[Richard Caraviello]: Medford City Council, 39th regular meeting. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Present. Councilor Falco? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. Councilor McHugh? Present. Vice President Monk? Present. Councilor Scarpelli? Present.
[Richard Caraviello]: President Caraviello? Present. Please rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Motion by Councilor Lococo for the suspension of the rules to take paper 17-795. All those in favor? Motion passes. 17795, offered by Councilor Lengelkern. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council take a first reading on the ordinance change to read as follows. In ordinance amending chapter 94 of the ordinance of the city of Medford, be it ordained that by the City Council of the City of Medford that Chapter 94 of the Ordinance of the City of Medford entitled Zoning, Article 2, Division 1, Section 94-35, Paragraph E, that presently states, E, appeals from administrative decisions, petitions for variances, and applications for special permits shall be filed together with other supporting materials as required by applicable rules. The City Council or Board of Appeals shall fix a reasonable time for a hearing and shall cause notice of such a hearing to be published in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 11, as further amended and shall now state as follows. A. Appeals from administrative decisions, petitions for variances, and applications for special permits shall be filed together with other supporting materials as required by applicable rules. The City Council or Board of Appeals shall fix a reasonable time for hearing and shall cause notice of such hearing to be published in accordance with Massachusetts General Law's Chapter 40A, section 11, and such notice shall also be given to all owners within 400 feet of the property line of the petitioner as the same are listed in the most recent tax list as kept by the chief assessor of the city. And such notice shall also be given to the owners within 400 feet of the property line of the petitioner as the same area listed in the most recent text that's kept by the chief assessor of the city by way of telephone call, text message that uses computerized auto data to deliver a pre-recorded message or its equivalent. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello, and thank you for reading it. It's lengthy. This was something that the council was interested in doing back in August of 2016. It went to committee, and I believe there's some questions whether they were answered or not. It just stayed in committee. I brought it up again probably two months ago. At that time, the council voted seven to nothing with regards to being interested in this and just needing legal language drafted by our city solicitor. I followed up with the solicitor. Thankfully, in November, a decision was rendered. I believe, I'm not sure if you received it before that, but I did forward it to everybody this morning, just in case. It tells you what the prior requirements were under Mass General Law 48. Yes, thank you. Well, yeah, I know he's here. I was just going to finish. Yep. Mass General Laws, Section 40, Chapter 40A, Section 11. And the fact of the matter with regards to just notifying abutters and abutters to abutters is something that has caused a great deal of put it plainly, heartache to those who live either across the street or very close to a potential, in this case, obviously we're doing it for mainly the developments that have been proposed and people finding out after the fact and being really upset The council gets frantic emails and phone calls, and we're left having to step in. Obviously, the mayor's office probably gets the same. We're going to and from, myself and a number of Councilors, going to and from OCD meetings and zoning meetings and conservation commission meetings to try to find out what's going on and how to give the residents the ability to be heard and to voice their concerns, questions, and get answers to specific questions that they do have. So I think it's important, and I know it's important to this whole council, that we give more notice and that be done in multiple ways. And what this proposed ordinance change does, that I'm thankful the solicitor drafted, is it provides notice to everybody, every owner within 400 feet, and it provides notice through mail and through our reverse 911 system, which is something that was well deserving of the reverse 911. I think it's a win-win. I know there are some questions that the Councilors may have, one being how enforceable this is, which our solicitor is here to discuss, and also if there is a minor permit or a minor variance that needs to be had, is this necessary? And I think the answer is it's just necessary because We have had such a problem over the last couple years, and we need to change that. We need to change it for the people and the neighbors. This is one step of many that has to be taken, and I ask my colleagues to obviously get your questions answered, but to move forward and vote for approval for the first reading of this ordinance change.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. Solicitor, would you take any questions or any opinion?
[Mark Rumley]: I can give a supplement to what Councilor Lungo-Koehn just said. I can give a brief supplement which might go to the core of some concerns or some questions about the language. First, my name. My name is Mark Rumley. I'm the city solicitor. I reside at 50 Woodrow Avenue in Medford. right now, the way the state statute is, and you have to understand this in terms of state statute and local ordinance. The state statute says, in terms of notice, that it should be given to abutters to a petitioner property or abutters to abutters or those who are across the street within a 300-foot ambit. Now that doesn't mean under the state statute that everybody within the 300-foot ambit would receive notice. It just means abutters, abutters to abutters or those across the street. The resolution which is before you tonight would make it a requirement that locally, that in the city of Medford, notice be given to all persons, all persons, within a 400-foot ambit. Now, it's important to be cognizant of the fact that this is in excess of what's required by the state statute. Therefore, from a legal point of view, it would be considered directory only. I want to give you an example. The example would be this. If you were somebody who was, say, 300 feet away, but you were not an abutter or an abutter to an abutter or across the street, and you disagreed with a decision made by the board, If you appealed it, the land court would not recognize the fact that you didn't get notice because you were 300 feet away, because that's a local rule. So the land court would not say that that would give you the status of a party in interest. You would have to establish that another way. So when I say that the extra notice would be directory only, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be given, because if you pass it as an ordinance, then the board and commission would have to implement that. However, what I'm saying is that if somebody appealed the decision to the courts, that would not give them an additional leg to stand on or some status that they didn't otherwise have because the state statute would control as being the only requirement that's compulsory. So that's essentially what this ordinance would be. And I have a little bit of data that I didn't have earlier this morning that I received from Mr. McDougal as to what this would mean from a substantive point of view by way of example, which I could give you if you like. I'll just explain it. Dennis McDougall is the clerk for the administrator for the ZBA. And just as an example of what this would mean, there's one project, I won't give the address, it's not that important, but it was the change of a property from a single family to a two family. It was before the Board of Appeals. Under the state statute, which means abutters, abutters to abutters, or those across the street, there were 10 notices that were given out. If it were all owners within 300 feet, there were 234 people that would have to be notified because there was a condominium within that area. If it were 400 feet, there'd be 357 people that would have had to have been notified because of that condominium. Now, that's a very steep example. There's another one where, on a matter before the ZBA, under the law, 18 people were notified. If the circle was drawn at 300 feet, 38 people would be notified. And at 400 feet, 60 people would be notified. So you can see how there's an additional notice requirement if you draw the circle further out and further out. That's how this would work. So I give that to you simply for your information, but that's how this would work. And the condominium example is steep because obviously there are many units in a condominium.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. City Solicitor Rumley, if I may ask a few questions. So is this enforceable as far as if we were to vote for this change? I mean, is it enforceable as far as from, I mean, I guess you could always appeal it, but I mean, do we have any grounds to enforce this, I guess?
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, the enforceability would be this. It would be a requirement of the local board and commission to give that notice. Actually, it would be the petitioner who's going forth to make sure that that notice is given. For example, Mr. McDougall does the notices for the Board of Appeals, but the costs of that are borne by the petitioner. Is it enforceable? So the answer to that question is split. The first part of the answer is, if it's made an ordinance, then it is required that it be implemented by the local board or commission. However, at the state level, if there was an appeal to the courts, It would be informational, but not required. So to the degree that you would think that the state would enforce it, it would not.
[John Falco]: So I mean, I think it's interesting, and I think it's definitely, I definitely like notifying more people. I think that's a good thing. I just have, I guess, some concerns that there's like unintended consequences here. So for like the local person that's trying to make a home improvement, put a deck on the back of their house, and they need a variance. Maybe they're too close to the property line. So if they have that type of a situation, that person is going to have to notify everyone within that 400 foot?
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, if this ordinance were passed in its present form, yes. And they would actually pay the cost of that as well? Yeah, I don't know what the cost would be of something like that. But they're responsible for that? Ultimately, yes. It's done by Mr. McDougal, but the notices, the labels, I think the postage, along with the petition fee, advertisement, that's borne by the petitioner.
