[Caraviello]: Good evening. Regular meeting, May 22nd, 2018. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Dello Russo. Present. Council Falco. Present. Council Knight. Present. Council Leclerc. Present. Council Martz. Present. Council Spavaglia. Present. President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Present. Please rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Commendations, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, if you'd like to come up here and make a commendation to congratulate Elizabeth Lazzaro for her second place finish in the USA Hockey Championship.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Good evening. A few weeks ago, I caught wind by a number of people, Medford residents, talking about a young lady, Elizabeth Lazzaro, who has been very successful in her hockey career, academically as well, from what I understand. And so I put this on the agenda to give Elizabeth a citation. I'd like to tell you a little bit about Elizabeth, She started the Learn to Skate program when she was four through Medford Rec Learn to Skate. When she was six, she played for Medford Rec Hockey on the U10 Girls Travel Team. In 2013, the Medford Rec Hockey Girls U10 won the Middlesex Yankee Girls Conference. She has also played for Medford Rec's Squirt and Pee Wees teams while playing for the East Coast Wizards Girls Hockey Program. Recently, In 2000, it was April, 2018 USA Hockey National Championship weekend, that tournament was in Marlboro, Mass. Her team won the division, sorry, her teammates in her place, second in the country. And on March 11th, to get to that April tournament, they won the Mass State Hockey Tier Two Championship at the New England Sports Center in Marlboro. which qualified them for the national tournament. Elizabeth is also an honor roll student. She's a freshman at Medford High School. She plays a number of other sports such as softball and volleyball. She has two proud parents here in the audience. It's just someone who is extremely accomplished in the academics and very close to my heart, girls hockey, which is something that I've definitely worked hard for and this council has worked hard for throughout the years. So I just want to bring her up and read a citation and let the city of Medford give her a round of applause. I'm going to read the citation. Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council accommodation to Elizabeth Lazzaro. Medford City Council congratulates Elizabeth Lazzaro, who is a member of the East Coast Wizards U14, for placing second in the country at the 2018 U.S. Hockey National Championship. The Wizards won the Mass State Hockey Tier 2 Championship at the New England Sports Center in Marlborough, which qualified them for the national tournament. At the U.S. National Tournament, Elizabeth was the highest scoring player with four goals. Elizabeth is a Medford resident attending Medford High School and is on the honor roll. I don't know if you want to say a few words, but again, congratulations, we're so proud of you.
[SPEAKER_22]: I guess I just want to thank my parents for always supporting me and my coaches that I've had throughout the years and teachers for making it possible for me to be So, I guess, like, thank you. So, yeah. That's good.
[Lungo-Koehn]: She realizes what parents put into it. I'm learning that. Spring sports, this, and I'm sure my colleagues, too. It takes a lot, and I'm sure they're extremely proud of you.
[Mn4KS2yu_8U_SPEAKER_00]: Everybody's an old man.
[SPEAKER_10]: Are you sure, dad? Stay there.
[Dello Russo]: to take several papers out of order for the suspension of the rules.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor De La Russa to take papers out of suspension. Hold them there, let's take a look. All right. Paper. 18443, petitions, presentations, and similar matters. 18443, petition for a common fixture license by Jeanine Brown Weiss for Tiger Corporation, T3287, 467 Salem Street in Bedford, Mass. Paper has been referred over to Councilor Scarpelli, the chairman of the licensing committee. Councilor Scarpelli, name and address of the record.
[SPEAKER_26]: April Laskowski, 469 Salem Street.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm reviewing everything. It looks like everything's in order, but do you know the hours of operations yet?
[SPEAKER_26]: We do, yes. Starbucks or for the store in general?
[Scarpelli]: The store in general.
[SPEAKER_26]: Store in general. Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Saturday, 8 to 11, and Sunday, 8 to 10.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, and I know the The Starbucks is coming in?
[SPEAKER_26]: Yes.
[Scarpelli]: And those hours, will they run concurrent?
[SPEAKER_26]: They will close an hour before the store does, but they will open at the same time.
[Scarpelli]: Okay, Mr. President, I find everything in order. I move forward in favor of this paper.
[Caraviello]: Second. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, through the chair. Can you explain a little bit, when's the grand opening?
[SPEAKER_26]: Okay, we open August 14th. We're in the middle of hiring our team members right now. We're looking to hire about 91 team members in the area, 80 Target Express team members, eight Starbucks team members, and three Target protection specialists. We're well on our way. We've already hired 11 people in the community. We're very excited to be in the community, and we're excited to get involved.
[Caraviello]: Great, thank you. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes, congratulations. Thank you. 18444 petition to reverse the sign denial by Steve Stabile for Blink Fitness, 465 Salinger Street, Medford, Mass. OCD application 2018 slash 11 exceeds allowable size. Signed Chairman, Councilor Marks.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if we could hear from the petitioner where he's present tonight. Name and address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_06]: Stephen Stabile, 465 Salem Street, Bedford. What's that? Sure, absolutely. So if you looked at the paperwork that I submitted to all council members, you'll see that the facade that we have, it kind of starts as like a bottle and opens up in the back. So we're one of the largest tenants in that strip mall, but unfortunately the smallest facade. And so the current bylaws just don't, to be successful. We actually did receive from the building department to build a parapet, kind of like a mini version of the Target one, like the red box that they have. So they'll be building something like that, and I feel like what we submitted And so I think if it was any smaller, it might look a little odd. So, because we will be raised above, you know, Rite Aid and here Terrace and the liquor store a little bit, but, you know, we're putting a lot into this plaza. So we want to try to draw as much attention as possible to the consumers. Yeah, just like regular channel lettering with LED internally, not offensive, not neon, things like that. Just kind of exactly the way the target sign will be.
[Marks]: Have you read the current sign ordinance regarding how long the sign can be left on and so forth?
[SPEAKER_06]: I have not read that in detail, no.
[Marks]: So would you be willing to, now you're going to have a secondary freestanding sign?
[SPEAKER_06]: The only secondary sign we have is the pylon sign that's currently there. We'll be taking the MG Fitness space across the bottom. But other than that, there'll be no other signage.
[Marks]: So is that going to be the same size as it currently exists? Yes. So it's not going to be any larger? No. Okay. So, Mr. President, I find no problem with this particular paper. I wish the gentleman that's been a long-standing site for physical fitness in the community, I wish him well, Mr. President. I would just ask that he read the entire piece of the ordinance that was created some years ago regarding signage and what the rules and regulations are regarding signage.
[Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think the sign Is there anything extraordinary in that plaza? It seems to be fitting for its location and doesn't create any problems for about a second approval.
[Caraviello]: Councilor McLachlan.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I, too, I agree when you go into the old, it used to be Mike's gym. attend that gym. When you go in, it's just very straight and narrow, and then it's like wings out. Will it be two floors?
[SPEAKER_06]: No, we're actually doing a complete renovation. So we're demoing the mezzanine that's currently in there, and we're closing up the basement and using that just for storage. So it'll be now one level, but instead of having very low ceilings, it'll have like 19 foot ceilings. So it'll give it that open look.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Great, great. And all new equipment and everything? Everything's brand new. Oh, great. And then the same question, when will we be opening?
[SPEAKER_06]: Well, Grossman, the landlord, is doing a lot of the work, you know, the demo work itself. So they're trying to start by, I would think, somewhere in the next couple of weeks to start their demo. They're going in and doing some abatement. And then from there, they'll start the demo. So we're hoping that they'll finish up around end of July. And then our process takes currently from like start to grand opening about 14 weeks. So we're looking somewhere in late October.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor?
[SPEAKER_06]: Aye.
[Caraviello]: Motion passes.
[SPEAKER_06]: Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: While we're talking about signs, I, um, I have something on the agenda this week. Um, 18.452 offered by President Carabello, be it resolved that Medford City Council address the sign reading Hustle Killer on Main Street, South Medved on as being appropriate for the community. Over the weekend, I, I, I sent out a picture to, uh, all the councilors showing, um, a picture right in Tufts Square across from the fire station and the school with the sign calling, it's called Hustle Killer. I mean, just the word killer on any sign in the city, I think just sends the wrong message. I was informed by John Bavuso that the gentleman came in for a sign permit on Monday after he put the sign up already. So the sign will be coming down, but going forward with the sign going back up, with that language of hustle killer on it, and say across the street from the park and across the street from the school. I just don't think it sends the right message to anybody in the community or this whole country with all the senseless violence that's going on. I don't know. From what I understand, they sell urban apparel. That's what they sell in there, but again, Having that name out across the street from a school in the park, I just don't think sends the right message to our community. And I would hope that when he comes back up for a signed ordinance, that it gets denied. And if he wants to put it up, I would hope that they would change the name of the business. So I would hope that everybody would support me on that. Thank you. Dear Mr. President and Councilors, I respectfully request or recommend that your honorable body approve the following reappointment of Elizabeth Carey Sewell of 50 Douglas Road in Medford to the Community Preservation Commission and the reappointment of Michael Lewis, 133 Pine Ridge Road to the Community Preservation Commission. Please find the attached appointment letters for both individuals. Councilor Dello Russo. Move approval in absentia of the candidates. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We typically request that any new appointments come before the council to stand here and let us know the position they've been appointed to. These are reappointments. Right, right. And we've done that in the past for reappointments also. It's up to the druthers of this council. I would prefer, Mr. President, because some of them are three, four-year appointments, I would ask that the reappointments also appear before us, Mr. President.
[Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, I withdraw my motion.
[Caraviello]: Okay. On the motion by Councilor Marks that we table this until the two candidates come up here before the council, before they get reappointed. Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Do you believe we have a meeting on the Community Preservation Act, which would be tomorrow evening? Yes. Okay. Maybe we can get the applicants to come, the reappointment candidates to come to that meeting as they're probably going to be there to present anyway.
[Marks]: If they come tomorrow night, we'll talk to them. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: 18448, dear Mr. President and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Barney approve the following, the appointment of Alex Gostanian of 20 Bower Street Method as a Commissioner of Trust Funds. Alex is present to answer any of the Council's questions. Please find a resume and an appointment letter for Mr. Gostanian. Good evening, name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_04]: My name is Alex Gostanian and I live at 20 Bower Street, Council Members.
[Caraviello]: Congratulations. Would anybody have any questions for Alex? Mr. President? Mr. President?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Thank you for submitting your resume to us. And maybe just give us a little background about yourself so the people at home can hear.
[SPEAKER_04]: Sure. For the last 11 years, I've worked in financial services between banking and business valuation. During that time, I earned a master's at Suffolk University in finance. And while I worked in business valuation, I specifically focused on that. I'm focused on valuing investment management companies, so I'm well aware of the products that they offer.
[Dello Russo]: Thank you. Councilor Russo. Mr. President, if I could, through the chair to Mr. Gustanian, could you tell me the college in New England which has as its motto, Initium Sapientiae Timor Domini?
[SPEAKER_04]: St. Anselm College.
[Dello Russo]: Thank you. Move approval, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: All right, a motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Naito. All those in favor?
[Marks]: Aye.
[Caraviello]: Congratulations, Alex. Thank you. Two, Council President and members of the City Council, from Stephanie and Burt Mayer, acceptance of a grant from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund, phase one improvements to Harris Park, and to appropriate the funds necessary for the implementation of the project. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the National Park Service have awarded a reimbursement grant of $300,000 in federal land and water conservation funds to the city for improvements to Harris Park to service residents. Implementation of the project will cost an estimated $817,000, and this sum must be appropriately allocated to the project prior to the execution of the grant agreements. The council has appropriated $300,000 in CPA funds to the project, leaving a balance of $517,050 to be appropriated prior to the execution of the grant agreement. I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Body adopt the attempt resolution letter, resolution to finally accept the grant and to appropriate the sum of $570,000 for the implementation of the project. The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant will reimburse $300,000 on completion of the project. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Burke, Mayor. Clara, did you want to speak on this? Name and address of the record, please.
