there are certain aspects of the act that it's focused on preservation of open space, the creation of affordable housing, Um, the maintaining of our, uh, historic landmarks, Mr. President, I think that, um, the administration has done a great job in going through the applicants in presenting us with a group of, uh, or a team, I should say, of individuals that will move the city in the right direction. Um, so with that being said, I just wanted to have a brief moment to go over the individuals that were appointed. Mr. President, I'm uncomfortable this evening voting on them. However, I'd open the floor up to deliberation to my council colleagues to see how they feel as though they'd like to proceed. Thank you. Councilor.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: President, I first of all want to thank Councilman Knight for his hard work in bringing us to this point, and I want to second the motion for approval of the slate of these fine and highly qualified individuals who will be deciding how to spend the taxpayers' money.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor De La Rosa. And I also want to commend the committee for the amount of work that it took to get this From nothing up to where it is right now, you did an outstanding job and they should be commended. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to also mention that I worked with a number of these people when we put this committee together. And I know for one, Joan Sierra and Roberta Cameron, extremely knowledgeable and instrumental in passing this and, um, you know, in building the, uh, city ordinance. And, um, I, I thank the, I thank them for the commitment. Uh, this is going to be a really, um, I think it's going to be a tough commission to be on, but I think they're up to the challenge. Uh, they're both, uh, smart, knowledgeable people. And, uh, I think, uh, they'll do a great job.
[George Scarpelli]: So thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I too echo, uh, my fellow Councilors, uh, remarks. I know that, how much time we put into this process and especially Joan and Roberta who have been directly involved. But I feel that the diversity and the different backgrounds and all of our appointees will lead us in making great choices for our community moving forward. So I applaud our representation and
[Sorrell]: Move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. John Sorella, 20 Metcalf Street. Mr. President, I would respectfully urge this council to table this motion, and I'll tell you why. What we're doing here is appointing nine people to this preservation committee. Now, all of the taxpayers are going to pay this surtax. This really is a surtax. on the property tax, which, by the way, has a limitation. This, but this is not sub-subject. This exceeds the limitation. That's illegal, but they're doing it anyway. But the point I want to make is that when you look at these lists of people, and it doesn't matter if someone was instrumental or not in passing it. That's history. What matters is who's on this preservation committee. Now, we have eight wards in this city. Don't you think all of those taxpayers should be represented? We have nine appointments here. Point of clarification, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: When the ordinance was crafted, there is language that's included in the ordinance that says that the appointees that are put forward by the mayor will do their best to represent all geographic areas of the community. And if we look at the individuals who have been appointed and where they live, um, we will see that the appointees that are before the city council, um, are spread out and relatively decently across the community in separate wards, Mr. President.
[Sorrell]: Uh, I beg to differ, Councilor, half of the wards are not represented. We have 16 precincts. Half of those precincts are not represented. These also pay taxes. Point of clarification, Councilor Knight.
[gGuuN9ZzYSw_SPEAKER_13]: I never made a reference to a ward or a precinct. I made reference to a geographic area, which is what the ordinance speaks to.
[Sorrell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Well, Mike, we vote by wards, and these people are all taxpayers, and they're in the wards. If you look at this list of nine people, half of them are from West Medford or from borderline areas of the city close to West Medford. Now, that is not the way to do it in an equitable way. What we should do is give everybody representation. I think a new list should be offered, and we should have representation throughout the city. That way, a taxpayer will feel that the people on this committee are offering solutions that will also benefit his particular area of the city. And it should be so. All areas should be benefited equally. And when you have a group of nine people, and maybe six of them come from West Medford or West Medford contiguous areas, that simply is not fair. That's the reason I am urging a table on this motion and requesting the mayor to submit another list that applies to all the people of the city, and it's more democratic. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Cerello. Name and address of the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Council President Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street, Mefford, Massachusetts. I'm not gonna get into the West Mefford and South Mefford or East Ford, although Dr. Cerello may have brought up some reasonable points. However, I would like to say the implication that Mr. Sorella made was it was in effect an override of prop two and a half. In effect, we could say that, but it really wasn't. It was under the Massachusetts law of the Community Preservation Act, I believe. However, I'd say when it was voted in by, however it was voted in, and that's, kind of an understatement of how it got approved. Um, I just wanted to say, if I was had input to what to use as one and a half million dollars, if that's what it is, the first thing I would do is they talk about Shibali auditorium as having being the crown jewel of the city. However, as you pull into Medford Square from the Rotary, Route 93, Interstate Route 93, on Salem Street, as you're going past the old Medford Cinema, which is now Elizabeth Grady, and on the right-hand side there, after that church, is, I believe it's Martin Pastry, or Mike's, I think it's Martin. However, that steeple has not been there since, we shouldn't pull it, Joe's pool room back in 68. I would think maybe it's not a crown jewel that's missing, but at least put, as they say on a Christmas tree, a finial on top of that steeple. It doesn't have to be a full blown out structure, because it might come down with another windstorm or hurricane and get condemned. It could be a reasonable facsimile that goes up 20, 30, 40 feet, made of some sort of carbon or plastic material. At least the center of the square We'll look a little bit more with a cap on top. Make a better presentation to the outsiders and also to myself as I'm driving my bicycle around City Hall. I think it's a no-brainer. People might think it's not important, but I think we'll make a big presentation. I would thank you for listening.