[John Falco]: That's my concern, because I definitely like the idea of making sure that we notify more people. But I guess I'm worried about once you get into the neighborhoods, if you're doing something to increase the value of your property. Maybe you're putting on a deck. You're doing some sort of home improvement, and it's not that major. You know, there's a concern, I think, that you're adding a cost to that. And there's just a little bit of a concern there. So I think for big developments, this is something that's definitely needed and warranted. I mean, I think it's definitely something that would benefit the whole neighborhood. But for someone that's doing a small type of home improvement, I have some concerns there. my colleague wouldn't mind if we could amend this maybe just to projects that have to go through site plan review. And I'm not sure if that makes sense. Maybe you could weigh in on that. But I'm just thinking that if we're going to have local, my concern is that if we're going to have local neighbors that want to make an improvement and add cost to that and add more red tape to that, I think that's a little bit of a concern. So I'm just thinking if maybe we could have this apply to any type of project that requires site plan review, maybe that's the direction we should head in. And that's an amendment to the resolution that I would offer if my colleague is willing to accept that.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, I can answer you this way, Councilor. First, a site plan review project is one which has a greater magnitude towards it. I think it's six or more units for site plan review. Of the list that I had for Mr. McDougall today, which again is just for my information. There were two projects that he has here that were subject to site plan review. And the first one, under the present law, or under the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under the first one, there were 20 abutters, or abutters to abutters, et cetera, who were notified. If it went to 300 feet, there would have been 71. If it went to 400 feet, there would have been 100. In the next project that was subject to site plan review, under the law and the state statute in its present incarnation, the number of people notified was 15. If that line were drawn out 300 feet, it would have been 58 people notified. And if the line were drawn out to 400 feet, it would be 99 people who would have been notified. So there you can see, and of course that all depends upon the location, because as I said earlier, if there's a condo next door, that number's gonna go up exponentially. So site plan review is only applicable, my recollection is, to projects which call for six units or more.
[John Falco]: I appreciate that. Thank you. That's just my concern. I like the resolution. I think we should be reaching out to actually communicate with more people in the neighborhood when there's a project or development that's going to impact them. So more communication is definitely better. if there's some unintended consequences to this where we're gonna impact them financially and make a simple home improvement into a larger type of project. So that's why I offer the resolution if you're willing that maybe we have this apply just to something that requires site plan review.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's up to Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I definitely think that that is something I'd like to hear the rest of my colleagues discuss. I don't see the harm in that, and I'm not putting this forward to hurt the individual homeowner. I think you can look at it two ways, which is definitely, that is an option. I don't think it's a huge financial burden. 100 people need to be notified. It's going to be $49 in postage. But six or more units is something that definitely can be talked about tonight and discussed.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm done for now.
[John Falco]: Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for bringing this forward. And to this solicitor, I know John already brought this up and I don't want to be redundant, but I actually had two phone calls today that residents were running to the builder's office today to try to secure permits. and possibly variances because they were looking at building up. Because when they're nervous, the same questions you had, probably I've been getting, and I think that's my concern, is that the home improvement jobs, the home improvement variances that people will be looking for because, you know, facts are facts. The costs of housing now have gone up, so people want to take advantage of that while they can and try to make their homes the best they can at this time. So looking at the fear of someone questioning it down the line or that don't belong, that don't live in that radius. and that these people that they've grown up and the neighbors that they know that they might have talked to and let them know that this is what's happening, that they'll be going to the, you know, the appeal board and they'll be looking for something like this. They're just nervous that if it goes further out where people might not want a two family or a, you know, a second floor built or that they would question out of fear that they wouldn't get this. This is one of the biggest concerns. So I like the idea that putting it for the six or more units, I think that that's probably our biggest fear that we've heard here, is that the fear that things are happening so fast, so quick, and notifying people. But my question is, ultimately, it can't be, the ordinance can't be written, excuse me, I'm getting off track, but the question is that If this, what we have in line right now, if this is adopted, it still goes to the state level, and the state level, it's just something that can be heard, but can't be used as judgment.
[Mark Rumley]: All right. It's a valid concern, and it gets a little bit confusing. But it runs this way. The state statute is the core. It is required. It is compulsory. And the state statute says that notice must be given to abutters, or abutters to abutters, and those across the street, within 300 feet. That's the core. That doesn't change. And that's required. This would be additional requirement, a local option. Not local option. That's not the way to put it. Local requirement. And if it's passed by the council ultimately, then the Board of Appeals would have to implement that notice requirement. Now as I said at the beginning, if Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith is not happy with the approval of a variance or whatever it is, and then appeals to the court, if they're not in that core area, They would not be considered to be a party in interest because of their location. There may be some other reasons that they could have standing. I'm not saying that they wouldn't. But their location, if they're outside of that core area, would not give them proper standing. What it would do is mean that from a local point of view, here in Medford, they would get some notification. Now here's the thing. There's nothing bad in anything that anybody just said. I don't want to sound like Pollyanna, but I've been part of municipal government for 34 years. And one of the common threads that goes through as a criticism is, I didn't know. When did that happen? Who did that? And when that occurs, what you have is a lessening of the quantum of trust that a resident has in the local government. This measure will address that in a fashion by giving greater notice, even if it doesn't give legal teeth. The benefit of fine-tuning it is that Ms. Jones or Mr. Smith, who wants to extend a bedroom for maybe an elderly member of their family, won't have to go through hoops if this only applies to larger projects. And generally speaking, I don't hear, in my 34 years, I don't hear, I didn't know about that when we're talking about a neighbor increasing the size of their house a little bit for a family reason. When you hear it, you already know the projects that you hear it on. They don't have to say what they are. But they're the larger projects, the ones that have multiple units, the ones that have traffic impact, which, by the way, is an element or an issue that has to be reviewed in site plan review. Traffic. And those are the ones where people say, I didn't know that. And so there's where, if there is any fine-tuning, that may be a benefit. The other thing is, since this is an amendment to the zoning ordinance, then this would have to go, assuming that it left the launching pad here at the city council, it would have to go to the planning board for a public hearing. So the input of others could be received, too, and then the planning board makes its recommendation back to the council. Well, that's a pretty good thing to have. public input on whether or not to extend public notification. Seems to me that that fits together like Legos.
[George Scarpelli]: So that's what I'd say. Thank you very much for my trivial response. But I think, again, I know that Mike, a council colleague, put together a very thoughtful ordinance. I think that the concerns that Councilor Falco brought up with the site plan review, I would definitely support this if, because I think we all sit here and understand the phone calls we get with the bigger developments that come out that are affecting the zoning that's affecting our our community so I will support this wholeheartedly if we can that I agree with what Councilor Falco stated. site plan reviews, anything over six units, that this would be implemented. So I think that wouldn't affect the phone calls I got that were questioning and nervousness and the fear of our neighbors that how this could affect a homeowner who is looking to improve their home and their future. So I hope that helps with the other Brianna, but thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: The clerk is informing me that the cost is approximately a dollar to send out a mailing to all the homes, and then it's another dollar because he has to also mail them the decision that is printed. So it will be about $2 per household.
[Adam Knight]: City Solicitor Rumley has framed this in a pretty basic and outright fashion, that the steps that we need to go through, if we decide to adopt the zoning amendment this evening, that it goes to the Community Development Board for a public hearing. So, in looking at the action that we're taking here as a body tonight, I think we're torn. I mean, we've all sat here and we've all talked about requirements for notice. We want more people to know what's going on in their neighborhood and we don't want to hurt people at the same time, Mr. President. So here we have a proposal that would increase the notification ramifications by about 100 yards and then also add everybody that lives in that jurisdiction to the notification requirements. I think it might be in our best interest to send the paper as authored to the Community Development Board for their input at a public hearing. Get the information and the input that they can secure And when they bring it back to us, then we'll be in a better position to make a determination as to what language changes we would like to see made. I certainly would agree that I think projects requiring site plan review only would be something that I'd be very supportive of, Mr. President, but I don't think that that's going to be something that's going to be a hindrance for me this evening for supporting this measure and sending it to the Community Development Board for a public hearing and for their input.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Dello Russo. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I'm generally in favor of this expanded notification, but if I could, Mr. President, through the chair to the solicitor, ask a question regarding the amendment. My question is this. It was stated by Councilor Lungo-Koehn that, and I'm sure this is true without a doubt, that we're not seeking to harm the homeowner in this ordinance, but if we put a stipulation on the expansion of the notification to those projects that require site plan review, i.e., a way of getting at the bigger projects, is that a signaling that we're aiming to harm someone? Could it be read as that? So are we targeting someone? Are we being prejudicial? So what applies to one thing, should it apply to all? That's just my question.