[_Zabvvh8vxM_SPEAKER_14]: My name is Clara Stoker-Long. I am a planner in the Office of Community Development. We've been working for some time on a concept plan for Harris Park. And last February, February before last, in fact, we submitted a grant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for $300,000 for that project. That's the maximum amount. that you can get from that particular grant round. In the meantime, we had anticipated that we would get the grant, but we did not know. We also went to, I applied to the CPA, an early application last, in the winter last year, the CPA recommended allocating $300,000 towards the project, and the council approved that last December. Just recently, The state has finalized and gotten the authorization to actually offer the Council the grant. So now we come before you to ask you to authorize applying for and accepting the grant. And it's necessary to have all the funding up front before the grant agreement will be signed by the Commonwealth. So we're asking you to also appropriate The balance of funds was just $517,000 up front. $300,000 of that amount will be reimbursed on completion of the project. I'm available for any questions. Obviously, we did discuss it last week at the Committee of the Whole, but any additional questions, I will do my best to answer.
[Dello Russo]: Mr. Dello Russo. Mr. President, we had a wonderful presentation. from Florida and the representative of the design firm which presented to us a preliminary schema which was required for the application of this grant on making improvements to a park that's part of a vital neighborhood within our community. It's an innovative design that follows upon and incorporates many new features that one finds in parks in the United States today, which also benefit from federal funding. Mr. President, the features were enumerated for us at the meeting the other night to the council. I don't want to belabor them, but this is a phase one, if I understood correctly, of the implementation plan that will not take into account any significant embellishments to the basketball and tennis courts, nor to the baseball field. But we'll take into account other areas of the park and also add special features. I approve of this, Mr. President. If there is a neighborhood in Medford, and I'm sure my colleague to the right will attest, where there's vitality, families who are staying in this community, living in this community, and multi-generational families there. It's the neighborhood around Harris Park. So I think this would be a wonderful addition and improvement to our community, and I move approval.
[Knight]: Councilor Neistat. Mr. President, thank you very much. This is an environmental justice area, so upgrades to our public park in this area I think is going to be valuable to the community. I do have a question though. Would the acceptance of the grant preclude us from expanding our community guidance program at this public park?
[_Zabvvh8vxM_SPEAKER_14]: No, indeed. There's a community garden as an element of phase one.
[Caraviello]: Okay. Thank you very much. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I was present last week when we got the presentation, which was very detailed and we got a breakdown per our request of the money that will be expended. I think this too is a park that needs to be rehabbed. I believe that doing the tennis courts and the basketball courts, the tennis and basketball courts have already been done. My questions last week were kind of with regards to the financials of this project, the 817,000. That coupled with the phase two, just personally, I feel like 1.6 million is a bit excessive. Definitely we need this. It's great that we have grant money. It's great that we were able to use some CPA funds for this. I just think looking ahead, we need to be a little bit more conservative considering the maintenance we need at our other parks, the issues we have with our buildings in the city of Medford. I just wanna make that point because My question last week had to do with the design is great. They're going to add a couple of handicapped spots. There's going to be community gardens. There's going to be a very big play structure. There's also going to be a water element, which I think people are asking for. And I think this will be very well utilized. Funding for the water and stuff were questions of mine last week. And then there's a whole nother strip of more Claudia can explain a little bit more in detail, but another whole strip leading to the parking that has to do with almost like another play structure and a little different feel to it, but another play structure. And I think my question had to do with, is there any way we can reduce it so then if we do go to phase two and redo the ball fields, whether we put soccer fields or another baseball diamond or softball field, whatever the case may be for phase two, that it wouldn't be such a hefty price tag, because you're talking 1.6 million where you've already spent some money on the basketball and the tennis court. And I just had to make that point. I feel like going forward, definitely to look at the price and being able to maintain all of our ball fields, all of our playgrounds. I have this moving forward while I'm getting complaints about other parks having graffiti and wood chips never being replaced, different things that come before us all the time. Just wanna be able to rehab our parks in an efficient manner while we still have the ability to maintain them all. And this grant was submitted, so my question, can we scale back a little bit? The answer is no, because this plan was submitted and is based on the grant, the $300,000 grant. So I am in support of this tonight. I just think moving forward, With phase two, another 800 plus thousand dollars, I think we just need to, we'll personally just scale it back a bit. Do it right, be able to maintain it, but just scale it back somewhat.
[Marks]: Thank you. Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And, uh, I want to speak from a firsthand knowledge that, uh, this happens to be a local park near my home. And I've spent countless hours in the play structure and the basketball court and you name it. And I can tell you, I can't think of one other park in the community that's utilized to the fashion that this particular park is. It's such a fashion that the neighbors take care of the park. And there's a little dome there where you can sit down. Neighbors actually bring their supper out there and will eat within the park with their families. It's a real unique setting. And I believe this particular work is long overdue. And the question I do have, Mr. President, is recently we created the Crystal Campbell Memorial Garden, which is a park area. We're in the process right now of turning the Riverside Ave, which used to be a bus shelter, into park land and a new addition to the parks department. And we're going to be spending multi-millions of dollars refurbishing our parks, but yet our park department hasn't grown at all, the staffing. And in my opinion, you can't expand and create, especially parks that are going a water addition, and similar to the Crystal Campbell PAC, that are going to require significant upkeep and not expand the staffing and the maintenance on these PACs. So I would ask that during budget deliberation that the administration include ample amount of money to sufficiently increase the DPW staff, in particular, I know we need it in the highway, we need it in forestry, but in particular in the PACs. As we all hear, we get the complaints when the baseball fields aren't lined properly in time, the grass is not cut, and it's not because they're not doing the job, it's because they're at bare bones capacity, which many of our departments are in the city. So I would just ask that with the addition of these parks, we want to make sure in five years from now that the water facility at Harris Park, which is going to be a great addition, and I'd like to see more throughout the community, is still working after five years and properly maintained. And as Councilor Longo-Curran mentioned, that when needs come up, that they're addressed immediately. And you can't do that with a skeleton crew. So that would be my one recommendation I make on this, Mr. President, that the city administration come back to this council during the budget with an appropriation to increase the staffing at DPW, in particular, in the parks department.
[Knight]: Councilor Nice. Mr. President, I support the paper wholeheartedly as amended and move approval.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by? Second. Councilor Falco, as amended by Councilor Marks. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. For the paper to take the first read.
[Clerk]: Vice President Dello Russo?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Layton? Yes. Councilor Lungo-Koehnan? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Vice President Caprio?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative. None of the negative paper takes its first reading. Congratulations. 18449, from Mayor Stephanie Burke. I read amendment to the revised ordinance of the city of Medford establishing a revolving fund account in the city of Medford. Dear Mr. President and members of the city council, I respectfully request to recommend that your honorable body approve an amendment to the revised ordinances of the city of Medford establishing a new ordinance pertaining to revolving funds. General law chapter 44, section 53E and a half permits the city to establish a revolving fund ordinance. Any such ordinance must specify for each fund, one, the programs or activities for which the revolving fund may be expended. Two, the departmental receipts in connection with those programs or activities that shall be credited to the revolving fund. Three, the board, department, or officer authorized to expend from such fund ends for any reporting or other requirements the city or town may impose. The attached is the full text of the proposed amendment creating a revolving fund ordinance in the text of the provisions of the statute. The Director of Finance and Auditing will be at attendance to answer any questions. Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Good evening, Honorable Councilors Leish and Unley Benjamin, Finance Director. Through the Governor's Municipal Minority Organization Act, the departmental revolving funds now have to be in an ordinance or by-law.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Bailão. All those in favor? All those in favor? Motion passes. Thank you. 18-450. Dear President Caraviello and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following home rule petition to be sent to the general court regarding the use of specific language on its municipal property tax bills or on inserts that will accompany municipal property tax bills in the city of Medford. A draft format is attached to this paper. The purpose of this effort is to provide taxpayers with a method to make voluntary contributions to assist in the construction or renovation of the buildings that serve our police, fire, and library departments.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, in our packet this evening, we do have some papers from the mayor. And if we look at these papers from the mayor, we'll see that the council had voted to create a fire station donation account. The council had voted to create a police and fire donation account. The council had voted to complete a police, fire, and library donation account, Mr. President. The administration has supported this measure that the council has brought forward, and this is what it takes to execute such. So I would move for approval of the paper, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Councilor Lococo.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I guess a question for the administration. I know we voted to create an account for the fire department rebuild and the library rebuild, but we didn't create an account for the police station rebuild. So I know in this homeroom petition, we're asking that on the tax bills or on inserts that will accompany the tax bills. It will provide taxpayers with a method to make voluntary contributions or donations to assist in the construction or renovation of the buildings that serve the Medford Police, Fire, or Library. So will we be setting up a third account for the police station?
[Mn4KS2yu_8U_SPEAKER_00]: The police station is one of the three boxes that would be on the insert. What you have before you is the home of Mark Rumley, City Solicitor, 50 Woodrow Avenue, Medford. What you have before you is the home rule petition. There was an attachment with that also, which showed what would be an insert, which had three boxes on it, which are the three boxes that came up during the three subjects that came up during the committee meetings, police, fire, library, for people that might want to make a voluntary contribution. And the law is you can't include some data with the tax bill unless you have specific authority. That's the necessity of the home rule petition. If this goes forward concurrently, that form that you got in the packet would have to go to the Department of Revenue for their approval, because nothing can go in the tax bill without it.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I think I understand that. I'm talking about if this gets approved by the State House, where would we put the collections for the police station? Which account would we put it in? We don't have a separate account yet. We voted to... Sure. approve an account for the fire station and the library, but we haven't voted to approve a separate account for the police station.
[SPEAKER_19]: That's correct, Councilor. And the last time I was here, we did, you did approve donations for fire and library and requested that we look into doing the police as well, which we should have a paper coming before you shortly to allow for that.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. Vote timeframe for this to potentially, if it does get passed, do we have? Passed at the state house? Yes. Do we have like a timeline? Sorry.