[Richard Caraviello]: The money gets appropriated into several different categories. All the money does not get spent in one particular area. There's different categories where it's a... Yes, I understand.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: One of the major parts of it, if I recollect, is architecture and housing, I believe. But talk about architecture, historical society should have been on that one 25 years ago. Thank you for listening. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Council Member O'Kurin. Thank you, President Caraviello. I just wanted to go back and review which sections of the city that everybody was... lives in because I do, I agree with the language, with the way the ordinance was drafted. I also agree with what Dr. Estrella had mentioned. We want every geographic location represented. And I know to do that would almost be close to impossible because we don't have enough nominees. But if you do look at it, you have four appointments from the mayor, which, you know, we do have the resumes attached tonight. They're all very good resumes. Two are up in the Heights, which everybody spoke about, Joan and Roberta. One, and then two are from the hillside. And then with regards to the appointees that are picked by the commissions, you do have two West Medford, one South, one Wellington. I think there's another West that was pulled because he's been hired by the OCD to work in City Hall. And then there are, I think, another commission or two that are voting on their member this week. So it's pretty well, I always like to look at that myself, and it is pretty well represented. So we have North. Wellington, West, South, and the Hillside. I think we've covered, you know, everything with the eight nominees that we're voting on tonight, and I just wanted to point that out for the public.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Council Member.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with all my colleagues. I think we have a great list of candidates that were presented by the mayor. The one difference I do have, Mr. President, is And I'm not sure about the new Councilors, but it's been past practice of this council that for any appointments, whether it's a confirmation of the mayor's appointment or our own appointment, which we don't have many of, we've always requested that the person appear before the council so we can thoroughly vet them out. And even before that, Mr. President, dating back some eight to 10 years ago, we used to have committee of the whole meetings and subcommittee meetings to interview. I remember sitting across the table asking people questions on why they want the appointment, what do they plan on doing, what do you see the position as. So you can get a feel of the person, Mr. President. It's great we got the resumes. And I know many of these people, so this is not a dig on who applied and so forth. I think we have to be consistent, Mr. President. We all talk about transparency, and I think we have to be consistent. If I'm going to request that someone on the Liquor Board or someone on the Community Development Board appear before us for a confirmation, then you better believe any other confirmations should appear before us, Mr. President. This council has been great over the last several years. In particular, we have voted to tighten up our rules and regulations. We no longer waive third readings, which does away with the public right to come up when we enact an ordinance. And the third reading would allow them to come up and stand before the council. And we used to waive that. We no longer waive that, Mr. President. When we voted for council president and vice president, there's a conflict, an inherent conflict, because the council president and vice president used to vote on their own pay raise. And that's not me saying it, that's the ethics commission saying there's a conflict of interest on voting on anything that you have a monetary gain to. And we no longer do that, Mr. President, if you look at the way we handle our process. All I would ask, Mr. President, no one wants to stall. No one wants to remove these people. Give them the same opportunity to appear before us and let the council ask questions and thoroughly vet them out, Mr. President, not only for this council, but for the purview of the people watching at home, Mr. President, and the purview of transparency, Mr. President. So that's what I would offer tonight. Let's invite them up before us. This has been a long process. Councilor Knight and other councilors have done yeoman's work. and pushing this forward to get to this point. And I don't think vetting these candidates out, which will have the purse strings of every taxpayer. There is a check and balance. We end up voting on it. But they make the recommendation to the council. And they do have the purse strings. And I think, at the very least, we have to do our due diligence. The mayor may have done hers, and we have to do ours, Mr. President. So, I would respectfully ask that this be laid on the table, Mr. President, until all the nominees appear before the council for proper vetting.
[Richard Caraviello]: Would you like that done by next week, if possible?