[Mark Rumley]: I get the question, and I'd say this. First of all, the legislative discretion of a body like the City Council is indeed that. If you exercise that discretion in a reasonable way, based upon considerations before you, it would not be arbitrary nor would it be discriminatory. In addition, the greater concern of the public is always the larger projects. It's not the smaller ones that have been alluded to here tonight. So indeed, if a large developer said, I'm being prejudiced by having to notice this many people, I would say, so what? Take your shot, bring us to court, and let's see what happens. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, President Caraviello. I think we've heard from a number of councilors. It looks like there potentially is a vote to pass the first reading tonight, but as long as there's limited to site plan review projects or greater, obviously. Just plain devil's advocate, my question would be to the solicitor is I understand if it has to do with the deck or expanding a home so you can have a couple more feet in your bedroom or walk-in closet, whatever it might be. Those are the people that obviously we don't want to have to bear the burden of hundreds and hundreds of dollars. But what about a single family home that the owner wants to turn it into a three-family? it's a two-family district or it's a single-family district. Now, I'm playing devil's advocate because if that was in my neighborhood and it was down the street in a single-family district and a homeowner wanted to put up a three-family, I'd want to know.
[Mark Rumley]: Right. And I don't think necessarily that you're playing devil's advocate. What you're doing is drawing the line at a different place. Right. Right.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And how could we do that?
[Mark Rumley]: Well, I think that the best thing is to let the planning board have some people in to hear their opinions so they can make appropriate recommendations back to the council. So because while the line suggested tonight by a prospective amendment has been projects that would require site plan review, and you just pointed out a larger project than a small addition to a house that nonetheless may impact a particular neighborhood, That is drawing the line at a different place. And I think the best way to decide where to draw that line, and I don't say that either one of those ideas are wrong, even the initial idea is not wrong, it's a matter of judgment and choice. So the question is where is that line drawn? And that really is something that would be interesting to receive in the recommendation from the planning board. So I understand your point, Councilor. I think you're drawing the boundary line at a little different place. There's nothing wrong with that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Solicitor, in the letter dated November 8th regarding this paper 17-731, your response to the mayor on page 2, the last paragraph, it states that failure to comply with the ordinance requirements would not invalidate the approval of a variance. That's correct. And my question to you would be, if this was not implemented and the Zoning Board of Appeals did not comply with the state statute, would that be, in and of itself, a reason to invalidate approval of a variance?
[Mark Rumley]: Not complying with the state statute would absolutely be a reason to invalidate something. That's happened before. Years ago, there was a clerk of the ZBA who was ill with cancer and certain notices didn't go out. That case was in the land court for one day and came back for re-notification.
[Michael Marks]: So based on that, I guess my question is that other than the fact that we're going to create a city ordinance, what would bound the Zoning Board of Appeals to follow it? If there's no ramification on whether or not they follow it, it doesn't impact an appeal. As you mentioned, it's governed by state statutory requirements or regulations. So what would bound them to follow this new notification of 400 feet?
[Mark Rumley]: All municipal employees, and that includes board and commission members, are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the revised ordinances of the City of Medford. If they do not, what could happen to them. I really don't know, not being the person that appoints them, what could happen. But I'll tell you this, if a board or commission member just summarily said, well, we're not doing that, we don't really care what the ordinance says, we have a fundamental problem that would have to be addressed. And it wouldn't be addressed by way of another ordinance. I think it would be addressed by way of removal.
[Michael Marks]: So you're saying once this is implemented, then we can rest assured that notification will take place based on whatever the ordinance reads?
[Mark Rumley]: Yes, the words that you used, rest assured, sounds like, could I say that once the ordinance is in place, that it will always be complied with? There's always room for the frailty of human nature and error. I'm not saying that it's a foolproof system, but it certainly is greater than what exists right now. And it may or may not be implemented.
[Michael Marks]: The reason why I bring it up, Mr. Solicitor, is that one of the ZBA meetings, it was brought up by a member of this council during public participation, that we may be interested in expanding their notification by changing city ordinance. And one of the board members more or less said, do whatever you have to do. We're not going to follow it anyways. And that was my concern, Mr. Solicitor. And if it doesn't invalidate, to me, if it's a city ordinance, and I realize what you're saying about appeals and so forth, but if it's a city ordinance and our own Zoning Board of Appeals does not adhere to the notification process that's laid out, that should be enough to invalidate whatever variance they gave out.
[Mark Rumley]: So to me, that should be enough. I get what you're saying. What you're saying is that the remedy should be invalidation of the variance. However, if the variance is given in compliance with the state law, the fact that the municipal law wasn't followed or the municipal ordinance wasn't followed would not, in and of itself, invalidate the approval. That's clear in what my opinion is. I will agree with you. that if a board or commission member just summarily says, I don't care what you say, we're not doing it. That raises another issue which I think has to be remedied in a different way than invalidating an approval that's consistent with state law. If it's consistent with state law and somebody thumbed their nose at you, but it's consistent with state law, I think the remedy is not to invalidate the approval. The remedy is something else, which I think is removal.
[Michael Marks]: Of course, that's just my opinion. We appreciate your opinion. like what Councilor Falco threw out there by trying to target site plan review for units over six. On the other side, I can see, as Councilor Longo-Kirk mentioned, that a lot of the projects we're going through now are in commercial zoned areas and so forth, but as we're seeing development, we're seeing it in neighborhoods. And the complaints that I'm also receiving aren't just on main roads or in commercial industrial areas, they're in neighborhoods. And I, too, would like to see maybe some discussion, and that may be for a future or the the zoning board itself, when they have their public hearing, to look at how do we rest assure that we don't target, naturally, someone that wants to put another foot onto their porch, in their backyard, but target units that will have an impact, as the city solicitor mentioned, regarding traffic, regarding quality of life, regarding A lot of other issues, infrastructure, water pressure, and a host of other issues that usually come when you develop large projects. So I too would like to see a compromise on that and possibly lower the number of units and not just site plan review.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Rumley, this question is also for you. If an applicant is in substantial compliance with the state law but fails to comply with the local expanded ordinance and submits their application in compliance with one but not the other, does the clock start ticking on the Zoning Board of Appeals timelines relative to when they have to take the application up for hearing?
[Mark Rumley]: The statutory time frames are not waivable or changeable locally. There are time frames during which times the Board of Appeals must act. If they do not, then there is constructive approval. I can tell you, having been down the road on a couple of constructive approval cases over the years, It's a very steep way to try to get an approval. Because what happens is, if somebody says the Board of Appeals didn't act within a certain time frame, and then they go for their building permit, you might say, well, everything's OK, right? Well, the building department is going to say, is this OK? So then they come to me. We look at the time frames, whether or not everything is the way it's supposed to be. But the litmus test on something like that is the lender who's lending to the person that's developing, in this case. The lender might say, I don't know if I want a loan on this project because you got a constructive approval from the ZBA. There are all kinds of variables when that stuff happens, all kinds.
[Adam Knight]: So if they put the application in and only just notify abutters of abutters within 300 feet, the time frame starts ticking right away. And the zoning board has no recourse to require them to expand the notification to the city ordinance.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, we're hoping that the board is going to request their clerk to make sure that that's implied with, yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So through the clerk, what does our next step have to be? Can we take a first reading or if we even got there?
[Clerk]: This is a zoning matter. So it has to be referred to the Community Development Board for their recommendation of public hearing. Then it comes back if you accept the recommendations, then you would vote to go out to public hearing. Which is a two week process, two or three week process.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So we have to move and get a vote on moving this to? You have to send it up. Send it up to? Send it up to the Community Development Board. So I make a motion that we send this up to the Community Development Board.
[Richard Caraviello]: Second.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, point of information. Councilor Scott, point of information. Is this as amended with what we talked about with the three, you know, with looking into, you know, the site review and the three family? That would be, we send the whole paper. We send the whole thing, okay, all right, thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Falco, I mean Councilor Knight. Is this the amendment? What do we got?
[John Falco]: Is this the motion with ritual methods?
[Richard Caraviello]: The paper is as it is until we make an amendment to it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Can we ask for them to review it with all our discussions and I'm sure they're going to have a public hearing and then give us their opinions.
[Clerk]: This paper, as is written, will go to the Community Development Board for their public hearing. If you want to add that amendment, they'll look at that amendment also.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Maybe an amendment would be?