[Mn4KS2yu_8U_SPEAKER_00]: Through the chair, I think the councilor knows through experience that it's always a matter of speculation on when things come back from the state house. They're in the, I'm sure the stages of going through their budget. So no one can really predict when it would be approved. I've been through home rule petitions of all sorts, as you have too, comes back at various times. If I was a gambling man, I don't think I'd want to bet on anything earlier than the fall.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Dello Russo. Yes. Councilor Falco.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Kern.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Montz.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Camillo. Yes. Seven in the affirmative and none in the negative. Motion passes. Motion to revert back to regular business. Motion. Motion by Councilor Dela Ruzzo, seconded by Councilor Knight. Routine. 4-5-1 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council be provided with any and all information in regards to the rental of Duggar Park in Tufts Park to Lesley University. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I put this on after I heard recently within the last week or two that There are some talks with Lesley University. I first learned of this with regards to the Medford Public Schools working out agreements with Lesley University to use the basketball, potentially to use the basketball courts up at the high school. I did catch wind that there's also potential for an agreement between the city and Duggar Park, as well as the city and Tufts Park, and really it's just been a few people that have come and asked me questions and I don't know anything about it. So I know the school issue has moved forward. If you watched Monday night's meeting, they're moving forward on, you know, going out for a request for a proposal, I believe on the high school portion. And I just feel like as the city council who answers to the residents, maybe we should get some sort of update from the administration on what is going on, who is, what type of term, what are the terms to these potential agreements? How are we going to handle it? What's the timeframe? I believe Leslie's doing a lot of work, wants to do some work at each particular area. What does that entail? How will the council be involved? These are just all questions that have run through my head over the last couple of weeks, and I think it's extremely important. We've learned that we're not always included in informative discussions, but I think this is something that potentially depending on the terms, I definitely want to be able to review and look over and give my opinions, my concerns, ask questions. And I think it's very important that the city of Medford, our residents are informed on this. I know that parents are asking questions about what's going on with the high school and I just want to make sure the areas around Duggar Park and Tufts Park and the city as a whole has the time to digest this and ask questions and that we're transparent all around. So I ask that we get a written summary of just any type of update with regards to these two locations and anything that is being talked about so that we can have an idea of what's going on, timeframe, so that we can do our job.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I'd like to amend the paper and request also that a copy of the RFP that was approved by the school committee, once it is issued, be forwarded forthwith to the council for review as well.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn as amended by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes.
[Marks]: On the motion by Councilor Marks to take suspension to take paper 18-296 and report that out.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Marks?
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. We met tonight as a council, Committee of the Whole meeting for an issue that was tabled or referred to the Committee of the Whole on March 20th, 2018. This paper was an appropriation of $1 million to fund a demolition and other costs for construction of the police station. We had several discussions regarding some issues with tearing down the current training tower and police facility in order to make way for new headquarters. And I would ask that that committee recommendation be brought forward this evening, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: the motion by Councilor Marks to adopt the committee report of this evening, which was 5-2 in favor of appropriating the money for the demolition of the police station. Name and address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_09]: Eddie Buckley, President of Local 1032-340 Salem Street Method. First, I want to apologize for my appearance. I'm actually working today, and I came from work, and I'm going back to work after this. Second, I want to apologize because I might sound a little frustrated, but it's for good cause. A lot of people are telling me not to take this personal, but it really doesn't get any more personal for me. I was elected to lead my brothers and sisters, and I feel like I'm not doing my job now. By the vote that I saw tonight that took place in the Committee of the Whole meeting, it really shocked me. I thought that the councilors, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Knight, and Councilor Falco, who made the resolution to withhold the million dollars until they had answers, I thought that was a great idea and good movement for us, and we can pitch our case on why we need a combined station, or why we need at least a plan for a tower and a headquarters. Can you guys tell me, any of those councils, can you tell me what answers you have so far that made you change your vote to release that money, please?
[Caraviello]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, the trade that the council passed was to put a hold on the appropriation of the funds for 45 days so that the council could further investigate financial opportunities to keep this proposal on track. What we've been able to find out is that it's really a $1.1 million problem for EM, Mr. President. We have three years of debt exclusion, I mean, three years of debt and debt service that needs to be paid. And if we can find $1.1 million annually, we can keep this project on track. There's been a lot of discussion about other outside-of-the-box ideas that we can pursue. in order to keep this project on track. And that's the goal of this council, that's the goal of this councilor anyway, I wanna speak for myself. But my goal and my commitment is to keep this on track and to be sure that we have a new police and a new fire station. And if we're not moving forward on anything, then we're never gonna get either one of those things, Mr. President. So what made me move forward on this paper was the stark reality that a financial situation in the community right now doesn't allow for us to maintain based on the use of tax dollars through taxation in our operating budget to keep this project on track. So now we need to come up with some outside-of-the-box ideas to do that. Councilor Scarpelli's come forward with a great idea concerning debt exclusion. I've requested a report from the administration for the disposal of surplus properties to other individuals in the community to put them back on the tax rolls. And I am committed to continue to meet until we can come up with a way to properly fund this project so that it stays on track, Mr. President. So the reason that I have moved forward and said that it's appropriate for us to go forward with the police station is because the 45-day review was concluded. We've examined options. We have options. And I'm looking forward to pursuing those. You know, we have the training tower that we need to focus on, but we also have the big three buildings that we want to get built, the library, the police station, and the fire station. Keeping those on track is my priority, Mr. President. And if we don't move forward and we remain stagnant in one area, then we're never going to move forward So I can certainly understand the frustration. You know, I consider Mr. Buckley a friend. And although, you know, maybe this issue right here is taking a personal turn, you know, I can certainly say that at the end of the day, I will be committed to continuing to work towards the ultimate goal of keeping this project on track. You don't have to be happy with my vote. I already know you're not. But with that being said, that's where I'm coming from. And that's why I'm casting a vote this evening in favor of demolition of the training tower in the police academy building. so that we can move forward and allow the police station to be built based upon the plans that have been put forth and the $2 million that this council's already appropriated. When we look at the plans and the design of the police station, we've seen that the police have made concessions. They've eliminated their gun range as part of the plan so that they can move forward on this project, and I think right now we're at a point in time where we've remained very stagnant with some of our buildings in the community. We've ignored these buildings in our community, and we are not gonna be able to get out of this issue and out of this problem by using our operating funds from our day-to-day operational budget to continue to fix these buildings. We're putting good money after bad money when it comes down to it, so we need to take a long, hard look at what we can do to reconstruct both of these facilities for our public safety personnel. I'm committed to doing that, and I'm committed to keeping this on track, Mr. President.
[SPEAKER_09]: Unfortunately, Councilor, we've learned in the last few months or the last year It doesn't mean anything to this union. We had a commitment last year that's gone. I don't understand how you guys can't look and see the high school coming. The high school's coming. And the same thing's going to happen that's happening with the library. We're going to be pushed aside again. And even though it looks like I'm turning purple right now, I'm going to go home tomorrow when I get out of work. And I want to be able to go to bed at night. I know I'm fighting my hardest and putting all my energy into my fighting for my brothers and sisters. I don't know how some of you councils are going to be able to sleep. We are not getting a fire headquarters. We are not getting a training tower. I read in the paper that I've had discussions with the mayor about a regional training tower. I had a five minute phone call conversation with the mayor. Next thing I know it's in the papers. If the paper called me, I would have said, I had one conversation with the mayor and said, Hey, I talked to a guy from Somerville and he think this is a good idea. I also think 24% raise is a good idea for the fire department. Could you put that in the paper tomorrow? So everyone can know that we're getting a 24% raise next year. It's not how things work. It was a one conversation that we had and all of a sudden we're getting a training towel. We're not getting a training towel. We don't have landed method. We can't get land from the city. We can't get land from the state. The state's already tried to give us the land, and that hasn't happened. I just want to tell you how disappointed I am in the councils that voted to go forward without answers to our future, I should say, and to lack the foresight to see the high school coming. The high school's coming, and we're going to get pushed aside again.
[SPEAKER_20]: Good evening, name and address of the record, please. Michael Larkovich, 7 Laguna, vice president of local 1032, my firefighters union. I just, I don't see what came of this resolution to hold them at 45 days. Nothing was figured out in that time frame. None of those answers, no answers were given. And as President Buckley said, that there's been no movement going forward in terms of coming up with a resolution to addressing this issue, moving forward with a joint station, all these councilors spoke highly of when we initially spoke about this 45-day halt to the training tower. And it's frustrating. It's extremely frustrating, because we watched you guys make a mistake last year, made a huge mistake by voting to not go ahead with a combined station. And the opportunity to rectify that mistake arose, and then now it's passing. And you're going to continue to make that mistake. It's our tax dollars, those of us that live in the city. And it's also, as President Buckley said, it's our lives and our futures because we're living in a substandard building that is a health hazard to all of us. So to go forward with this and to vote to tear down the train tower is going to create three things. We're going to be building a substandard police station that's going to be obsolete before the police even move in. We're not going to see a fire station because, again, as President Buckley said, The high school is going to come online, and we're going to get pushed down the road further. And third of all, the taxpayers of this city, the homeowners of this city, the property owners of this city are all going to see an increase on their insurance rates, because our ISO rating will most probably increase, meaning that regardless of your age, your financial standings, how well your business is doing, how poor your business is doing, you're going to see an increase on your I'm sorry, increase on your charge rates. Thank you.