[Michael Marks]: As soon as we can get it scheduled, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. On the motion by Vice President Marx that we lay this on the table until we can get everybody here. to confirm them personally, seconded by? Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor McLachlan. All those in favour? Aye. Motion passes. Del Russo and Councilor Knight are in opposition. There will be five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Motion by Councilor Scarpelli to revert back to regular business. All those in favour? Motion passes. Motions, orders and resolutions. 17344, offered by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the city's information technology strategic plan be discussed. Councilor Marks, Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, President Caraviello. It was back in July 2016, the mayor came out with the City of Method information technology strategic plan, and that plan was supposed to take place from 2016 to 2018. And they were going to upgrade many of the computer systems at City Hall, which I think Microsoft Office was back in 2001 that they were using here at City Hall. Needless to say, the systems were very outdated. They looked into a new phone system, which I believe they have currently on board. And coupled with that, Mr. President, This new initiative was also to train employees that were used to working on outdated and archaic systems on the latest and greatest of technology. And as part of the proposal, Mr. President, and that's why I offer this tonight, is there was a section for open government. And it stated, the city is in the process of studying the use of social networking for providing all city residents equal and timely access to information. I have yet to see that, Mr. President. Maybe there is something in the works. But I can tell you right now, there's no social networking going on here at City Hall. And there's no community outreach, as far as I can see, from City Hall. Other than, Mr. President, maybe an inundation of reverse 9-1-1. And maybe, Mr. President, that we're still using wooden A-frame boards. There's one on Main Street in front of Dunkin' Donuts, alerting people that they're doing street sweeping. I mean, the A-frame boards we used back in the Depression, Mr. President, when people that were jobless were walking around with A-frame signs. And we're still using them in the city of Medford now to let residents know what is going on in the community. So one thing, Mr. President, I want to find out what the social networking that opens it up to every city resident. You know, I got a call last week. There's going to be street sweeping. I said, this is great. They're alerting me when there's street sweeping. Go onto the city website, you'll find out. Why call, Mr. President? Why call residents to let them know there's street sweeping if you're not gonna tell me when the street sweeping is? And the system has the ability and the capability of alerting residents by ward, precinct, street, address. It has all sorts of capability and the city's not using it. I finally got a call tonight saying there's street sweeping in my neighborhood this, I think it's Wednesday or Thursday. to move the cars. So that's my first question, Mr. President. Where do we stand with the study that was proposed under the mayor's information technology strategic plan on social networking? And the second one was customer service. And it states information technology is studying the use of payments via the internet. Wow, that's unbelievable. Imagine that. We just got a call waiting on the phones. So now you can call and leave a message. That must have been a new, creation, and now we're going to have the ability to make payments over the internet. Imagine if Amazon couldn't make payments over the internet. What would they do, carry a pigeon? Is that how they deliver the money? So, Mr. President, it's great to put this stuff out. It sounds great. You know, when you read it, open government, customer service. We still have a C-Click Fix program that's not working. Anytime we ask for the administration to give us the statistics and reports on it, we get no results from it. And as far as I'm concerned, it's a complete and utter failure, that C-Click fix. And, you know, the mayor's talking about automatic transfers of payments and so forth. Has that happened yet, Mr. President? It's been a year and four months. It's been 16 months now, has that happened yet? So those are my questions, Mr. President, regarding social networking and where we stand with payment via the internet on this particular item that was offered by the mayor back in 2016. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: I can't say that I do see Facebook things coming from different departments here in the city. So I know they do do some networking.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I just wanted to, uh, while we're on the topic of, uh, information technology, uh, budget season will be upon us soon. So, uh, I'd like to, if we can, if I can amend the resolution, uh, just to see if we can get a report from the, uh, technology department here at city hall to find out, uh, basically what new software has been purchased this year and what is being planned for next year. And if we can get an update as to, uh, As far as the current software that we're using, what version of software are we using? I mean, we're in the 21st century here. Our software should be fairly up to date. And I know last year during the budget hearings, we were lacking. And I want to see what type of progress we made. And it's important to find out before we actually go into a budget hearing. So thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. And if I could amend that to ask, if I can recall, I thought we had hired a a second person in the IT departments. I haven't seen that second person in the office yet. I haven't seen anyone in there, so I don't know if that person's ever been hired. I don't have any correspondence, so I can't say. On the motion by Councilor Marks, second and by. On the motion by Councilor Marks, second and by. Seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dela Rousseau? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Kern? Yes. Vice President Monk? Yes. Councilor Scott Bell? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion passes. 17, three, four, five, offered by Councilor Falco. Whereas the increased amount of traffic and speeding poses a major public safety concern, be it resolved that the Chief of Police increase patrols on Harvard Avenue to monitor the speed of vehicles. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. This issue came up last week during the community police meeting at the West Medford Community Center. During that time, there was a lot of discussion regarding the traffic on, Harvard Ave. And it seems like this has become a definite quality of life issue where it's getting to the point where it's really tough to even cross the street. The traffic is heavier. It's quicker. It's faster. So this is just basically if we could contact the chief of police, have him increase patrols in that area. And if we could also have the portable radar unit put down there as well to monitor traffic and speed. to protect the residents in that neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I'd like to amend the resolution, Mr. President, and request that Arlington Street be included.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, if you could amend the resolution to add Arlington Street to that also. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Felkel first for providing a forum for people throughout the neighborhood to discuss issues of concern. I think it's been very successful. Mr. President, I'm going to once again ask, I think this is my fifth time that this council has voted on, we were promised as residents of this community that we would have a pilot program with three raised crosswalks. Remember the issue about pedestrian safety that's been around for years? Remember the issues of speeding cars? We resolved this issue, or thought we were resolving part of the issue, by implementing a pilot program back some, I think it was three or four years ago, under the McGlynn administration. We carried out one of the three on Winthrop Street, which, by the way, needs to be painted. You can't even see it. You go over it, it's like hitting just a giant hurdle. But, Mr. President, We were promised the Winthrop Street, which happened, Harvard Street, which is a very dangerous road and highly trafficked, and Central Ave, another long stretch that residents complain about quite frequently. I receive complaints, Mr. President. And I've sent this administration several requests, where do we stand, Mr. President? And if you can find a paper that responds to that request, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Okay, if you could find that paper, Mr. President, that talks with public safety. You know, the mayor's preaching complete streets, we're doing this and that. What about the basics, Madam Mayor, that we've already spoke about? Go to Ring Road back here, Mr. President. Remember we installed back some eight years ago the crosswalk that blinks for $50,000? We could have thermoplastic the whole city for $50,000, as you mentioned. Now go buy it, Mr. President. All the blinkers in the street were torn up. Go buy it. There's all holes with no more blinkers in the street. We just spent $50,000 for that crosswalk, and it's gone, Mr. President. You know, and you have the mayor touting about complete streets. You know, it just doesn't make any sense, Mr. President, that when you talk public safety issues and you expect results, or at least expect follow-up, you get no response from this administration. No response at all, Mr. President. And I want to say it's four or five direct votes. I know I offered them personally that were voted on by this council and we have yet to get a request on where we stand with the raised crosswalks. The residents in those areas that were told, I just had a gentleman the other day at stop at shop say to me, when are we getting our raised crosswalk on central Ave? And I said, your guess is as good as mine. I've asked a dozen times and I'm honestly, I'm getting tired of asking. the same question over and over again, Mr. President. So, once again, I would ask my colleague if I can amend his paper. Once again, we'll send the paper to the mayor and ask, where are the other two raised crosswalks that were promised to this community? When are we going to see them implemented in the interest of public safety?
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. If I may, Mr. President, another issue did come up during the meeting. A number of issues came up. It was actually a very productive meeting. A great conversation about a number of issues, but speed did come up. And the point that Councilor Marks had made earlier in the year about lowering the speed limit to 25, that we all voted for. And it was a great resolution and something that we all supported. The question was, when are those 25 mile per hour signs coming in? And from what I'm hearing, they haven't been procured yet. So if we could get an update as to when they're going to be procured and installed, that'd be great. Spring is here. And as we know, people, you know, tend to get out and drive and there's a lot more people walking around. So I think it's in everybody's best interest that we get those signs installed as soon as possible. So if we could get an update on that, greatly appreciated. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Bailão. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I'd also like to further amend the paper. Mr. President, I request that Tufts University be contacted and that we request they take the appropriate steps to properly improve the visibility of the raised crosswalk that they have on Boston Ave. It's like Mount Everest. You come up the hill on it and you can't even see that it's there, Mr. President. I've witnessed cars going at a normal and acceptable rate of speed, still bottom out on it because of the size of it, Mr. President. So I think that we might need to do a little bit better work over there. denoting the fact that there is a raised crosswalk on the street on Boston Avenue right before the old post office. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Falco as amended by President Mox and Councilor Knight. Do I have a second? Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 17346, offered by Councilor Falco, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the Medford Middle School String Ensemble under the direction of Sophia Chang for winning the silver medal at the Massachusetts Instrumental Chorus Conductors Association Band and Orchestra Festival. Be it further resolved that they be invited to a future meeting to accept commendations.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say congratulations to the middle school orchestra. They're an amazing bunch of kids, and they won a silver medal this year. The music is just amazing when you hear it. It'd be great if they could come down. I know when I was on the school committee, they came down to a number of meetings and played before us. Ms. Chang does a fabulous job with the children. When you listen to them, it's hard to believe that it's actually young kids playing, and they sound fabulous. And since they've actually had this competition and did a little research here, there's over 160 ensembles that are part of this. And over the eight years that Medford has been involved, they've won six gold and two silver. So I think that's pretty impressive, and I just wanted to say congratulations.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. We'll have them up here. Whenever you invite them up here, we'll get that done. On the motion by Councilor Falco, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes 7-0. 