[Clerk]: If they want to incorporate it, they'll come back, but with their language and their recommendations.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So why don't we amend this through the chair to read To exclude it, but we could get it probably perfectly but amendment amended to exclude property owners who all only want to make a small change like a Deck or an extension of a bedroom on their property Mr. President if I may go tonight
[Adam Knight]: Ultimately it's going to go to the community development board for a public hearing, right? They're going to have a public hearing and they're going to get input from the public and they're going to come back to us and make a recommendation to us. If we're going to be sending them a document and we're going to say we want this amendment and that amendment, I think that it's incumbent upon us to get language together and send them that language, Mr. President. So if we were going to take a vote on this matter this evening and we sent them the proposal as written, that's the language, we send it up to them, it's going to come back to us anyway. In the interim, if we want to put together a site, print and review language, or anything else, we can do that. We can do that because the bill is still going to have to go through its three readings here at this level. But ultimately, what we want to do is get input from the general public as to what they think is going to be good for them. So we're already starting to amend a paper that's an idea. And I think this idea is going to be shaped by the input that happens at the public hearing. So I think it might be a good idea for us, Mr. President, to send this paper forward now. Now, I'm wholeheartedly in support of limiting the scope to site plan review or to something a little bit smaller than Mrs. Jones getting her porch done or Mrs. O'Malley trying to expand her driveway. I don't think that that's... the legislative intent of this proposal. I don't think that that's what Councilor Lungo is trying to accomplish. I think what she's trying to accomplish is expanding notifications in neighborhoods so people feel as though they have a voice, a voice in their neighborhood as to what's going on and what direction things are going in. So why don't we let that process happen, and then when it comes back to us, we'll have the ability and the opportunity to make all the changes to it in the world we need, but we'll have more information and more data to make an informed decision. I second that. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you. And I agree with the resolution. I think it's a good resolution, but I do think that, like, and I don't think you're trying to do this on purpose, but I think there's unintended consequences that we're really, you know, there's a cost associated with this. And it's borne by the taxpayer, the person that owns the property. And that's the piece that I guess I'm guarding against. So the only thing I'm saying is if we add the amendment in, we're at least giving some guidance to the Community Development Board to say, you know, there is an amendment here to see what the public thinks about the amendment. To send them the language, I think we're at least giving them a little bit more guidance if we're actually adding the amendment in as to what we're thinking. I mean, it seems like there's definitely some sort of an appetite for the amendment that was offered.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilmember.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Let's give the clerk the language for the amendments.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Okay, on the motion by Council. What information, Mr. President? What information, Councilor?
[Adam Knight]: Can you table it and let him write the amendment and then we can take it up next week? I'm not comfortable, Mr. President, sending a paper to the board or a commission asking them to do something if we don't have the language for them to look at it. This is a zoning issue. It's not like we're asking them to fix a pothole on, you know what I mean? Smith Street, you know what I mean? This is a big deal. So I think that if we're going to do it, we have to do it right. And we have to have everything in a nice little box with some Christmas wrapping paper on it and a bow when they get it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street. I'm always in favor of expanded notification, and I think I like the part in here about the text message or the phone call. As we all know, reverse 9-1-1 calls cost pennies. So if you ask someone to make 400 reverse 9-1-1 calls, we're talking about $4 to $10, which I don't think is exorbitant. And then 400 neighbors get to get notification of a project. I think that any project that is adding a housing unit, there should be an expanded notification because if you live next door to a single family and it's going to be a two or a three, that's going to be a big difference. If you live half a block down from that house, that's going to be a big difference on your street. A lot of us lives on streets where parking is difficult. We face the Every time there's a snow emergency, it's where am I going to put my car? If you start adding housing units onto streets, people are going to want to have input onto whether or not there's going to be parking, because that's the most common variance that's granted when these units are added.
[Richard Caraviello]: Excuse me, Mrs. Rodriguez. Mr. Pignoli, if you're going to film, please film from the notified area, please. Thank you. I apologize.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Okay. So I think that we should just strive for more notification. I would love to see the agendas for the zoning board on the front page of the website. I would love to see them read here at meetings. We really need to find a way for people to know because we're chasing these things. I was at the building department last week and I asked them if there was a way for me to find out about permit refusals because the most common question that people are asking online about zoning is how do we find out about these projects before they get to the ZBA? because once they get there, it feels too late. Currently, unless you know the address of a project that's received a permit refusal, you cannot find out what the permit refusals are in the city. So that's an obstacle that we have to face and that we're chasing down as we're seeing more and more units. We're seeing zoning ordinances being written by our mayor and I'm very concerned as are many, many of our residents. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. The motion is on the floor. Oh, excuse me.
[John Elliott]: Name and address of the record, please. My name is John Elliott. I live at 34 Emery Street on the hillside. I'm in favor of expanding the notification area as well. And that's primarily, if you'd asked me a year ago, I might not have felt so strongly. My opinion is heavily influenced by the fact that I live just over 300 feet from the closest house in what's being called the Capon Village. It's just by that luck of the draw that I got notification. That's a huge project. I wouldn't have known. My next door neighbor didn't get notification because he's over the 300-foot line. I think it's worthwhile that people know what's going on in their neighborhoods. I think sunlight is a good thing to have, and more sunlight is an even better thing to have. I'm certain that 300 feet isn't enough in all cases. I'm not even sure that 400 feet is enough in some cases. Emery Street is a thousand feet long and it's one way and it's only a block and a half. Anybody who lives in the first block is going to drive by or walk by houses that are at the beginning, and they're going to be affected one way or the other. I think it's important to let as many people as, you know, you shouldn't let the whole city know, but there's, as I think the solicitor was saying, it's drawing the line, and I think the 300 foot line is too short. and maybe the 400 feet is enough. It's the right direction. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn, motion is on the floor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I didn't know if anybody else wanted to speak, I think.
[Richard Caraviello]: Name, address, or the record, please.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Elizabeth Bale, 34 Emory Street. I appreciate this discussion. I think that some really good points are being made. And I would appreciate some language that draws the line with this. And I'm not sure what that should be. For example, on our street, Emory Street, Change that if there's a definite changeover going on from single-family houses being changed to multifamily houses Which are being snapped up by absentee landlords that are renting to students that has changed the nature of our street drastically, and it really has a negative effect on our quality of life. So I'm just submitting that as an example, along with Councilor Mangocon's point about changing from a, say, from a two-family to a three-family, or especially, I feel, a single-family to a multi-family. It really, things that can change the character of a neighborhood, And I can't pretend that I know what the way is. But I would encourage you to try to find it and to add it, rather than just sending this as written for a public hearing. Because I think people are going to get agitated, to Councilor Falco's point, if you want to add it. do a deck or something to have to have. It's not the cost, I don't think. It's just the burden of having a lot of people being able to chime in on a project that shouldn't really, it's not really going to affect their lives versus one that will. So that's all I have to say. Thanks very much for bringing this up and discussing the consequences.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I guess to my two colleagues that want to do the site plan review, my question would be, what about notice with regards to any unit, any housing unit? You still think that's too much notice? Versus six plus, what about any unit, any housing unit? Yeah.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. If I may, because I think that is definitely a legitimate concern about when you're adding units to existing units. So if we can work on a compromise, I'm all for it. So I was wondering, City Solicitor Rumley, is there a way that we can, and I'm not sure if you could give us an opinion on this, but you know, Right now, if the amendment is to only apply where site plan review is required, can we also put, or if, you know, something. A housing unit is to be added. Yeah, or if an existing unit is adding additional units, can we, or if you have a recommendation as to some order.
[Mark Rumley]: Well, I've listened and done my share of speaking tonight. The line can be drawn a whole bunch of places. So I would suggest, and I don't know how you feel about this, that you just send the resolution up with an amendment that says that the city council suggests or recommends that the planning board discuss viable alternatives for the applicability of this expanded notification, such as applying it only to projects that are subject to site plan review, or the conversion of housing to more units than it presently has. Something like that. Yes. That's the best I can come up with off the top of my head. Move approval. I didn't write it down. Yes, as amended. Did you get that, Mr. Finn?
[John Falco]: Can we add that as the, I mean I'd be fine with that amendment. Yes we could. Did you get that?
[Richard Caraviello]: So on the motion, on the motion by Councilor O'Connor, as amended that the City Council ask for viable alternatives to housing.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: For applicability.
[Richard Caraviello]: Housing applicability. As amended by Councilor Lococo, as amended. Seconded by Councilor Falco. Roll call. Roll call vote has been requested, Mr. Clerk. Refer to this OCD board. We did it! Woo!