[Bob Jones]: Good evening. Name and address of the record, please. Good evening, councils. Robert M. Jones, 5 St. Mary Street. I share the feelings of my brothers and sisters on the fire department. I'd just like to give you a little history lesson. Back when this discussion first started, a combined station was recommended. All of a sudden, that plan was scrapped. Fast forward a little bit, we have a plan for a police station, no fire station, zero input from the fire department, zero input from this legislative body. We didn't want to hold up the police station one year ago, which apparently is a mistake on our part. We didn't want to stand in the way. We wanted the police to get the building that they deserve. They need a new building. By the way, I hope everybody understands that the police station and the fire station are the same exact building. All the problems that are in the police station, which are valid concerns, valid problems, are also in the fire station. It's a shared utility, shared everything. At that point, We went with the commitment from the mayor, and again, our mistake. At this point, we have zero commitment from the mayor for a fire station, for a training tower. Make no mistake, once that training tower comes down, so comes down for a fire station. If we do not get a combined station, we will get nothing. As previously stated, if the high school is gonna come online, And that will take up the lion's share of all the funding that's required. What you're doing, I'm sorry, what you're not doing, what the mayor is doing is taking away our ability to train. The police station is scaled down. We heard the police chief at the past meeting. He wanted a range, he wanted some other things. Those requests were denied. Therefore, the police will not have their training ability. Once our training tower comes down, we won't have ability to train either. We have a lot of new buildings going on being constructed in the city of Medford. They're new buildings. They're newer type buildings. They utilize a standpipe for fire suppression. We have a standpipe system in the tower. We can train on that. We need to train on that. Building construction and fire service needs to advance together. We have to adapt to what buildings are out there. We're not going to be able to do that. We can't go into a station landing and doing evolution on standpipes. Training tower comes down, we lose that ability. So I guess good luck to us because we're going to have to go there cold. No practice. We talked about the radio system. We have a radio system that has A lot of shortcomings. This is a combined radio system with the police and the fire. When we have two new stations, we're gonna have two radio systems, which are gonna have to be brand new. There's all kinds of rewiring, other infrastructure that has to go forward. So my hopes for that are very dire. So in closing, the more things change, the more they stay the same in the city of Medford. Thank you. Good evening, name and address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_03]: Good evening, Jimmy Flynn, 17, Doan Road. Counsel, I'm just at a loss of words here. I thought that we were gonna make an educated decision here. We're no more educated this evening than we were 45 days ago. You've got no more information, maybe some lies, maybe a couple of one-minute phone conversations were translated into hopes and dreams. What about the council, you know, their commitment? What about when you guys were going to host this committee, the whole, and it was going to base out of here and you guys are going to come toward the stations? What about that? What's wrong with the training tower? Anything? Nothing. You're going to tear down a perfectly good building. Why? Because the mayor said so? Because the mayor's worried about displacing the police department during the time of construction? Because that's what it boils down to here. This council is sitting behind this rail. that voted not so long ago to fund brand new HVAC system for that building, yet this evening they sit here and they ask for that building to be torn down. Very ironic. We spend frivolously behind this rail, it seems, at times. We want to tear down a building we just put new HVAC in, a building there's nothing wrong with, a building that we've gathered costs of, what, $3.5 million in replacement, and we don't even have the land to build it on now. The fact that we're thinking about moving forward on this tonight is embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as the fact that the other day the doorbell rang at the fire station and woman handed me a $25 check for a donation. When that bell hits, we go out and we serve the community. We don't look for donations. We are in a really tough time in this community and tough times call for tough decisions to be made. And that doesn't always mean you side with the popular decision because, hey, you know, we've got to rub a stamp through the 45 days. The fact that you're sitting here and on behalf of my brothers and blue, my brothers and sisters in blue, you're siding with the fellow. They made some concessions, you know. They're conceding on a gun range. Open your eyes, folks. Watch the news. Yarmouth police officer killed a couple weeks ago. And you're going to take away an element of training Bad enough you're doing it to us, but you want to do it to the boys in blue? Please. This is a very, very rash decision. There is nothing wrong with that building. Towns and cities from all over come to train at that building. It has the only cistern where you can test the pump at draft. As my colleague said, it has a standpipe system. It has a roof scuttle. It has almost every obstacle that we need to be thrown at. The council, you heard it recently. Oh, we're going to get some more money because there's more development coming up on Middlesex Ave. Don't worry about Brainerd Ave or the stuff coming up on Cabot Road. All of that stuff is high-rise technology. We can't just drag hoses through brand new high-rises. Developers don't go for that. We need this building to stay. And I'm asking you this evening to do the right thing. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Good evening. Name and address of the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street. I have a school-age daughter who has a lot of friends, and I see all the ZBA meetings and a lot of new projects coming through. The Locust Street is going to have a school bus stop on it with 350 units, so we're going to have families and children living in these buildings, and we're going to have families living in the buildings on Middle 6 Ave. These are all buildings that My daughter could potentially go play in and I want the fire department to be prepared to fight a fire if one breaks out this building. It seems irresponsible to tear down a fire tower without the new tower in place. It seems even more irresponsible when we're talking about creative solutions to say, this building is fine and we're gonna tear it down to put a different building in its place and leave a hole in our infrastructure where we need a training tower. Whose bright idea was that? To tear down a tower that's perfectly good And that right there would have saved us a million dollars that could have gone directly towards building our new fire station, but we threw that away because we apparently don't need it. To go forward with that is ridiculous. And we see all these projects coming through. Every time I'm at a meeting, we see $500,000 going on Riverside Plaza to expedite it so that it could be open in the fall of 2017. And if you go by, it's May of 2018, and I see mismatched furniture that looks like it came from other projects. set up there and it's still not open. That's $500,000 that maybe we could have cut that down and put that towards a new tower. If we're thinking creatively, debt exclusion is not the most creative. That's probably, you know, that just says, let's just take more money. We have to look at the difference going on. Do we need $1.6 million in one park when we have at least a dozen parks in 2011 that were identified in poor condition and those children will continue to play in those poor parks? and look over at that park that you can't park near to go and play in. When I visit people in that neighborhood, I often park in Tiki Island, sorry, Tiki Island, to visit friends because there's no parking on the street. So we're spending money in places that we maybe need to start thinking more creatively of budgets. We can't build the Taj Mahal everywhere and to tell the fire department that they can't have a station and they can't have a training tower while we're building projects at levels We can't afford to maintain, we can't sustain, and we just can't afford is irresponsible. You should move to, maybe you need to spend more money on an architect and tell him he needs to build around that tower because it's irresponsible to tear down that tower. The million dollars that it's gonna cost to put up a new tower versus a million dollars in new architecture fees, maybe that should be the situation, and then our fire department doesn't have interrupted training schedule. Maybe that's a creative solution. I think it's more creative than, Well, we don't want to hold things up, so let's just knock it down and maybe we'll figure it out because the DPW, the sand and salt is coming to Mystic Ave. They've already decided that that's where they want the sand and salt. They said that they negotiated and they sold the sign shops so that they could build a high rise of 500 units, which the firefighters will have to go into if it goes on fire, but they won't be able to train to prepare for. So now they want another piece of Medford land to put sand and salt on. So we need to think about it. If we're not going to get that land, we're going to lose that tower, and we're going to potentially lose lives.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, Cushing Street, Method Mass. We would even be having this conversation about knocking down three buildings, police, fire, library, about 55 years old, made of brick. It seems to me we have a problem with maintenance in the city. Hate to sound like a broken record, but when will the city ever learn? Especially when you keep putting this on our kids' dime on their charge card. Thank you.
[Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I think it's important that we remember how this all originated. And it was a year ago when this chamber was filled with police and fire and a number of residents. And at the time, we were told that we couldn't build a combined center because it would require a proposition two and a half. And I remember the discussion and debate quite vividly. And at the time, the firefighters took a step back. And they were the ones to say, you know what, if we can get a commitment, we're willing to postpone our fire station for several years out. We're willing to go without a tower until a new one's built. And they were the ones that stuck their neck out in the line more than anyone else, to be quite frank. And it's ironic we're back here a year later with the firefighters in the same predicament. And I don't blame, and that's why I stand alongside them, Mr. President, I don't blame a single one of them. After one year of hearing discussion and debate, after receiving a pledge or a commitment, whatever you want to call it, from the administration, that they would receive a new fire headquarters in 2021 or 2022, and to have the rug pulled out from underneath them and pushed down to 2026, which is another four or five years, And then to say, you'll get a training tower when that one comes down, this was a year ago, when the training tower comes down to make way for new police headquarters, a new one will go up. And we're a year out and none of those commitments are on track. So I don't know what track some of these Councilors are on, but it's clearly not a track that makes sense. It's a one sided track. And the firefighters are absolutely correct when they talk about training. I mean, I don't work in that sector or that field, but I can imagine the intense training that's required by both police and fire. In the private sector, sitting at a desk. We're scrutinized every year and go through intensive training, working with numbers and paper. Imagine doing fire rescue, the intense training that's required. And to take that away not only puts their lives at risk, but every man, woman, and child and pet in this community, Mr. President. And I don't think we could just brush over it. I really don't think so, Mr. President. And the conversations we had regarding state land, and I said this weeks ago, are going nowhere. Did they try? I'll give them an A for effort. Did they try? Yes, they tried. But they're going nowhere fast. So if we have to depend on getting state land, we're going to just keep depending on getting state land. And they're going to be in the same situation. So the commitments that were given a year ago have not fallen through. or they have fallen through. So where do we stand right now? They're exactly correct. The minute that tower comes down, it's going to be put on the back burner. And nothing's going to happen, Mr. President. Then there's going to be another need that comes forward. You know, a community, I think you could tell a lot about a community. When a community doesn't put its time and effort and money into public safety, it says a lot about a community. It really does. and I think we're seeing that in this community. The headquarters is one of six buildings. I'll take anyone, if the reporter wants to go through, anyone that wants to go look at these other buildings. We need to take them all down in one fell swoop, the condition of these buildings. But we're starting somewhere. We're starting with the headquarters because it was attached to the police station, which we all know needed to be done. And I agree also, and the police aren't here tonight, but how do you take a firing range away from police officers. It's unheard of, Mr. President. It doesn't make any sense. We're building a building undersized already because of monetary constraints. Everywhere I look, we're building in this community, receiving millions of dollars in new building fees, linkage money, millions of dollars in linkage money, new revenue coming in, thousands of new residents pouring into this community. It's a hot commodity, but we can't afford to rehab and build a station that's long overdue. It's a matter of priorities. That's what I tell everyone. They say, how come we can't do it? And you know what I say? We can't do it because this is not the mayor's priority. And that's what it boils down to. Building a park out here in Riverside Ave, that's the mayor's priority. Building giant big box residential buildings on Locust Street, that's the mayor's priority. But it's clearly not public safety. And I didn't support tearing this down in the committee hall, Mr. President. I hope, after hearing some of the pleas from the fire department, that some of my colleagues have a change of mind. You know, a 45-day is just what it is. It's 45 days. Did we put a time limit on the revitalization of Medford Square, which has been going on, from what I can remember, from 2005? Is there a time limit on that, where it just ends? But, no, there's a time limit on the fire department. We'll get to a certain point. We'll put some time limits. And if we can't meet our goal, we move on to something else. It's not fair, Mr. President. And commitments have to count for something. A politician is only as good as their word. And if people can't trust your word, then you're no good. You're no good, Mr. President. And I don't want to fall in that realm. I think we should extend the 45 days, Mr. President. Let's give it several more months to try to work out. The mayor's own committee that she put together when she became mayor looked at the revitalization of the square, looked at business and economic development, looked at a number of things. And guess what one of their major recommendations were? To build a new combined center on that exact location. It's in the report. That was one of their recommendations. Now, that committee did yeoman's work, spent many, many months putting together all sorts of data. So, I plead with my colleagues, Mr. President, take a step back. We're not going to lose out on anything right now, taking a step back and taking a look at this picture. Yes, there was a lot of things brought up. I brought up about wind casinos, Mr. President. We're going to receive a million dollars a year as soon as the casino opens for infrastructure in this community. i.e., public safety. What better of a project? To earmark, as Councilor Knight mentioned, all we need is roughly a million dollars a year to take us over the hump. That's only one aspect. That's only one aspect. We're not talking about new growth, to be earmarked, linkage. So, Mr. President, you know, a reason why we're in this situation is the fact that This council has talked, I've been on the council a number of years. We wrote together a wish list of capital improvements. You've been around, Mr. President. And what were the top one and two? Does anyone recall? For years, consistent, police and fire, one and two, police and fire, one and two. So now we're at a predicament where we're doing number one without number two. And that could get painful. You ever do number one without number two? It's painful. And that's the situation we're in now, Mr. President. This is becoming awfully painful, and it doesn't need to be. Who in this community doesn't think we need a new fire station? Stand up. Who doesn't think we need a fire station? Even when the library people were here, Mr. President. When the library people, I got more emails from library people after the fact saying, thank you, we knew that was a tough vote, but we want to be part of the fight to create a new fire station. Our eyes were open that night. We didn't know what was going on in our public safety buildings. We want to be part of that fight. This is an entire city fight, not just with the fire department. Think about it. They have to get up and fight on behalf of the entire city. They're not fighting for themselves. They don't want a new kitchen or a new bath. They're fighting for the entire city, Mr. President. That's who they're fighting for. And they don't have all these different interest groups and friends of the fire department and so forth, and maybe they should. But this is a crucial, crucial item that we as a member of the council, us as councilors, have to stand up sometime and say, you know what? We have to do the right thing here. And if the right thing is flexing our muscle, asking the mayor to come back to the table, which we were never at the table with her, by the way, but asking her to come back to the table and say, we are not going to move forward until we take another look at this. We're not going to move forward until we take another look. It's too important of an issue. I think that's the right way to do it, Mr. President. I respectfully ask my colleagues, I realize we took a vote and committed a whole. There's nothing that precludes anyone from re-looking after listening to new debate and dialogue to say, you know what, I'm at the point where I think we need to take another look at this. We asked that we meet with the mayor every two weeks. We've had two meetings, and they've been somewhat productive, but we've had two meetings. Let's continue the discussion. Let's put out plan A, B, and C. We only saw plan A. We never saw a B and C, ever. We got the email the night before the mayor was announcing where the new police station was going to go. The night before we got the email inviting us to a press conference. That's when we got it. So we had no idea what was taking place. The decisions were made in a vacuum. And we're just saying, let's revisit it. We're not that far down the road that we can't stop the process now. We're really not. I think we're right in the thick of things where we can't put a halt in this. and press the administration to sit down with this council and come to a resolve once and for all, Mr. President. That would be my suggestion. I would ask any member of the council, respectfully, because I know this is not an easy decision, respectfully take a look at their vote, Mr. President, and revisit this for at least another 90-day period so we can continue our two-week meetings and discussions about a combined center and where we're going with the tower. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I want to second what my council colleague, Councilor Marks, just said. It took a few things of what I was going to say, but I just have to go on record that I feel the exact same way. I feel like there were two promises that were made, at least one I know specifically was in writing and one, the training time, I'm not sure, but two specific promises that were made and promises that I believe were made in the interest of public safety that I feel are important, even though it wasn't me making the promises. It's our administration making promises to the fire department with regards to the training tower, that it would not be torn down until a new training tower is put up. I thought, and I still think that is extremely important. It's where our firefighters train to protect the lives of our children, of our parents, of ourselves, and I think it's so important. Having a house fire myself, just a small electrical fire, I saw firsthand what the fire department does five years ago when there was an electrical fire right in my daughter's pillow. Scary, and not everybody experiences that. But to see the professionalism come into your home to protect your family and to know they've been trained, that is something they need to keep doing. Two, I'm big on the development issues, and we have a lot of high-rises coming up. I'm going to repeat it. Training is number one. And if we don't allow our firefighters to do that, shame on us. I think the promise that it would be up and the fact that we're being asked to totally disregard that promise is not fair to the seven of us. It's not fair. The position that we are in is not fair. The position we are in is due to lack of communication. Like Councilman Mark says, I got a text message 9.30 p.m., come to a press conference at the police academy building. Come to find out after that press conference, a new police station is going to be built. We had no idea. The fire department had no idea. I don't even think most of the police department had any idea. Lack of communication and lack of transparency. That's why we're here. We're doing the best we can. We were misled, I believe is the word that was used at the Committee of the Whole meeting, February 2017, we were misled. I, as one councilor, pushed and pushed and pushed for a combined center. That is the number one thing we need in this city, a combined center. We were told we couldn't do it. Come now, we're doing police station and a library. We were told that the fire department would get a new fire headquarters by 2021. It would be built by 2021, 2022. Now it's being pushed to 2026, 2027. It was brought up in the Committee of the Whole. Work at the high school could even bring that down to 2030 and beyond. I mean, we won't be here when it possibly could happen. I can't move forward. And I've been on the council for too long, I think. That police station, we need a new police station. That's where we were brought, that's where we toured for years and years ago. It hurts to not move forward, but I can't. I can't move forward knowing that promises have been broken, knowing that the only way we get our questions answered, knowing the only way we even got the union president to sit down with the mayor, knowing we can't We can help move this forward in a way that's going to benefit our city, our fire department, our police department, and our library if we stick together and if we continue to meet. I think they were pretty productive. I feel like we're starting to get some answers. We're starting to work together, but we are just skimming the top. We can make progress. The mayor came to our meetings. The administration came to our meetings. We have to push to get this land, whether it's a combined center, or new land for a new training tower, we need to push for it. If we don't continue to push for it, it's not going to happen. I don't believe it will happen. That's just my personal opinion. This vote is, I mean, this once in a while you get pretty sentimental in a vote or, you know, you really take it to heart. And this is one for me. And I think we definitely need to keep this. I thought the resolution, put forth by the three Councilors was a good idea. Do we want to move forward on the police station? Yes, they need a new police station. They need an up-to-date, full-furbished, full building with a gun range. I agree with that too. But it's just this way or the highway. And you're left as a Councilor Tseng, do I go back on promises, or do I move forward with what I believe is right? And what I believe is right is that we continue to have meetings, and we continue to work together, and we continue to keep the fire department, the police department, the city council, the administration at the table and work this out. We had a number of questions. We were going to have a meeting with regards to the debt service. We were going to have a meeting with regards to different parcels of land that we may be able to put a tower. It's always been a no with the compensation, but if we stick together, I think we can do it. Start fundraising for that library. We may have the money to be able to do a combined station, which everybody in this community wants, and which I believe is the right way to go. I always have said that. And I wish we did it a year ago if we were not misled. So I don't know really what else to say. I think the whole situation we've been put in is unfair with the fire department, the situation in the fire department, and even last year when the police versus fire. It's terrible the way this administration has pinned people against each other. It's terrible.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. So I've heard a lot of things tonight. I've heard a lot of things the last few months. And one thing we realized This is a problem for 30 years. It's happening 30 years all over the city. And that's a problem with our facilities. The dual station was prior to my tour here on the city council. And one thing that forced me to run for city council is to make a difference. Because the words mediocre Medford was banging off my head over and over again. and making a change. And I hear it from everybody. We need a new library. We need a new police station. We need a new fire station. We need to refurbish the schools. We need to refurbish the high school. We're pushing things forward and trying to get things done the right way. Now, a few weeks ago, the word misled, I might have used that word, that statement when we talked about the funding of all three projects and keeping things on the timeline. And the vote at the time to freeze everything is to make sure we got all the answers that we needed to move forward. The answers I got were pretty loud and clear. I know where the mayor stands on this. I understand where we're trying to go and what we need to do to move forward. People have come up to the podium, said we need to be bold, we need to make strong choices, we need to do things that you're gonna feel uncomfortable about. It's not that I don't believe everything what everybody said. I call most firemen my friends. Do I think the firemen are important? Every day they came through the door to help my dad. I know their worth, and I appreciate them more than anybody can understand. So to throw those things around is a little distorted. The gun range, we understand that. They haven't had the gun range since they blew the boiler apart years ago. That was 30 years ago. Nothing's been done. Nothing has been done. So we sit and we meet and we talk about, let's have a meeting. Let's have another meeting. Let's have another meeting. Let's put this in place. Let's put this in place. So when we sat with the administration, we talked about the different avenues we can go to achieve what we want. A library, a police station, a new fire station, the refurbishing of the schools. You want to talk about bold, and I keep saying this, I'm bold. People want to threaten people, you want to threaten the council, get on the councilist to want to vote for debt exclusion. Because this is like a dog chasing its tail right now. Until we make bold decisions on what we have to do to make our city straight, it's not going to be done the way we're doing it right now. So I've already heard it. It's called the George Scarpelli Resolution, the debt exclusion resolution. I'll own it. And what does that mean? As we move forward with this process, it'll be explained to everybody in the community. But I didn't make a motion 45 days ago and sit there and say, let the time go by, then I'm going to vote for a police station to be built again. No, I visited North Reading. I visited Wilmington. I've visited communities that have done a debt exclusion. I've sat with groups of people. I've gone to Little League fields. I've sat with people that are the strongest, most conservative people in the world, and I explained what a debt exclusion is. Because I feel that's the only way that we can do what we promised, something I'm not hiding from, was one counts I promised to stand beside the firemen and women. So you want to talk about making a tough choice in Medford? How about being the council that's sitting there telling you, I'm ready to roll on a debt exclusion to get this project done. So if the councils that were questioned in that room, in the other room about, we need five votes, five votes to make it something we could put on the ballot. But we only have four, so it's not going to happen. Well, I challenge the community, I challenge the firemen and women to look at the council that don't want to vote for it and realize we can have meeting after meeting after meeting and get nothing done. Or we can take bold decisions and stand up And say, yeah, I'll take it. And if it's fear of losing an election, I'll lose the election. Because when it's all said and done, I want a library, I want a police station, and I want a fire station like we promised. I want my children to go to Medford High School that's refurbished that everybody's going to be proud of. And doing it with what we have right now on a tax roll, it's not going to happen. Doing it on our ordinary operating budget, it's not going to work. I've talked to thousands of people. We need a fire station, Councilor Scarpelli. We need a fire station. What are your plans? And I tell them my plans. This is what I think we need. Why do you want a fire station? Because the men and women are living in sub conditions. We need to get that built. We need them in that situation. So we do that. And I want you to see common sense, because common sense says, how do you want to do it? Well, let's bond it. Sure, let's bond it. Times are good right now, but in two years, when times are tough, guess what, everyone? We still have to pay a bond. So the people you're protecting, the people that you want to help with this, with building a fire station, making sure our firemen and women have everything they need, guess how we have to pay that bond back? By laying off the men and women you want to protect, in our schools, in the police department, and in the fire stations. So you want to talk about bold and making a decision? Here I am, I'm publicly doing it. You want a challenge? I'll challenge everyone in the community. We're not, we keep doing this 30 years. I've been seeing this for 30 years. All of our facilities are substandard and we need to find a way to get ahead of it. And from what I heard, what I've met with the administration, it's not going to happen traditionally. So we have to think outside the box. So again, do I love the firemen and women? Absolutely. And I know someday, hopefully not soon, they're going to be coming to my door and I want them trained because my children depend on you. And the policemen and women that protect us every day, of course, I think they need a gun range. And when my son and daughter need to do a project, they need to use the library. I've heard it all. But I'm telling you, people have come up to that podium and said, you people are going to have to make a tough decision. 45 days ago, we made a resolution to halt the police demolition, the building, so we can talk about this. And we did. And I'm secure enough that I know that the process we have, the process of sitting here behind this reel when you get this job and having meeting after meeting and after meeting and just hope things get done, if that's what you wanna do, go ahead, but I'm not voting for it. I'm gonna make a bold decision. I'm gonna step up to make sure the fire station's built. At least I'll try everything I can. If I have Councilors that don't wanna support that venue or that option, Because I also heard, we don't want to do it because of a debt exclusion, but it's a proposition to an afternoon override. It's more tax. No, it isn't. It's a tax that's focused on one job. And as I talked to the people in the community and we looked at what that job is and building a fire station, every person I talked to said, if you're telling me the way that it's broken down at a $600,000 home, appraisal, that $54 a year will go directly to a fire station, I'm going to support it because I know where my money's going. And knowing that as the money comes in with the philanthropist, hopefully, that the money that comes in goes back into that fire station and brings down that debt. And then as soon as that debt is paid off, that that tax is gone, but we have that station, I'm willing to take that chance. especially when we talk about the way it looks by excluding our seniors, our handicapped, our blind, our veterans, because that's what we got, that's what we asked for. We asked the administration to give us numbers so we can be creative in our decisions. And to me, making a decision behind this reel, at nights that, no, I don't sleep, because you have to make these decisions. It's not easy. It's not easy, just like it's not easy for you guys. But I know when I put my head down that we've already put out $2 million for a police station that's needed. And we know we can move forward with that project. And we can make bold statements by moving forward. I'm willing to do that. So if I offended anybody, I apologize. But that's George Scarpelli. And that's how I'm going to work. And that's how I'm going to push forward. So thank you.
[Falco]: Councilor Falco. I'll yield to Mr. Buck.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you, sir. I don't disagree with you that debt exclusion might be the only way to get a combined station done. But as I said last week, allocate money, hire an architect for the training tower right now, next week. Have a vote between the council to even go forward with debt exclusion, which is what you need to even leave this city. So you can say all you want about debt exclusion. If it doesn't leave this room, we're screwed. We get nothing. So as passionate as you are, which is great, if we don't get that, we get nothing. So it's not worth talking about unless it's a vote. So you want to make a bold statement? Don't vote this week on that $1 million. Wait till the money's allocated for the tower and the architect is hired and the vote for a debt exclusion between the council is taken. That's a bold statement. I want exactly what the mayor wants, what she wrote last year. I want more than words. I want action. That's what I want. That's where we agree.