17-347, offered by Councilor Falco, be it resolved that the Metro High School Drama Club be congratulated on their outstanding performances of Pippin last weekend. Be it further resolved that Director Sarah Grant be recognized for working with the students to prepare them for this production. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say my son, Joey, and I had the opportunity to go to the opening night performance this past week. The students did a fabulous job with Pippin. And Sarah Grant, as always, first class production. And I just wanted to say congratulations to everyone involved. It was a great show. Thank you, Councilor Falco. They did a great job. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Falco and seconded by Councilor Lococo and all those in favor? Aye. 7-0, motion passes. Motion by Councilor Knight to take hands by the clerk. Seconded by Councilor Scott-Bell. 17-353, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the engineering department report to the council the status and and necessary for service interruption of electricity on Harvard Avenue and what notification systems are in place to inform the affected residents of status thereof. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I filed this resolution in response to some frustration that the neighbors had in the area relative to advertised power outages that never happened, Mr. President. Last week, residents were notified that the power would be out in the evening hours between 8 and 10 p.m. The power never went out. Two days later, residents are notified the power is going to go out between certain hours. The power never goes out. Three days later, residents are notified the power is going to go out during certain hours. The power never goes out, Mr. President. So I'm wondering what the situation is on Harvard Avenue and what notification systems are in place to inform the residents, number one, if their power is going to be shut off, but number two, if they're not going to do the scheduled and performed work. so that individuals that may have made dinner plans to go out that night, as opposed to staying home and opening their refrigerator back and forth, let the freezing cold air out, would be in a little bit of a situation, Mr. President. So I raise the issue based out of real frustration on behalf of the neighborhood residents especially. those residing in the condominium on Harvard Avenue that were notified multiple times.
[Richard Caraviello]: Should we contact National Grid?
[Adam Knight]: Dan Cameron is the individual and I have placed a phone call into him, Mr. President, but I'd like to ask that we send this to the engineering department for an update and I'll make my phone calls to Mr. Cameron and hopefully I can get an answer personally. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor?
[Adam Knight]: Aye.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion passes. 17-354 offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the code enforcement officer meet the entity located at 186 Winthrop Street, doing business as stone and skillet on the ongoing violations of city ordinances related to the hours of operation, parking, and neighborhood concerns related to the Columbus. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, this has been an ongoing issue in the community for quite some time now. I feel like every 90 days I'm making a phone call to Code Enforcement or the Board of Health to go down and take a look at Stone and Skillet and what's going on. Now, don't get me wrong, Stone and Skillet's a great business, and they're doing a great business, and they've absolutely outgrown the location that they're currently located at. If you aren't familiar, Stone and Skillet right now is located at the old Marty's for Parties, the old Pranzi's location, right on Winthrop Street on the corner of Winthrop and West Street, Mr. President. In past months, we've seen 18 wheelers double parking on Winthrop Street to load up the truck with product from Stone and Skillet. We've seen grease trap problems and border health issues that have been rectified in the past. We've seen rodent problems because of the border health issues in the past, Mr. President. And quite frankly, the neighborhood's a little bit frustrated with it, and they've had enough. I had the opportunity last Thursday evening at 1 a.m. with a screaming child in the backseat of my car to drive by Stone and Skillett and see that all the lights were on and the place looked like a nightclub. And that's something that's not suitable or appropriate for a residential neighborhood, Mr. President. So I'm asking that the Code Enforcement Office go down and meet with the individuals that operate Stone and Skillett and reiterate the city ordinances that are in place and if need be, levy citation. It's also brought to my attention, Mr. President, that at that location, there were late hours when Prenzies was there. And any special permit or any approval that the city council issued relative to late hours should really go with that business, Prenzies, and not a muffin wholesale that's operating through all hours of the night that's really far outgrown its location, Mr. President. We're seeing legitimate 18-wheelers parked on the corner of West Street. Legitimate 18-wheelers parked right in front of Molten Seafood in the address 186 Winthrop Street during rush hour, normal business hours, blocking the street. It's gotten to the point of frustration that something needs to happen. Something needs to happen sooner rather than later. I'd like to thank Ms. O'Connor at the Board of Health and Mr. Bavuso and code enforcement because they've been working with me for the past year on this issue. And I've spoken with them both relative to the filing of this resolution. It's time that something happens down there, Mr. President. So I'm asking that my colleagues support this initiative.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor Haynes. Councilor Dello Russo. Just by way of point of information, Mr. President, if I remember correctly, the extended operation hours to the previous occupant of that property were indeed restricted to that occupant and not to the location. I think this council has consistently adopted the policy of doing such with any of those applications.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favour? Aye. Motion passes 7-0. We have one more Councilor Knight. Actually we have one more. Offered by President Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the DPW clean the rear parking lot of City Hall, as there's garbage bags and litter that is piled by the melting stove bank.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Move approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: I don't know if anyone's looked out the back window here. It's, I was.