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Kerr? Yes. Vice President Martins? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Motion to be referred back to regular business by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Motion passes. Public hearing 17782. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Alden Memorial Chamber, City Hall, Medford Mass on Tuesday, December 12th, 2017 at 7 o'clock p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the purpose of the allocation of the fiscal year 2018 property tax. One, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2018. Two, to select an open space discount. Three, to select a residential exemption. And four, to select a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-242501 for any combinations to see if Medford is an equal opportunity employer. It would be Finn Clark. All those in favor of the accepting the tax recommendations. This is a public hearing. Name and address for the record, please.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, Aleesha Nunley Benjamin, Finance Director, Auditor for the City of Medford.
[Kenneth Stein]: And Kenneth Stein, Interim Assessor for the Board of Assessors. Thank you.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Tonight, I'd like you to accept the residential factor at 0.906926, which will produce the 175% shift.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm sorry, okay.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: The residential factor for this evening is 0.906, 926, which will produce a 175% shift. On the motion, on the motion to, I'm sorry.
[Richard Caraviello]: on the motion by Councilor Knight to accept the residential factor. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Motion passes. I'm sorry. It's the public hearing at the moment, Mr. Storaro.
[Sorrell]: Motion passed before there was any discussion. and I didn't hear the councilors discuss this and I didn't hear the audience invited up to it being a public hearing. Motion for reconsideration. I did have some comments here, and it seemed like you gathered my papers here.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Point of order, Mr. President. Yes, Mr. Tillerson. We in the public forum of the public hearing, are those in opposition or are those in favor, Mr. President? Mr. Estrella is in opposition.
[Richard Caraviello]: Opposition. Correct.
[Sorrell]: No, I'm not in opposition, I'm neutral. But I do want it discussed on an information basis. I want the councillors who already know all about this, but the audience out there, the people, they don't understand this, most of my say.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have to know if there's anyone else in opposition first.
[Sorrell]: Okay, go ahead.
[Richard Caraviello]: Is there anyone else in opposition to the Residential Tenement? By the way, I'm not in opposition. Okay, so you're in favor of it. No, I want to speak after the meeting. Okay, this is a public hearing, Dr. Straub.
[Sorrell]: So you're either in favor or you're opposed. I'm in favor of an understanding.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Okay. And you can come back and speak after we. Certainly. Is there anyone in opposition? I await your invitation. Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition? Hearing and seeing none, we motion that by the hearing closed. Okay, now you can address. Mr. President, point of order. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Are we now in the portion of the meeting that we can openly discuss and debate? Yes, we are. The format is before us. Yes, we are. Thank you.
[Sorrell]: Name and address of the record, please. Thank you, Councilor De La Ruza. My name is John Starella, and I reside at 20 Metcalf Street, right here in Medford. And I want to thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to speak. And thank you to the City Council, which I would like to thank individually for the opportunity to exercise our First Amendment right, freedom of speech. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Thank you, Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. Thank you, Councilor Fankel. The property tax has already been passed. It was passed in June of 2017. That was six months ago. It was passed by a unanimous vote of the City Council At $109.5 million, the most allowed, all seven councilors voted and the mayor approved a $54 million increase in the property tax. I mean, I'm sorry, I want to correct that, a $4 million increase. Because last year it was $105 million, this year it's $109 million. The council passed the same $4 million increase in June of 2016. Again, in June of 2017. and is already scheduled to do it again in June of 2018. We can predict right now that this city council will pass a $4 million increase in June of 2018. Now, the reason the council does that is because you cannot run the city without that increase. You cannot pay the help. So, it must be passed with that increase. That's why we went from $105 million last year for a property tax to $109.5 million this year. Let's catch up here. Now, without the annual property tax, as I said, without that increase, the Medford City government will not be able to adequately compensate our loyal civil servants. So, if the highest ever property tax is already the law, why are we here? That's what the discussion is about. The city council is here now to decide who will pay for the property tax. That's what's gonna be determined tonight. Not whether or not there is a tax, not how much the tax is. We've already decided how much it is. This council is gonna decide who is going to pay for it. By the way, it's not paid equally. It is decided on a sometimes political basis. The council would choose who among our tax groups will pay and how much each group will pay. The 109, oh, by the way, Mr. President, this does not carry on for long, so please bear with me. The $109 million property tax, if divided evenly and fairly, would come to a rate of $11.30 for each $1,000 of assessed property. That seems fair. The minimum commercial shift in the state law. Now when I say commercial, I'm talking about CIPs, commercial, industrial, and personal property. The minimum commercial shift in the state law is 1.75. I mean, you can't shift less than that. And that makes the minimum residential factor 90.7. That's what Auditor Nunley was referring to. leaving the commercials that have 10% of the property to pay 20% of the tax. Now think of that. The commercials have only 10% of the property, but they pay 20% of the tax. The residents, that's all of us, who own 90% of the property pay only 80% of the tax. I don't know if that's fair, but that is saving, is a saving which the council later takes away from our residents. Now, the council wants to help the residents by having them pay less than the commercials, but later on it takes that away if, and this way the two are connected, if it does not pass the residential exemption, the 35% exemption has gotta be passed too. That's why these have to be discussed mutually, together, at the same time. Do you see how convoluted the government has made this? The commercials are the ones who invest their money in Medford. They build the squares. They provide the services and provide jobs to Medford residents. And they, the commercials, are punished by the city. Pardon me. Now, with reference to the residential exemption, if the residential exemption allows residents to pay less of the property tax and the commercials to pay more, guess what? If residential, if the residential exemption of 35% is not passed, Those same residents who are owner-occupiers would be deprived of the tax gain which the council wanted to award them, and it would be given to the non-occupying investors who are already collecting huge rents at big profits, up to $3,000 a month for an apartment. So the resident taxpayers bear the burden of the property tax. Is that what the city council wants? The city council wants the residents to think that they are favoring them, and then by not passing the residential exemption, they take that away. Anyway, to conclude, they always say that, don't they, to conclude. But they go on. A residential exemption. would save the owner-occupied properties $800 to $1,000 a year, that's all. People are paying $5,000, $6,000 in taxes. Now this saves the people who own their homes and occupy them somewhere from $800 to $1,000 a year. The assessor could not come up with a number, but this is a reasonable number, and it seems that the average tax say is $5,000 to $6,000. This would save them, If you live in a single family house and you occupy it, your tax would, instead of being say $5,000, would be $4,200. The cities in the area already using, now there are cities already using this residential exemption are Chelsea, Somerville, Boston, Cambridge, Malden, Everett, Waltham, and Watertown. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Dr. Straub. Thank you, Dr. Straub. Thank you. Thank you. Pleasure to meet you, sir. You ready?
[Adam Knight]: Motion to approve, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Apologize, can you go over the number one again sure to determine the residential factor to be used in fiscal year? 2018 what's the number again?
[Nunley-Benjamin]: It's the number for the residential factor is zero point nine. Oh six nine two six to produce to produce the hundred and seventy five percent shift. I
[Richard Caraviello]: on the motion to accept the residential factor. With the roll call, Mr. President. Roll call. Councilor Lengelkran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello, and thank you, Dr. Storillo, for your speech. I think the residential factor was brought up by Dr. Storillo, and it's something we discussed in depth today at our Committee of the Whole meeting at 6 and last week, and I thank the consultant and Ms. Nunley for giving us answers to all the questions we did ask and that fifth document we did want was a breakdown of the break even point and I just think it's worth some a summary or some clarification for the viewing public because I know once a month I feel like I get an email, why doesn't Medford have the residential exemption when it comes to owner-occupied versus non-owner-occupied? And the answer I always give is because although we'd be helping the owner-occupied parcels, we'd also be burdening about this year would be about 1,300 properties that are above $720,000. And that's always the answer that I give. But sometimes it's almost not good enough. And there are a lot of people struggling, I think, on both ends. And this council's never adopted the residential owner-occupied exemption. And I think it's just It's good for the public to know that we are going to look into getting new data. Our data is five to six years old and we did request at our Committee of the Whole meeting to get new data so we can get better, more clear and accurate numbers. Because if you look at a property that is worth a million dollars, if we took the shift at 5% they'd be paying about an extra $110. If we took it at 20%, they'd be paying an extra $500. And that's, I think, something that's obviously the sticking point of doing this shift that a number of communities do do. So I don't know if you could add anything else just to educate the public a little more, because it is something that a lot of people do ask us, please accept this shift. And we're left explaining time after time after time.