[Scarpelli]: The one thing we agree on. We agree, Mr. Buckley, because you know what? We both want action. But when you see over and over again, for 30 years being on the other side of that rail and now being behind this rail, you have to make decisions. You have to try to be bold about what you're going to do to make these things happen. So, and I agree, we need these, we need, our councils stand together with this, but I'm telling you, from what I've seen and what I've heard and what we've done, because this isn't, like I said, we didn't bring it up and go to sleep in 45 days. I've done my homework. I've gone out and knocked on doors. I've seen other facilities and other organizations, and I'm telling you, the way I feel my decision that I have to be, that I have to be secure in is that, that I've done my homework and understand to move things forward, this is what we need to do. Now it's not popular, tonight, but I think this is the way I feel secure and going.
[Bob Jones]: Robert Jones, 5 St. Mary Street. George, Councilor Scarpelli, again, I thank you for your leadership. It was what you did to ask for these debt exclusion numbers. A dual facility would cost 32 cents a day, the average taxpayer in the city of Medford. There was a roadmap, there is still a roadmap to get this done, to get all the projects done, as you spoke about. However, in the room tonight, you didn't have the support of the fellow councilors to do that. In the room last week, you didn't have the mayor's support to do that, okay? There is a roadmap, there is a path to success. Whether or not you wanna take it is up to your votes, okay? It can be done. A little bit more on the debt exclusion. You have to go up to the full levy of 102.5 on the prior year's budget before you can get a debt exclusion in there. We don't go up there, we go close to that. But if we do go for that, the debt exclusion, we will have to go to the full 2.5% levy and then add back the debt exclusion. Thank you for your leadership.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a very frustrating issue, without a doubt. When we offered this resolution back a couple of months ago, I think it was a smart thing to do. Tap the brakes, hit pause, let's take a look at all of our spending with regard to the library, the police station, the fire station, the potential build-outs of the high school. And during that time or since then, we met numerous times. And as I look at this, I think we're at a point where we do have to make bold decisions. They're not easy decisions to make. I mean, I know I want a fire station just as much as anyone. I think we all do. We all want a police station. We all want a fire station. We all want new facilities. These issues aren't new. But I think many times, bold decisions need to be taken, and they need to be made. You know, if you take a look at a debt exclusion, you know, that might not be a popular idea, but when you look at it, it's something that's available in the toolkit, you know? It's something that, you know, we need to look at. We need new state-of-the-art facilities, without a doubt. I mean, do we need a new police station? Absolutely. We need a fire station as well. We need all new fire stations, to tell you the truth, because they're all in really bad condition. But we need to start at some point. We need to move forward. And, you know, in my heart, I mean, I believe that, you know, that's something that we need to look at. We do need to look at that exclusion. Not a popular answer, I'm sure, but it's something that we need to look at. You know, and if it comes up to a vote, when it comes up to a vote and it fails, then we need to find another direction. But I think what we need to continuously do, and I know what I will continuously do, I will continuously advocate for a training tower. I will continuously advocate for a new fire station improvements or additional, if we can build, we should really have a long-term plan to replace all of our freight stations. That's what's really needed at the end of the day. I mean, we have some very old buildings that have some very serious issues. And I think, you know, long-term planning, long-term capital planning needs to be done. So I just wanted to, you know, just offer my opinion on this issue. I know it's not an easy one. I understand your frustration, Mr. Buckley. You're not in an easy position either. I completely understand that.
[SPEAKER_09]: I appreciate your words, Councilor, but if we're gonna make a long-term plan for fixing all our stations, we need to start with fixing at least one. And the one that we need to fix right now is headquarters, because it's attached to the police station, which seemed to be ruled inhabitable by the city. All we do is ask for equality and respect, equality to our peers and the police. If the police need a new building, the fire needs a new building, and the combined building is the way to go. We got talked out of it last year, and I was one of the guys that agreed on it, and the members didn't like it. They knew this day was coming. They were right. Every day they look at me and say, told you, told you. And now I'm going to look at all you and say in two years when the high school comes and we get kicked down to 2032, told you, told you,
[Caraviello]: Good evening, name and address on the record, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: Brian Cronin, 11 Winter Street. Counsel, you talked about mediocrity. If we get on the path with the police station that doesn't suit their needs, we're continuing down the path of mediocrity. And we're continuing with mediocrity for mediocrity training, or mediocre training for the police and fire, because we won't have the facilities that we need. That's all I have to say.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Marks. To report the paper out. You read the paper. You took the paper out. You have a motion on the floor.
[Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Move that we adopt the committee report and approve the expenditure of funds.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Galarruso, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marks]: Mr. President, before you call the roll, Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think we're at such a unique opportunity now where we have some leverage and able to negotiate this as a separate body You know, they create separate bodies for a reason, as a check and balance. We're a separate body. We don't receive marching orders, or at least some of us don't receive marching orders from the administration. And I think we have the perfect opportunity now to sit back and revisit this. We're under no obligation, Mr. President, to move forward. And there's been a lot of great ideas bantered around, But personally, I don't think it's very bold raising everyone's taxes. I don't think that's a bold, creative idea, to be honest with you. My own personal opinion. It's easy to raise people's taxes. You know, I think we have to get more creative and hold people accountable to their words. When the mayor stands up during election time and say, when we build a new library, we're not only going to get 13 or 12.5 million, in a library fund grant through the state. I'm also going to find 12 to 13 million in private funds. I think we need to hold the mayor's feet to the fire and say, Madam Mayor, where are these private funds? Because guess what? When they come through, we won't be having these discussions. We will not be having these discussions. But now we're hearing, after we approve the library, well, we've got to set up this committee. It's going to take longer. We can't approach anyone yet. And the mayor, over a year ago, said that she had some donors lined up, Mr. President. There's a tape on it, something about a rich uncle. That's what she said at the debate. So there had to be some consideration. You don't just throw out a figure as the chief executive officer. It'd be irresponsible to say, I believe I can raise 13, 13 million is a ton of money. And if someone came to me and said, can you raise 13 million through private funding? I would take a step back before I made a commitment. So the mayor has to be privy to more than she's letting out there, Mr. President. And if that's the case, all this discussion is in vain because we can afford to move forward. And that's why we need to keep these dialogue and discussions going on. And once we sever this relationship, and that's what's going to happen, once we stop meeting, I disagree with my colleague. You know, I think meeting after meeting, and I've been doing this a long time, it may not seem productive, but as long as you're together discussing it, it's productive. And even if we're at the meeting, we feel nothing happened, we're together. For too many years, Mr. President, we went without meeting. You know, it was the laugh of the city, for 14, 15 years that the mayor, the former mayor never appeared before the city council ever for one issue. And that's not the way I perceive city government working. So the fact that we're meeting with the mayor and the mayor agreed to do so, I think is productive. Does it get contentious because we have different ideas? Yes, but that's healthy. We can't all have the same idea. And we haven't explored that exclusion. We got some feedback, and the feedback we got looked positive, but we haven't explored it. I don't think anyone behind this railing could say we really explored it, Mr. President. And we talked about polling residents to see if there'd be some support out there. We talked about a number of things. And I agree with the firefighter that got up, Mr. Flynn. He mentioned that, you know, we made a commitment to go out and view all the fire stations. Where is that commitment? It's more talk, and that's why you can see how people say, you know what, all they're doing is, they're only hot air. If we were concerned about going to each fire station, we should have made that commitment, Mr. President, and followed through with it. And we haven't. We heard Brian Cronin, he's presented information before this council about cancer rates. And I know we had the Board of Health Director out there, But I'm not that confident that whatever was done by the Board of Health is going to make sure that the brave men and women of the fire department don't have to eat their dinner within five feet of an apparatus that they could be catching cancer off of, or sleeping in a facility that fumes go up to the second floor, or putting their turnout gear or regular gear next to trucks that are pulling in and out of a garage. So these are the discussions. This is not merely simply about building a building. It's about life or death. It really is. And I don't think we can turn a cheek when they present cancer rates and show the cancer rates in this community. We're not looking at other communities. We're looking at this community. and draw a direct correlation between our old, outdated stations and how they build new stations and keep the men and women safe in new stations now. And that's why this council fought for dryers to clean the turnout gear. That's why they fought for a second pair of turnout gear and washers, Mr. President. All for safety issues. These aren't aesthetics. Like I said, they're not looking for a new kitchen with marble countertops. They're looking to be safe in a building that they're in seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I don't think that's asking a lot. And now's the time to do it. Again, before we take the vote, I ask my colleagues, just take a step back. Let's continue our dialogue and discussion. It doesn't stop anything. Yeah, will the police station take a little longer? Absolutely. But guess what? So's the fire station. And we're not talking a little longer, we're talking years. So I respectfully ask my colleagues, this is not easy. No one behind this reel, the firefighters, no. No one behind this reel is against firefighters. They know that, the police know that, believe me. There's a mutual respect here. Let's just take another step. Let's just take one more step. Let's look at this and let's continue to be at the table so we can have discussions. Because once this issue is voted on, the discussions are going to end. That's no secret. They only started up because we requested. The Board of Health only went down there and did stuff because the council requested. There's only a new police station because we went and did the walk of shame, Mr. President. We were on the council at the time. We did the walk of shame through the police station. There's only a new DPW yard. We did the walk of shame through the DPW yard. It showed the conditions of that building. and alerted the residents of this community. This building is no different. It's no different, Mr. President. I respectfully ask one of my colleagues to reconsider their vote, Mr. President. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Laura Curran? No. Councilor Marks? No. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Motion passes. Dear Mr. President, city councilors.
[Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo? I don't know if you want to read this into the record, but I move that this is tabled so we can have a detailed discussion in committee of the whole tomorrow as you have scheduled, Mr. President.
[Marks]: Mr. President, we do have someone who would like to speak briefly on an issue of timing that you may be serving.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. I'm here to speak on the resurfacing project for the Roberts Elementary School. It's the second item down on the list. We're very concerned about the timing of this project. School lets out on June 20th and school resumes on the last week of August. This project needs to be done during the school break. We have to go out for bidding and then schedule the work during probably the busiest time of the year, so it's gonna be very hard for us to schedule one week could mean that the children have to wait an extra year for this project, so I'm hoping that perhaps an exception can be made and this project can be approved this evening. I can answer any questions that anyone has. We have photographs of the project as well.
[Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. We do have a committee of the whole scheduled for tomorrow evening. We can report this paper out tomorrow evening if we feel comfortable with the presentations that are made that evening. I as one councilor do not support taking just one item out of this. I, as one councilor, would support the measure provided that we have a presentation tomorrow in its entirety over the paper that's before us. I don't see a timing issue in this. I think there are also concerns and questions about who's going to manage this money, how they're going to be sure these benchmarks are made, so on and so forth. And I want to hear that from the parties that pick one.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I am the-.
[Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, I think we should wait and discuss this in committee of the whole. We've set principles behind this rail. Even just tonight, an hour and a half ago, we delayed and chose not to vote on two outstanding citizens to be replaced on a board. They had been thoroughly vetted, not only by the general public, but by their peers and by this body before, yet we're making them wait a week to be approved. The people who work for the city are required, once they've negotiated their salaries through the union process, ordinance change is required to expend on those salary increases. Year after year, we make them wait nearly two months to get their raises, thus raising their taxes on their retro pay, Mr. President. If we're going to go through those lengths, with all due respect for this expenditure, I think it should stand the test of process, Mr. President.