[Michael Marks]: Across the street, across the street too.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, I was. Third world. Yes, it looks very bad. If the DPW can take care of that immediately, it would be greatly appreciated.
[Michael Marks]: President, just while we're in suspension.
[Richard Caraviello]: While we're under suspension, Councilor Marks, Vice President Mox.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I move to approval, Mr. Councilor.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Motion passes.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Just if I could, Mr. President, a public announcement. A very worthy cause. On April 13th, at the Malden Irish American, they're having their first annual music bingo fundraiser. The Volk alumni put this together. in the hopes and anticipation to raise some funding. As we heard from Ms. Riccio, Director Riccio, that was before us, I believe it was last week, regarding all the great initiatives that are taking place at the vocational school. This is the alumni, I think it's the first of its kind as far as I know, reaching out to the community on behalf of the vocational students and the school itself to improve the vocational education in our community. So I would urge anyone in the community that has a few extra dollars in their pocket, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. April 13th at Irish American Music Bingo, Mr. President. And I heard you're one of the singers there. Is that true?
[Richard Caraviello]: I am.
[Michael Marks]: I will be there. Okay. So I just want to urge everyone to get out there, Mr. President.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. If I can, thank you for, Vice President Marks for bringing that up. I think it's a great event. I think, I believe, so people understand it's not for the school, but it's actually for the tools that, I believe that part of it is going for our students as they graduate to assist them in purchasing the tools they need in their trade. I think that's what Ms. Riccio said. I thought that was very important. And the other thing is that evening, right around the block is, at John Brewer's is, the HEMO fundraiser for the Buzz Off, where I've been banned. They won't allow me in there. But I suggest everybody there. There'll be two events. That would be great to stop over and play a little musical bingo, and then see some great people over at John Brewer's for a great cause for the Buzz Off. So thank you.
[Michael Marks]: I'd go to the Buzz Off second.
[George Scarpelli]: That's what I say, because you want to look good.
[Richard Caraviello]: Right. So Councilor Falco and Scarpelli, they don't get any, you don't get anything buzzed off?
[George Scarpelli]: We're going to bring, we're going to bring.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Vice President Marks. All those in favor? Motion by Councilor Knight to revert back to regular business. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? 17348, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a moment of silence in memory of the late State Senator Charles E. Shannon as April 5th, 2017 marks the 12th anniversary of his passing. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. It's amazing how time flies. I remember walking into Senator Shannon's office when I was 19 years old and getting my first big boy job, as I like to call it, and I sat down at a desk next to your son, Richard. And I logged on to a computer that Councilman Moxley used to sit at, and I began my career in public service, Mr. President. And through the relationship I have with Senator Shannon and the many moments of teaching that he allowed me to participate in through his guidance and his wisdom, I really miss him and bring this matter forward annually in his remembrance. Senator Shannon did a great deal of work for the city of Medford. He was a gentleman who, as they like to say, brought home the bacon to the district. And that type of representation is something that we need here in the city. And I was pleased to be a part of it in the senator's office. He worked on a number of important issues that we're seeing come to fruition now, like the extension of the Green Line, marriage equality, just to name a few, Mr. President. So it's with a heavy heart that I bring this resolution forward this evening. However, it's important to me to remember somebody that's meant so much to me and so much to this community. So with that being said, I'd ask that my colleagues join me in endorsing the resolution.
[Richard Caraviello]: And if I could reiterate that, you know, Councilor, Senator Sheehan and I first got involved with him when I was involved with youth hockey. And he's the one back in the early nineties when the state was going to tear down that La Conte rink. Senator Shannon stepped in and got the funding to keep that building open. And since then, he became both a friend and a mentor to me and my family. So again, I commend him for that. If we could all stand for a moment of silence. Petitions, presentations, and similar matters. 17349, petition by John Starello, 20 Metcalf Street, Medford. to address the council with a template for the upcoming 2018 budget.