[Kenneth Stein]: what the issues are. It's a program that's revenue neutral for the city. What it does is only within the residential class, it cuts the taxes of those properties qualifying as owner-occupied, and to make up for that, increases the tax on two classes of property. One, those that are above that so-called break-even point that are still worse off with a residential exemption than if the city didn't have it, and it also increases the tax on all those properties that don't qualify for the residential exemption, particularly rental properties, apartments, and so forth. So it's a cost-benefit analysis and an economic analysis for the council each year to determine is it worth the benefit to those people that qualify to increase the taxes on those people that don't qualify. And of the 351 towns and cities, right now I think only 13 actually have adopted it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And with regard to that, we did take a vote to get more updated data. And I believe, Ms. Nunley, you did say that that is something the city is willing to pursue if the mayor and the council. Yes, the administration is absolutely open to that. So I just want to put that on record that we were told that the city is going to pursue getting us more accurate data and I think that will allow us with this breakdown number five of what we have in our packet I think updated data having this as well as what the savings would be for the owner occupied under 720 or whatever that number may be next year. I think we can make a more educated decision on whether or not to do it or maybe try it at 5% or whatnot. And I think that's just important to point out that we are looking into it. We've looked into it, I think, two times in depth in the past 10 plus years. And I think if we can get this more updated data, it's something we can definitely think about again next year.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. As was stated, this has been an issue before this council for, geez, the last probably five to eight years regarding a residential exemption. And my stance has always been the same, Mr. President. You know, in theory, it sounds great if you can shift to those that aren't living in their property and using them as income. you know, that are living outside this community, or maybe even inside this community that have rental apartments, shift the burden to them and take it off the people that live in their homes. That sounds perfect. Sign me up for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. And what we've been told by the assessor's office, not only this year, but in past years, there's roughly a thousand or some homes in the community that will not get this benefit that actually live in their home. So if you're above the $720,000, I believe it is, assessed value, you could potentially pay more, even though you live in your home and we're giving out exemptions. To me, that is unfair. I cannot support that, Mr. President. care of the lion's share of people living in their homes, but what about the other percent? I represent everyone in this community, and in my opinion, it's not fair. And the second point is that you have many elderly people in this community that are property rich. So you may have someone that bought their home 55, 60 years ago, and their home is assessed at $800,000, $900,000. And the woman is living there by herself now on a fixed income. And guess what? Based on what we're being presented for this exemption, that particular woman living by herself in a $900,000 house, she's property rich, would pay more under that proposal. And I cannot support that. I cannot support that. Someday, like other communities, it'll average out, like they do in Malden and Somerville and Cambridge, that there are a fair number of a non-owner occupied in the city, that you could shift the entire burden to them. We in this community don't have that shift yet. It doesn't work for our community yet. Someday it may. At the rate, you know, properties go in this community, it may work that way. But currently right now, Mr. President, I cannot support that because it leaves out over 1,000 homeowners in this community that will fall above the $720,000 and that live in their property, and that they will end up paying more. So that's where I stand, Mr. President, on this, and I appreciate the fact that we will get updated information, and maybe next year or the following year, who knows? At that point, it may work, and I'll be the first to vote to shift it to the non-owned occupier, but not at this point, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the first question, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. What is the question, sir? The question is to determine the residential factor to be used in fiscal year 2018. Dr. Strauss, do you have something to add?
[Sorrell]: Yes, I wanna respond to what the Councilors have said. They are very much concerned about the 1,000 people who will pay more. And we talk about $900,000 value homes. How many of those are there in Medford, please? Awful lot. How many? An awful lot. How many, well. 1,300 at the moment. All right, now if you wanna talk about the 1,000. All right, 1,300. Well, there are 13,000 which are unoccupied. 1,300 on one side, 13,000 on the other side. I think this council should take care of the majority of the people. My opinion, Mr. President. Point of information, Councilor Naith.
[Adam Knight]: I think it's important to point out, Mr. President, that the assessor's office in their presentation noted that the data that they were using to determine how many homes in this community were owner-occupied was certainly outdated. Therefore, all the data that was generated is garbage in, garbage out. So we really don't have an accurate representation. All we know is that based on the materials that we had before us this evening, we weren't ready to go forward. We recognize the fact that the information that we had before us was deficient, and we're asking the administration to go forward and get us the appropriate information so that in the future we can make an informed decision. That is correct.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dela Rousseau. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Locke-Kern.
[Adam Knight]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Monk.
[Adam Knight]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Number two, to select an open space discount.
[Kenneth Stein]: We don't have any open space currently classified in measure.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Do not adopt the open space discounts. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm on the agenda, it says select an open space discount.
[Richard Caraviello]: We don't have one.
[mgC3PACaQmc_SPEAKER_68]: The way the clerk put it was the motion by Councilor Nantz did not adopt. So my motion would be to make a motion to do it in full favor. This here, the old language is different than we have where I used to speak to it. So Councilor Nantz did not adopt. And yes, vote would not adopt the open space discount.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm just saying turn their microphones on, people are wondering what they're saying.
[Fred Dello Russo]: A yes vote would not adopt the open space discount, am I correct?
[Adam Knight]: The motion that was made was a motion to not adopt, which would mean that the yes vote would be the negative on the question.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That is the motion, yay.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Naik. Yes. Councilor Kerr. Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Vice President Marks.
[Clerk]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello. Yes, seven in the affirmative and none in the negative. Number three, to select a residential exemption. Motion by Councilor Naik not to adopt a residential exemption. We have someone who would like to speak. Name and address of the record, please.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Honorable Council President. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushion Street, Method, Massachusetts. I'm a little bit disconnected here. I had to go home for some papers. And the information that I received today was actually not the answer I was looking for from the assessor's office. So first of all, good evening, honorable Councilors. Please bear with me, because I'm a bit disconnected here. This is probably my seventh and a half year that I've come here for this month of December, as you set the tax rate, or proposed to elect a residential owner exemption or not. And without success in the last 7.5 years that I've come before you, since 2009, I believe. When I ran for city council, my platform mission was, and still is, which I like to pass out, because some councilors had requested my political brochure, so I would like to. We're not handing out political brochures. No, this is information. It's about the real estate tax exemption, and if I may give it to the, Mr. Clerk, Mr. Lepore, the seven for the council, one specifically for Ms. Mayor Muccini-Burke. I would like you to pass them out after I'm done, please. Not now. Thank you very much for your consideration. My priority number one for the community, for the people, is to improve public safety. Number two, improve maintenance of public buildings and city infrastructure. Number three, encourage fiscal responsibility. Number four, promote responsible development. And number five, My special interest would be to reduce real estate tax bills for owner-occupied.