[Marks]: Mr. President, Mr. President, if I could. Counsel Max. Thank you, Mr. President. The way the process, as far as I know, is outlined, is that once the Community Preservation Committee makes recommendations, it appears before the Medford City Council. So I don't want anyone at home to believe that we're circumventing anything. I do agree with setting up a Committee of the Whole, as you did, Mr. President. However, there are extenuating circumstances. And as my colleague, Councilor De La Russa, would know, there's been many times that my colleague has approved, when the administration comes up and say, we were just presented with this, we need a vote tonight, you know, and not able to move it to a subcommittee or committee of the whole, that that vote is taken because of extenuating circumstances. And this happens to be one. This issue, and I won't speak for the two women at the podium, but this issue has been presented not only to this council, but this community for several years now, actually, about refurbishing around the Roberts Elementary School playground. And it is in vital need. And I'd like to hear, because I'm under the impression that time is of the essence on this, and if it's a week delay, that could alter things, Mr. President. And I would be willing to support this tonight, Mr. President, as an extenuating circumstance.
[DiBenedetto]: Erin DiBenedetto, 21 Dearborn Street, and also a member of the Medford School Committee. I'm here because Cheryl brought this forward through CPA funding. It is on your agenda, so we're not asking for something, for you to vote on something that's not already on your agenda. It's on your agenda. The information, this program was approved by CPA funds and is coming before you tomorrow. So they're coming to you as a group packet, and we didn't know that this item was going to be tabled until your committee of the whole. So I respectfully ask you to vote on this one issue while you have the applicant in front of you can answer any questions. All of this is gonna be managed through the administration at Medford High School and the Building and Grounds Department. If bids need to be made, they need to go out, so the timing for those has to be appropriated as well as, you know, that's gonna slow down our process. Our goal here is to make sure that it's safe for our children to return to that playground day one in September. And that's our only goal for asking you to move forward with your agenda item that you have before you. And any information I can help with or the applicant can help with, Cheryl Rodriguez, we're here to answer any and all questions. And I just ask for your consideration for this.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: And I just want to interject that this board council has already approved an off-cycle application. We're not an off-cycle application. I submitted the application on January 5th, the initial application. Then I submitted the full application the first week of March. I've been to several meetings for the CPA and presented this project. I've been to meetings at the school committee to present this project. I've been to subcommittee meetings of the school committee to submit this project. I prepared the 65-page application for this project, collected signatures and support for this project. So I am more than capable of answering any questions that you have on this project. And I think that I'm more than happy to come tomorrow if you have additional questions and answer it again. but this project is very time sensitive, and to tell these children that they could possibly have to wait an additional year for the largest elementary school in the city with the English language learner program, the autism program, this would break a lot of hearts. So please, I ask you to consider us.
[Caraviello]: There's a motion on the floor by Councilor Knight to table this. It's been seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. Councilor Falco.
[Falco]: Just because you mentioned the timing, and I understand the bid process does take time. But what's the, do you know as far as like when they, someone's awarded the bid, someone starts the work. Do you know, have you done any research as to how long this will take?
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I've gotten conflicting answers on this, but I'm told that until the money is approved by this council, they won't prepare the bid. I spoke to Cassandra in engineering today. She said it could take 45 days for the bid and that has to be advertised for two weeks, I was told by the procurement office. So we're really pushing up against it. And just getting in the schedules of these people once we do go through that process could really push us up to the end of the summer.
[Falco]: But I mean the actual work. So like when they would actually come in and like, you know.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: The actual work is projected to take between five and 10 days. Five and 10 days, okay. And we were asked to make our application smaller just because this is only for the surfacing. There's not a bench or a flower in this application. So we actually need a landscaper to do removal. And then we need a playground specialist to do the installation because we were told there's very limited funds. Thank you.
[Knight]: Mr. President, I request that, um, uh, community preservation commission provide us with copies of the applications as well.
[Caraviello]: Well, there's a motion on the council. Nate has a motion on the floor, the table. This been seconded by council Dolo Russo.
[Marks]: Councilor Neill. Councilor Neill.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Knight has made a motion to table this and has been seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. Did you withdraw? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry, I apologize.
[Falco]: I didn't hear you say that. Councilor Falco. So if this did come to a vote tonight, and if the vote failed, when does it come up again? Next week. 90 days. 90 days?
[Caraviello]: Thank you for your clarification. And if that's all, I'm okay.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I'm not taking part in this discussion because my children go to the Roberts, so even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I'm going to abstain from this.
[Caraviello]: And my grandchildren go to that school also.
[Marks]: So, Mr. President, would it be okay if we requested to vote on one portion of the paper? So I'd like a legal opinion on whether or not the 90-day rule would apply. We're only voting on one portion of the paper. I don't believe that would apply, Mr. President, to the five of the proposed items. So I'm not quite sure that does apply.
[Caraviello]: The clerk is saying we would have to sever this from the whole thing, from that paper.
[Marks]: It's presented as a whole paper, so this would have to be severed. I appreciate what my colleagues say, and I appreciate the fact that we're meeting tomorrow. If maybe the petitioner could tell us some more around how will this affect your deadline? I know you mentioned there's a deadline. So maybe if you could just clarify.
[Dello Russo]: Can we take any other one if we feel impelled, if it's an urgency?
[Caraviello]: There's no petitioner here for any other project.
[Dello Russo]: Sure you could. These aren't subject to petitioners, Mr. President. It's to the city council.
[Marks]: Right. And we listen to residents when they come up.
[Caraviello]: I want to separate this from the rest of the package so someone can make that motion.
[Marks]: Well, I'd like to hear the sense of urgency. I know Cheryl did describe the sense of urgency. I'd like to hear a little more on that, Mr. President.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: We're concerned that the city is not going to move forward in preparing the bid until this money is allocated. We're talking about waiting until after Memorial Day. It'll be less than a month before school lets out. So if we do a 45-day bid, we're talking about sometime in July when the bid will end, and then we have to try to get on the schedule. We'll need to be on the schedule. We'll probably have about a 35-day window, less than that, actually, because we need to allocate 10 days to do the work. So we'll have 25 days to get on the schedule of the chosen bid to do the project. So seven days could be, the difference between doing it now and saying, do you have any time in July of 2019? So that's an entire year. Or the kids go back to school, and there's caution tape and construction vehicles, which would complement the construction on the corner of Court Street. So we really don't want to disrupt the children's recess time. It's a very coveted time. well utilized in the area. It's the only playground that has, the school playground has lighting at night. The neighborhood children play there. You'll often see children there till 8 or 9 p.m. because it's a lit area. Hickey Park is down the street, but it's pitch dark. It's not able to be used by the neighbors at night. So it's a difference between now, it could be a difference between now and a year.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, just so I understand, approving it tonight, or waiting till tomorrow night, which may or may not be approved, who knows? We could leave it in Committee of the Whole, right? We could leave the paper. There's nothing that's forcing us to vote tomorrow night. I just want to make sure that if we did report it out tonight, what's the earliest, Mr. Clerk, that this paper could be before the administration?
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: It's already been signed by the mayor.
[Marks]: Right. Well, the allocation has to be made. It's not made by us. So, someone from the administration does the allocation and so forth. I would assume, right? It's not the CPC committee. So, it's got to be someone from the administration.
[Clerk]: Right.
[Marks]: So, I'm asking how long does that roughly take? Are we splitting hairs here?
[Clerk]: I was just trying to figure out how long that process takes because that may be seven to ten day process. I don't know because sometimes papers go different ways and so forth.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I understand that if there's controversy with papers tomorrow, that perhaps these papers will stay in committee for a week or two longer. We could be talking about June before this is approved?
[Marks]: It's possible.
[Caraviello]: When Roberta Cameron called me, I told her that we were meeting, that this was going to be tabled this evening, so we could have a council meeting to discuss everything on here.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: And will this be voted on as a whole tomorrow, or will there be possibility of parcelization? I'm just trying to find out what's going to happen.
[Knight]: Point of information, counsel. That's why we're having the meeting, to have the presentation, so that we can determine what we want to fund and what we don't. I personally, as one counsel, wouldn't have any problem making a tentative report of the matters that we reported out favorably and the matters that we keep in committee. And that tentative report can go out to the powers that be, the purchasing department, You know, to get the bid ready and get the bid prepared, tomorrow night, as early as tomorrow night, we can make a committee report together and report out portions of this paper favorably and unfavorably with those recommendations to the administration. They can still move forward and begin to prepare the bids. Then once the money's released, I mean, all we're doing is releasing the funds. They have the money already. So when they get their first bill, then they pay the bill. But I don't think that us not appropriating the money, us appropriating the money absent the committee of the whole that's been scheduled for this absolute distinct purpose, especially in the age of transparency and openness that my council colleagues like to talk about so much, is appropriate. I think that moving forward, we can do this. We can put out a committee report tomorrow. It's a tentative committee report that we all support. and get the powers that be to be aware of it. You know what I mean? This is the tentative committee report. We're going to send it out. It's going to be engrossed by the, it's going to be adopted by the council at the next council meeting. These people will know what's going on and they'll know tomorrow night or the day after.
[Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. So you talked about construction and so say if construction was delayed, is it going to be done in September? I mean, or is it ideally you wouldn't want it done in September? I mean, is the school department saying, no, there's no way this is gonna happen when school starts? Have you discussed this during any of your meetings?
[DiBenedetto]: Our hope was to have this process already be completed, so we were hoping to be up and running before any child came back onto that school yard. Now that we thought this CPA money was going at our last CPA meeting, which was, We thought it was gonna come before this board much sooner, so we hadn't had those discussions as to whether we would wait a whole year or we would try to do it around the school children. That's gonna be very difficult, especially at that time of the year with outdoor recess and really giving children the opportunity to be outside. We've all known and we've toured many of the school playgrounds and that they're in, they've been patched, they've been, their lifetime has, this is a pilot program for all of our schools, and this issue has to be addressed for the safety of the children, and it's a community project as well, because there are so many children in that neighborhood that use it as their parking into the evenings for working parents as well.
[Caraviello]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Said when school's out and the summer's here, there will be a period of time where that school yard, which, as you said, has been used as a playground, will be inaccessible to the individuals in the neighborhood.
[DiBenedetto]: Ten days.
[Knight]: So there is a period of time that they will not be able to utilize.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: And the great thing about doing it in the summer is that it's light out till 8.30 at night, so they'll have a playground a couple of blocks away. If we wait until the fall, when it starts getting dark at 4.30, 5 o'clock, there'll be nothing.
[Falco]: I mean, I definitely, as a former member of the school committee, I know that Playground is in tough condition. The flooring there is apparent. I've done it many times, and I know it desperately needs to be replaced. So I'm glad that you went through this effort to actually get the funding, to request the funding. Like I said, with three kids that went through that school, I know that playground takes a beating. And the ground there is in a tough shape, so this desperately needs to be done.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: I hope, if nothing else, that I've expressed the urgency of this project so that if this paper gets bogged down tomorrow, perhaps you would consider not punishing 550 plus school children and letting this project move forward.
[Caraviello]: I don't think the intent was to punish anyone.
[Knight]: This isn't a punishment at all. This is just a request for transparency and openness, considering that the council president has set an agenda for us, and that agenda includes a committee of the whole, and this appropriation, that's tomorrow. So it's not an attempt to punish anybody, it's an attempt to make sure that we get the sufficient information to move forward.