[Sorrell]: Name and address for the record, please. Mr. Starello. John Starello, residing at 20 Metcalf Street here in Bedford. Thank you for your patience, Mr. President. I do appreciate it. I did want to So, thank you, Mr. President, and thank you all six councilors. Uh, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you and I want to thank you all. I want to say the title of my discourse tonight is a template for the upcoming 2018 budget. In January, 2016, the Medford city council under the leadership of Councilor John Falco voted unanimously for a template for the 2017 budget. I had to look it up. According to the dictionary, template means a guide or a model. The template was never provided by the administration, so I am offering my anticipation of the fiscal year 2018 budget now. The city of Boston has already put forth its budget. Now, this is not so difficult to do because there are legal parameters for proposed budgets. Is it too early now to discuss a budget to be passed at the end of June? I don't think so. It is never too early to discuss the budget because the budget is a lifeblood of the people of Medford in a material sense, of course, not in a spiritual sense. There are senior citizens on fixed income. There are handicapped young people. There are under educated people. There are drug addicted people and so on. And the department heads all tell us of how they all need more money. The budget as presented by the executive will be passed automatically by a majority of this council in the last week of June. Why? because that is what has happened every year for almost 30 years. This year will not be an exception. The council, as is well known, can shape the budget with a majority line-item veto. But, alas, it does not, forgetting that it has taken an oath to serve the people of Medford, not the administration. The council and the audience have been given a copy of the anticipated 2018 budget. This year's 2017 budget is $162 million. The anticipated 2018 budget, this is the budget that I am suggesting will be in effect, is $169 million. That is $7 million more. a 4.3 percent increase. How can a 4.3 percent increase be justified? Social Security payments to our seniors are flat or diminished. Ten-year United States bonds pay only 2 percent. Local banks pay interest to savers as low as one-hundredth of 1 percent. And inflation is only 1.3 percent. Our city needs 4.3% to operate. How can we rationalize such an inequity? Now, look at the template for the 2018 budget. Look at how we arrive at these numbers. Some numbers are rounded numbers and some numbers are estimated because we do not have access to official numbers. But we will find that we are near accurate because They are based on historical numbers. Now about this budget, if you look at it, this is how it happens every year. It's routine. You can predict what's going to happen, because it happens this way every single year. And that's when Councilor Falco asked about it. He could have followed this here and anticipated the budget, as it's going to be presented, by the way. We start out with the last levy. which was $104 million. Now, we add to that Proposition 2.5 percent, which is a law, by the way, which is another $2.5 million. Now, new growth, I had to estimate. Usually, new growth comes to about $1 million a year. Now, I'm estimating for this year $1.5 million because we have a lot of building going on in the city. So, we arrive at a levy limit of $108 million. Now, that levy limit of $180 million is what the homeowners pay. That's the real estate tax, $108 million. And that is what the people of Medford who own homes will be paying, $108 million. We have to add to that all the other taxes, like, for instance, local fees, state aid, school grants, return earnings, and the Enterprise Fund. I'm putting the Enterprise Fund in at $25 million. We discussed that earlier, as you remember, Councilor Marks. And the reason I'm putting that in is because every year it's about that. We have $24 million or $25 million or so. And because water and sewer rates are being raised, I'm estimating it at $25 million. Now, we arrive at an available budget of $169 million. Remember that number, $169 million. Now about this budget, this budget means tax increases in all our taxes. After all, the $7 billion must come from somewhere. Only the city council can reduce the budget as presented. But there are many items that cannot be legally reduced like contracted compensation for our worthy employees, like principal and interest on borrowed money of bonds, like insurance, like pension contributions, like state assessments, like legal liabilities. So the only item, as far as I can see, that we can reduce is the cost of waste in government. Yes, waste. And there is waste. And it could add up to that $7 million that we were talking about. After all, it is now only 4% of the $169 million budget, not 4.3%. There is surely at least 4% waste in our government. The people of Medford expect honesty, and truthfulness from our government. That requires an expenditure of time and energy. The people expect generosity and kindness from our government. That requires, well, the other was truthfulness that required transparency. That was another one. But generosity and kindness require the expenditure of time and energy. The people expect humility from our government. That means no arrogance, no elitism. The people expect courage from our government. That means taking some personal risk. And finally, the people expect devotion to the people from our government. And that requires altruism, honesty, Generosity, humility, courage, devotion. Individuals who do not embrace those qualities should not be in government because in the pact with government, the people surrender part of