[Adam Knight]: Andy, I asked you not to give out any political. This is about the. This is political literature on here. That's old news. It's political literature. It's just about the owner-occupied exemption. It's political literature. Number five. Mr. Clerk, please take those back. It's political literature. You can keep it. Thank you, Brianna. That's political literature, Andy. I asked you not to give it up. No, it's obsolete. It's political literature.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Okay, you win. I still would like to speak on behalf of the majority of the homeowners. Number five, I would want to reduce real estate tax bills for owner-occupied homeowners by adopting the full 35% under Massachusetts general law Chapter 59, Section 5C, as it is done, as Dr. Starella said, in Somerville, Malden, Everett, all of Boston, and other area communities, to provide some long overdue tax relief to homeowners. Please be aware and assured all seven Councilors, and Ms. Mayor Burke, the city would not lose any real estate tax dollars. They still will receive the whole real estate tax levy of $109.5 million, as they want, with a 4% increase from last year. Our savings will simply be paid for by all others, such as absentee, residential only, residential homeowners who are absentee landlords, period. At the tune of whatever it cost on their bill, I didn't get enough current factual information to write this number in. However, I may continue. On average, these absentee owners, they're collecting $2,000 a month rent. If it's a two family, you're talking $48,000 in rents, even if they had an $800 increase. They're still generating $48,000 and not living in our neighborhoods. You, the city councilors and the mayor, have before you an opportunity of a lifetime. If you adopt Mass General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5C, the owner-occupied real estate tax exemption, the people would benefit greatly. Now, I don't have all my information because of other circumstances that I had no control over. However, I have a packet from the assessor's office that was given out a week ago, last Wednesday, and it states the communities and cities and towns that give out this owner-occupied exemption. And we're talking, as I said, Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville. And the numbers I'm seeing here that they're saving on real estate tax bills, like the lowest is like $1,400 a year, and that is in Chelsea. And that is where the interim director of the assessor's office, Mr. Ken Stein, who's here this evening, was working in that department. And I just found out this evening that the owner-occupied exemption was in effect prior to him working there in 1999. Wow, this has been around since the millennium. This is over 17 years. If we're losing $1,000 a year for the average homeowner, and I'm talking nine out of 10, if you live in the house, that's 90%, 900% batting average. That's incredible. And furthermore, if that 10th person has an increase, it may indeed be less of an increase if we were not to adopt wonderful law that was thought up by our Massachusetts legislators. Finally, they come up with a solution to keep maybe the seniors to be able to afford to live in their town. because the real estate taxes are just too much for them to carry. And furthermore, I don't want to get off track, but the gentleman, Mr. Ken Stein, the interim assessor, did say Chelsea's been doing it since 19, prior to 1999. That's a lot of thousand dollar bills every year. I don't understand why this is not being done here. But in closing, lots of people, including City Hall employees, especially actually, asked me, why not here in 02155? I replied, I'm not sure. So I spoke to Bernie Sanders, and he said, Andrew, the system is rigged. He said, the political donations come from not you, with the empty two-family home on Cushing Street, it comes from the well-to-do, a la the corporate world, businesses and the like. I hope he's wrong, because we must save the middle class from becoming extinct. If we're gonna have a society worth a damn, please give the average homeowner 90% of them, a 1,000 plus, who knows how much, can't get a straight answer. Sad. Give them a nice present for Christmas for the first time ever in history, and go to 155.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion to accept.
[Sorrell]: Name and address of the record. John Sterella, 20 Metcalf Street. Mr. President, this city council continues to kick this can down the road. Through parliamentary maneuvers, they push this forward and don't deal with the question. But someday, I wish one of them would explain to me why they continue to favor millionaire owners who don't live in Medford, who are collecting as much as $36,000 a year in rents, but they will not help the owner-occupied residents of Medford. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Move the question.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the question, number three, to select a residential exemption. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Nay. Councilor Falco? No. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Lococo? No. Vice-President Monk? No.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Scarpelli? No. Vice-President Caraviello? No. Seven in the negative, motion fails. Number four, to select a small commercial exemption. Mr. Stein, none?
[Kenneth Stein]: The small commercial exemption is another tax shifting program which shifts tax within the commercial and industrial class only. It's a program that needs to be adopted well in advance of the setting of the tax rate because it requires application. It requires certification from the Department of Workforce Development and serves, again, to increase the tax rate to make up for anything that is exempted. It says the With the approval of the council, may grant a small commercial exemption to all commercial industrial properties occupied by businesses with an average annual employment of no more than 10 people and assessed value of less than a million dollars. The exemption may not exceed 10% of the assessed value. And to qualify, the director of the Department of Workforce Development must certify that it has an average annual employment of 10 or few people, et cetera, et cetera. This is something that can be done, but it would normally be begun and analyzed during the summer months and prepared as part of the recap submission against a tax shift. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo to move the question, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Nay. Councilor Falco? No. Councilor Nay? Councilor Leclerc? Thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Vice president box. Mr. President, just if I could.
[Michael Marks]: I believe it's only appropriate, Mr. President, that, and I brought this up during the tax discussion, is that the annual receipts that go into when we set our tax rate, every year we estimate what we're going to bring in in receipts. And that number is then added to the recapitulation of what happens within our budget, and the estimated receipts is usually a lower number, what we expect to bring in, and the tax levy is usually a higher number. So every year, because we don't know what we're going to bring in for receipts, we have to estimate and we look at the previous year. So I think it's only appropriate because we asked for this information, Mr. President, and the assessor's office was kind enough to hand it to us. In 2014, we received $13,253,773 in actual receipts for 2014. we estimated that we were going to bring in $12,392,303. So we were off, we were over our estimates by $800,000. The reason why I bring this up, Mr. President, is in my opinion that when you have year after year of estimates that are far below the actual receipts, To me, it would say something about a community that the community is looking to have a surplus rather than to give actual numbers or closer to actual numbers. If you look at FY, FY15, the actual receipts that were received in FY15 was $16,000,414,434. What we estimated, and that's what we put in our estimation for total receipts, was $13,475,700. We were almost off by $3 million. And again, that should have been added to the receipts. bringing up the receipts, what we anticipate to take in, and lower the tax levy, which would lower the tax for every resident in this community. And some would say, well, it's not a lot of money. If you look at it, it really doesn't amount to much. But if you add it up over year, over year, over year, you would see that it would be a savings to the residents of this community. So for the past four years, and I won't go any further into it, Mr. President, our actual receipts exceeded the estimated receipts in each and every year for the past four years. So I think we have to do a better job, and this is something I brought up at the Committee of the Whole meeting, when we have our estimates and look at last year's receipts and say we did X number of dollars. For instance, if you look at Taxize. RoomTax. You know, we added a hotel in the community about a year and a half ago, although we decreased what we believe we're gonna be bringing in on room tax. It makes no sense at all. And the only sense it makes is to make sure that this community doesn't run into a deficit, but it doesn't really give, in my opinion, a strong number of estimated receipts based on year after year projections. And the same applies to the meals tax. The same applies to rentals and other fees in this community. So, again, Mr. President, I will ask in next year's budget that the number of receipts be closer to the previous year's actuals, unless they can speak up and say what the reason is. If there's a legit reason, then I'd like to hear it. But year after year, to be underestimating and not giving the residents of this community somewhat of a break, to me is a shame, Mr. President, and shouldn't happen. I also think it's important, and we didn't bring it up this year, and I know it's mentioned every year, when we talk about the minimum residential factor, it's important because we read this off all the time. single family homes, the average value of $508,000 assessment will see roughly an increase of $179. That's an average. So some will be more, some will be less. Condos at a $384,000 assessment will see an increase of $113. Some will see more, some will see a little less. Two families with the average assessment at $610,000 will see a $393 increase over last year. And again, that's average. And three families based on a $749,000 average assessment will see a $579 increase in their property tax bill. Commercial and industrial will see a decrease, which hasn't happened in a lot of years, of $305, and that is an average. Some will get a decrease more, and some will get a decrease less than that. So I think that's important for the edification of people, Mr. President, that will see their bills go up in the upcoming tax fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, I missed Councilor Marks when he first started off because I was sending some paperwork that the messenger had, but I'm assuming that was paper 17793 we were just speaking about the committee report? No, we haven't done that one yet. Okay, well, why don't we take the committee reports up, Mr. President, move for approval on both, and then we can have this gentleman get a sign. Yes. All right.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion from the Sprenger to accept the committee report 17793. And 1794, Mr. President. And 1794. Seconded by Councilor Scavelli. Motion to accept the report of Committee of the Whole meeting December 6th, 2017 to review and discuss fiscal 2018 property tax allocation. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. 1779.4, report of the Committee of the Whole, December 5th, 2017 to review and discuss the Eversource Transmission Project and grantable location. On the motion by. Move for approval. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Adam Knight]: All those in favor? Aye. We already granted them the right to location. We already gave them the grant license. To adopt the committee report.
[Richard Caraviello]: All those in favor?
[Adam Knight]: Motion passes. Mr. President, motion to revert back to the regular order of business.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to revert back to the regular business, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Petitions, presentations, and similar matters. 17796, petition for sign and denial reversal by Jason Perillo for back bay sign for Johnson Supply, 91 Hicks Avenue, Medford. OCD application 2017-21B exceeds allowable size and secondary sign. Councilor, Vice President Mox, is the sign subcommittee chairman.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We have the petitioner. Are you from the sign company? Yes. We have a gentleman from the sign company here. If he can just give a brief presentation, Mr. President.