their most precious right in return for some service. That most precious right is their liberty. Marcus Aurelius, who died in 180 A.D., said, life is short. That's all there is to say. Get what we can from the present, thoughtfully, justly. Now, the two most important words there are thoughtfully, justly. And he says, get what we can from the present, with thought and with justice. So when we talk about, I've said this before to the council, they're probably tired of hearing it, but someone must expect responsibility for the increase in taxes constantly, year after year. Sorry to say this, I like all of you personally, believe it or not, but sometimes I regret your political actions. You can depend on me. I know you'll never need me, but if you do, I'm available. But I want to say that the increase in taxes is unfortunately the responsibility of the city council. The city council can do something about it, but it doesn't. Therefore, when taxes are increased on the poor, on the people who cannot afford it, Other people find difficulty. Not the prosperous people in Medford. There are many. They can afford it. If they want to pay more taxes, they should, but they should not impose it on the poor people. That's one thing that I'm sorry about. One of the flaws of human nature is that people want to control other people. They ought not do that. If you want to pay more taxes, go ahead. but don't compel other people to do the same thing. Thank you very much, councillors.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Stirola. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, Cushion Street. It's hard to follow Dr. Starella, he's so eloquent. And my education is not so good, you know. From Tuspac, I was educated at Woodstock, and I went to BU once. I did go to BU once, Boston University I think it's called, but it was closed. However, What really fries my backside is this new growth that's projected at about $1.5 million, it is not, never has been deducted from Prop 2.5 before you raise the real estate tax. If it did last year, the $1.7 million, of new growth deducted that first from the two and a half percent of 100 million, two and a half million, you would have had like $800,000 increase instead of two, three, $4 million. Approximately, I would say, The real estate tax was never going up like $400. It probably would have went up $80. Probably would have saved 80% on the tax increase. I don't know why it's not being done. Furthermore, I don't understand why we can't do what Somerville, Everett, Malden does, Boston, Brookline, and I believe Martha's Vineyard. to give the owner-occupied who live in their one home, doesn't matter if it's a condo, single, two, three family, or 100 family, marauder home, doesn't matter. They're all gonna get the same 20% exemption. Actually, now I'm talking, since it's never been done here, 35% to make it worthwhile. So no one's real estate tax will go up, even if you live in it, because the cap would be much higher than last year's projected $600,000 or thereabouts, it'll go up to $1 million. And if it does go up, because you live in a house that's valued over $1 million, it's going to be a minuscule increase. And don't forget, at 20%, if that was adopted, it would have been, I don't know, I'm losing track because it's highly unfair. And I kind of understand it. And if you give the city more money, even on the side, I'm sure they'll take it. But Dr. Sorella brings up some good points. I still understand why we don't use that new growth, because the new growth, we might as well not have it because we don't need more congestion in East Ford, South Medford, because They don't help the real estate tax because it's been carrying the load for decades. They hurt us. Need more police, more fire, schools, school teachers, infrastructure, things of that nature. So where does that come from? We need more money. And the real estate tax, thanks to Barbara Anderson, rest her soul, is about two and a half. But like Dr. Stirella says, last year's increase or his projected increase for 2018 will be like over 4%. So that's a fallacy also, Prop 2.5. How much more can you tax the lower middle class? I really don't care too much for rich people, and I'm not really in the poor people's corner either. I'm for the lower middle class, because without the lower middle class, which is the majority, you're not gonna have a society worth a damn, and I repeat, and it might be time for a second revolution. That's how this country was founded when we threw out the English. Give him a break. Please, help the taxpayer, the average person, please help them for a change, just once.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. The records were passed to Suspension of the Rules by Councilor Marks. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Locks. Thank you, Mr. President. There's a catch basin at 52 Dearborn Street that's sinking and needs to be repaired. So I would ask in the interest of public safety that that catch basin be repaired.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Dyke. All those in favor? Aye. 7 in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Records are passed to Councilor Dello Russo.
[SPEAKER_07]: I've inspected the records of the previous week's meeting and to the best of my ability, I would like to be free of error.
[Richard Caraviello]: You are fond of an honor. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Seconded by Councilor Knight.
|
total time: 18.43 minutes total words: 1501  |
total time: 2.95 minutes total words: 237  |
total time: 5.13 minutes total words: 544  |
total time: 8.6 minutes total words: 579  |
|
total time: 4.64 minutes total words: 313  |
total time: 2.75 minutes total words: 282  |
total time: 23.71 minutes total words: 1249  |
|