[Jason Perullo]: Absolutely. I'm Jason Perillo with Back Bay Sign. I'll serve as representing Johnson Supply this evening. This property is a new tenant, this property at 91 Hicks Ave. It's a situation where the front of the property on Hicks Ave is shorter than the side elevation, which is on Mystic Ave, which isn't technically a street, but it functions much like a street. Pretty much all the business activity of this business is gonna be on that secondary elevation, the parking, the loading dock, the customer entrance. So that's why we proposed the larger sign to go on that secondary elevation. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I had an opportunity to speak with the gentleman. I've taken a look at the sign, and I'm very familiar with the site. I feel as though it's not going to have much impact on the quality of life or beauty of the neighborhood, and it certainly will help out the business owner. So with that being said, I'd move for approval on the paper.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Mr. President of the box. It's important to note that this sign is not internally illuminated. That's correct. And it does point to where the location is, which is to the rear of the building, correct? Exactly. The access. I too, Mr. President, have no problem with this sign and would move approval, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Vice President Mox for approval, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Motion passes, thank you very much. Thank you very much, thank you. Motion by Councilor Knight to take papers in the hands of the clerk. Seconded by Councilor Long-Teran. All those in favor? Motion passes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm sorry?
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: Let him speak.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Name and address of the record, please. My name is Matthew Page Lieberman. I live at 15 Canal Street, apartment 15. I just want to apologize for not getting in on the docket in time. But I'm here about some comments that were voiced last week at the school committee. I know that this is- Can I make a-
[Richard Caraviello]: All the people that are mentioned are not here to defend themselves or make a comment, so it's something that we cannot discuss without all parties being present.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I'm not prosecuting anybody.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm not prosecuting anybody. We won't discuss this without everybody being here, and this should be discussed in executive session. OK. Councilor Knight.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: So executive session excludes the residents, is that correct?
[Richard Caraviello]: That's correct. There's people here that are not His name's mentioned here, but people aren't hearing the audience tonight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, if I may? The Attorney General put out a guideline, and the guideline was relative to the open meeting law and the requirements thereof and the top ten reasons for why a public body can go into executive session. Rule number one is to discuss the reputation of character rather than the professional competence of any individual.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Are you going to name the names?
[Richard Caraviello]: I put the names down there for public record. He has a paper here that I don't think that's something that we should be discussing and I'm gonna move the paper out of order. Thank you. The people on here to defend themselves that are on this paper.
[Adam Knight]: Should we wish to go into executive to discuss the matter, we need to provide the parties that are subject to the discussion with 48 hours notice.
[Richard Caraviello]: Point of information, Mr. President? Before me here, I have the open meeting guide from the Attorney General's office.
[Adam Knight]: The individual to be discussed in executive session shall be notified in writing by the public body at least 40 hours prior to the proposed executive session, provided, however, the notification may be waived upon written agreement of the parties. I believe that the handout that came across here does indicate that. I might not have read the handout. I just read the materials that he passed out when he came out. I guess I do, because I read the papers that he gave us.
[Richard Caraviello]: You got the paper that you were given.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Are we speaking about the paper he gave us, or are you speaking in general about politics?
[Richard Caraviello]: I was just providing something that's part of the public record with that paper. We have it, and it's for the council to do what they want with it.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: That the council can do whatever everybody wants, but there are some important things to understand about how this reflects upon the community.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, but again, there's people here whose reputations may be jeopardized here.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Look, I don't want to violate the law. If Adam's saying that this is a violation of open records.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If you're going to name people's names. No, I have no interest in doing that.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I have no interest in naming names.
[Adam Knight]: But there are some serious dynamics about what happened that need to be addressed. Point of information to Councilor Scott Powell.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I don't disagree if it's done right.
[George Scarpelli]: You mentioned that you wanted his public record, what you gave us, and that's what I find is the issue. That's all.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I'm only saying that I'm referring to something that's already in the public record. Okay, I haven't seen it, so. I haven't seen the public record, so I can't comment on it either.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Everybody needs to see a public record before people can discuss something that's already in the public record What is on public record the conversation that happened last week at the school committee? That's my school. I It's not on the public record if it happens with the school committee
[Richard Caraviello]: We have no record of that. I have not received any record of it.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I put them all online. Everybody knows I've been doing it for three years.
[Richard Caraviello]: Online is not for us, a public record for us.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: We've never received anything in our... Okay, so what will it take to move this forward? Do I have to send emails to everybody with the links to the videos I put online?
[Richard Caraviello]: No, it's public.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Again, he needs something else. Or do I have to get somebody to stamp it that it's a public record? You submit it to the clerk. And this week I just have to get you to stamp it or something like this? It has to be received.
[Clerk]: My only suggestion is that this is subject only to the school committee that your petition should be to the school committee. Yeah, not to us. And the school committee themselves. They can make a decision to us.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Are you saying the school committee would make it a public record?
[Richard Caraviello]: They can make it a public record.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: And that would be up to their discretion? That's up to their discretion. Can I say something without mentioning any of those people?
[Richard Caraviello]: If you're not mentioning any names.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I have no intention of mentioning any of those people. I will say, though, that there are very many people who are upset about what happened. And I know that there are things that people are trying to take to address some of these dynamics in our community. I would just ask that anybody on this body, when anybody comes forward and asks for any kind of support, that people really honor it, that people try to figure out, how can we work to make sure that things that happened previously don't happen in any of our bodies? Thank you for your opinion.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to take hands from the clerk. Offered by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the pavement at the entrance to 100 High Street Condos parking lot located on Route 16 be repaired in the interest of public safety.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. This particular road, which is the entrance to the 100 High Street condos, their parking lot, is in deplorable condition. And I would ask that this paper be sent to the State Highway Department for repair of that roadway, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Vice President Mox, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. All those in favor? Motion passes. After by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the two catch basins located at 16 Cook Circle be discussed. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my understanding that on Cook Circle, they installed two catch basins over the last several years to alleviate some of the water concerns that they have up on the hill. And what's happening right now is these catch basins are getting clogged with leaves, and the rain runoff is going behind the homes on Cook Circle leading down to the backyards on homes that are on Lawrence Road. And it's eroding the hill that separates the homes on both streets and creating a concern. So I would ask that DPW take a look at ways that they can prevent the leaves from clogging up these two particular catch basins in front of 16 Cook Circle. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Vice President Mox. Seconded by Councilor DelaRosa. All those in favor? Aye, motion passes. Records of the meeting of December 5th, 2017 were passed to Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight, how did you find those records?
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, before we end the meeting. Vice President Mox. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to bring up, I had the opportunity with some of my colleagues this past Saturday to attend the grand opening of our first ever dog park in this community. I know you were there, Mr. President. Councilor Lungo-Koehn, Councilor Falco were present at the time. It was a great event. There were dozens of dogs, both for the small and large dog park. I want to personally thank, again, Mr. President, a group of residents that got together with a particular need in mind, and that was to create an area where dogs could socialize and exercise some three years ago. And this particular group of residents found a $250,000 Stanton Foundation grant. They did the research and found a dog park architect who was instrumental in doing other parks around this particular area. The members of the PAWS Committee, Patty Flynn, Jim Silva, Gary DiStefano, Diane Gittner, John Sardone, were all instrumental in moving this very important and well-needed dog park in this community. I want to thank Mayor McGlynn, who originally was the person that this dark power committee approached. The mayor saw fit to do a survey citywide, and that's how we came up with the location behind the McGlynn School. So I want to thank Mayor McGlynn for his foresight and vision on this. And I hope, Mr. President, for future needs in this community that citizen-driven participation will always be welcomed. in this community, and I think this is a great example of what can happen when there's a need in the community and a number of citizens that need to address that.
[Richard Caraviello]: And you, Mr. Vice President, should be championed for taking the lead in this way back a couple years ago, and we at the City Council thank you for all your hard work that you did on this. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo to adjourn. Although, seconded by Councilor Falco.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: May I comment on Councilor Marks' brilliant achievement? Thank you. Councilor Marks, congratulations, you came through. I'm glad the dogs got their due. I hope someday the owner-occupiers get their $1,200 a year in real estate tax savings also. Especially when the seniors can maybe afford to stay and live in the houses in West Medford or South Medford. Thank you for listening.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Motion passes, meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 13.47 minutes total words: 1827  |
total time: 9.58 minutes total words: 1607  |
total time: 4.62 minutes total words: 818  |
total time: 3.91 minutes total words: 589  |
|
total time: 6.67 minutes total words: 1492  |
total time: 1.74 minutes total words: 237  |
total time: 16.49 minutes total words: 2351  |
|