[Dello Russo]: I'm offended that someone would suggest that we're punishing anybody.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: point of clarification, what I actually said was I hope that if this paper gets bogged down tomorrow with other issues, that it's not delayed and what will happen is the children will be punished. It's an unintended consequence, so that's just why we're here, to make sure that you're aware that that's a possibility, and we hope that you'll consider and think about that.
[Caraviello]: Oh, I say it is scheduled for me. It was advertised tomorrow night. I don't know if anybody from the public that will be there questioning this. And that's, um, yes, Councilor.
[Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I would support what council and I just brought up, uh, tomorrow we're meeting. I, as one member of the council, we'll be pushing. Uh, there's a lot of items on here. But this will be one that I'll be pushing out of Committee of the Whole tomorrow, and I agree with his statement about if we're able to expedite this and let the administration know there's a sense of urgency, and if we can trim off a few days here and there, then we're splitting hairs. So if we're able to trim off a few days, whether we approve it tonight or tomorrow, I agree with Councilor Knight. So I would ask that this item go directly to the Committee of the Whole, and we'll relay our sense of urgency, as Councilor Knight mentioned.
[Dello Russo]: Thank you.
[DiBenedetto]: I just want to thank you for hearing us this evening and even the consideration. I also want to publicly thank Cheryl Rodriguez for all the time and effort, 65 page application, multiple meetings, at least 10 that I know of, and I've attended as many as I can to help be supportive. the school community is gonna really benefit because of all the work that she's done, and she should be commended for her work. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. The motion by Councilor Knight to table the second by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. Six in the affirmative, one abstention. Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk, offered by Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight. being resolved that the council requests that the mayor and the council president meet to discuss the creation of an ad hoc committee on the implementation of the Method Square master plan. Be it further resolved that the ad hoc committee be comprised of members of the council administration in public. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Very recent. weeks and years this council has taken advantage of the ad hoc committee. And Councilor Marks earlier this evening ironically had spoken a little bit about the amount of time that it's taken us to implement the master plan in Medford Square. So here we are, we have a master plan for Medford Square. We've had meetings, we have a focus group that's met and it's discussed some of the things that they'd like to see happen in Medford Square. We get a presentation from the Massachusetts Area Planning Council that discusses Medford Square and what direction this information and data has driven them. And then it goes quiet. And I think that, Mr. President, one thing that we have all talked about in the past is trying to revitalize our downtown business districts by putting together an ad hoc committee that's made up of representatives of the administration, the council, and the general public. of getting people together at the table to move forward and try to implement something that we've been looking at for the better part of a decade and a half. So with that being said, I think it's a rather self-explanatory resolution, and I'd ask my council colleagues to support it.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by? Second. By Councilor Falcome and Councilor Scarpetti. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Offering by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council receive an update from the Massport Community Advisory Council on the status of RNAV?
[Knight]: The airport navigation system, Mr. President, has been creating so much controversy in our community. But apparently, the good weather has finally come. And as such, many windows in neighborhoods are being opened, and fresh air is being blown in houses, as well as a lot of fresh noise from the airplanes. So, with that being said, Mr. President, I'm requesting that we get a report back from our representatives from Mass Board as to what's going on with the RNAV situation. I am aware that Congressman Capuano has filed an amendment to the congressional budget that would address some of the RNAV concerns, and I'm hoping that we can be brought up to speed on that as well.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor?
[Knight]: Aye.
[Caraviello]: Motion passes. Offered by Councilor Knight, Falco, Scarpelli, and Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request— Mr. President, I withdraw my sponsorship.
[Knight]: There's too many people on that.
[Caraviello]: I'm sorry?
[Knight]: I withdraw my sponsorship. There's too many people on that resolution.
[Caraviello]: I'll take my name off. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the city solicitor provide a draft version of the debt exclusion referendum question for the construction of a new fire headquarters to the council. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. What I'm going to do is defer to Councilor Scarpelli on this because he's taken such ownership of it earlier in his passionate plea to the membership of 1032. But ultimately this is an effort for us to further examine the debt exclusion option to maintain that our fire department remains on track and that the commitments that were made are kept.
[Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes, I want to thank the for ordaining me as the writer of this resolution. But again, I think that, um... Trying to think outside the box and being creative and finding different ways to have, we use the word transparency and it's so important that if we can do something to get the word out to our constituents and have their voices heard. And being the debt exclusion, a valid question. I think that it's important that we get all the information that we need from our city solicitors so our writings are correct. And if I can also amend that, Mr. President, that if we can look at a timeline, if the city clerk can give us a timeline. If so, be that a valid question, what we need to do. step-by-step in making sure that if it does come to fruition, that we know when and how we have to do that. So, thank you.
[Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, I know this is a touchy issue, and I am grateful for Councilor Scarpelli to take, for taking such leadership on this matter. I have yet to make up my mind how I want to approach this. I'm grateful that Councilor Scarpelli has done such extensive research on the matter and spoken to so many people in the community. On face value, it seems almost innocuous, but I think it's going to need further discussion, further conversation, and as one of the has pointed out that so much gets done when we do sit at the table and have meetings and talk about things. So I look forward to that dialogue as we address this issue and hope I can educate myself and hear from more citizens. I've heard from some, but as we're moving forward on this, that we hear from more citizens and make a wise decision. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: On the motion. On the motion by Councilor Layton.
[Knight]: Councilor Layton. Mr. President, thank you very much. This is an issue that's going to need a lot of community input and involvement. I certainly would be happy to commit to putting parameters on this before the matter is addressed to the City Council, before the matter is brought to the City Council floor, whether it's a series of public hearings, public meetings, or so forth. So with that being said, I guess the request would be to get the solicitor to put this together. That doesn't mean that it's going to hit the agenda. We're just going to get a response from the solicitor and we'll have to reintroduce that if we're going to be moving forward. So I want that to be clear that this isn't an attempt for us to take this and put this on the ballot this evening, but what it is is an attempt for us to get the language that's appropriate from the city solicitor. So if it's something that we do want to move forward, we have the matter locked and loaded. But if it does make my colleagues more comfortable, and even if it doesn't, I think that what we need to do is have an open and transparent process where we go and, what do we like, the travel and road show, as they say. Maybe we have to go out to the community and go to a couple of places and talk about this and have some meetings and public hearings and gather public input. I know that my colleagues would support any effort to get out in the community and hear what people have to say about this matter. So with that being said, Mr. President, I just want to make that clear that this isn't something that I'm trying to bring to the floor the next time that the response comes back, but that this is something that we're going to have to use as a tool to go out into the community and to educate people before we bring this to the floor.
[Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. As I stated earlier, this is a bold decision, but it's a tool in the toolkit that we should take a look at. We should take a look at all of our options. It's a healthy exercise to go through. So it would be good to actually see the wording from City Solicitor Romley. But I think one of the most important things is that we do have public meetings and get public input. And also, educate the public as well. So the public fully knows what does this mean to them? What's the impact on them? What's it gonna mean to their tax bill? These are things that we need to look at, but I think in the interest of transparency and open government, we should have public meetings with regard to this issue. But I think education is key in educating the public as to what the impact is going to be on them. So, thank you. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I just think maybe the first thing we need to do is have a committee of the whole meeting and discuss everything that has been discussed tonight so that we can decide how, you know, get a game plan and figure out who's in favor, who's not, what questions everybody may have, and then get the language out of that committee. I'd be more comfortable with that because I definitely have a lot more questions before I support it.
[Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, This is such a huge issue in the community and would impact a majority of the taxpayers. And to be quite honest with you, to bring it up under suspension, I don't think it's doing the whole transparency issue we hear about all the time any justice, because no one in the community is aware of us bringing this up now, other than the fact it was brought up under suspension.
[Scarpelli]: You know, if... Councilor Scarpelli, point it out to me. I agree. I think that now thinking of that, you brought up a good point. So after, I'd like to just let you know, after you're done, Councilor Marks, I'd like to table it and bring it and put it in as a full resolution next meeting and make sure that people see that. So thank you for making that point. So you withdrawing the motion? Well, let's first. Right. If I could just finish my comments. I'm sorry.
[Marks]: It's all right. No, it's all right. I appreciate you saying that because I think if we look at debt exclusion, there are a lot of needs in the community. And why should we limit it to just one issue? How many times do we hear about the roads in this community? And we're clearly not going to make any headway with how we do business through the operating budget. So we're going to have to get creative and get bold. and look at debt exclusion to repair our roads. Now, that's only one issue. I can go through a list of issues that probably need to be done and that we're not going to be able to do through the operating budget. This is a very slippery slope, Mr. President. You know, we hear from multimillion-dollar businessmen that don't have a problem raising taxes. But we have to remember that not everyone is a multimillion-dollar business owner in the community. And that the slightest increase, not only in taxes, but something outside of taxes, like the — let's take, for instance, Community Preservation Act. We heard, oh, it's only $45 a year, $50. Now we're hearing debt exclusion, oh, it might be $65, $70, $80. We don't know, $45. That all adds up, Mr. President. And in addition, everything else is going up — your cable bill, your electric bill. Everything else is going up, Mr. President, at the same time. So I think we have to be mindful when we want to get bold with the people's money. You know, it's great to get bold with someone else's money. That's, you know, let's get, let's get, let's think outside the box and charge everyone more taxes. It's not that creative to me. That's not, that's, that's not that creative to me, Mr. President.
[Scarpelli]: I appreciate that too. But again, the debt exclusion is for this council to get the word out so the people can speak and maybe they can help us with their vision and their word. So it's not, a bold statement for any council, especially myself to say, let's do debt exclusion. It's to get the word out to the public to say, hey, maybe this is a way we can do this. So thank you.
[Caraviello]: Councilor, are you pointing to me?
[Knight]: And this is a ballot question. So it goes to the ballot for the voters to decide. It's not like we're going to pass this and say, what's the question? And then it's in effect, it has to go to the ballot for the voters to decide.
[Marks]: Councilor Marks. Right. And it would go to the ballot, Mr. President. If we're unable to provide the city services, Mr. President, that we should be offering as a community to our regular tax base, then there's a problem. There's an inherent problem in this community. And I would submit to you, with the building boom that's going on and the increased revenues that are going on in this community, we can't afford the things that we need to do. And we have to prioritize. And that's not taking place right now. So, to go outside of the budgetary constraints and say we can raise money through CPA, we can raise money through, you know, we can raise money through debt exclusion, you know, we'll also privatize our electricity bill and try to save people money that way. This is all going to come home to roost. Someone has to pay for it, Mr. President. This is all going to come home to roost. And I'm not at the point right now that I'm going to be operating outside of the city budget, which I believe people are already overtaxed in this community, get limited services, which I see on a daily basis, and then ask for additional. Now we're going to be asking to send out the tax bill. Hey, in addition to debt exclusion, in addition to CPA, we also want to know, would you like to donate a little more money to build this, this, and this? I mean, where are we going, Mr. President? Where do we go? Why don't we just put our hand in the pocket of each and every taxpayer? We won't need to ask them. And that's the slippery slope. I realize what we're trying to do. But ultimately, Mr. President, I come from a different train of thought. That's work within the confines of the budget. We happen to be in a great economy now. There should be no reason that we're looking at debt exclusion to do the simple, simple task of maintaining our buildings and our infrastructure. That goes with a $160 million-odd budget, Mr. President. And if we can't operate within that budget, we need to take a look at some of the high-paying salaries around here and some of these no-show jobs, Mr. President, that are in the six-figure sums, Mr. President, if we want to get a handle on things. Not going back to the taxpayers. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. Council President. I think that Councilman Marks brings up a great point, We talk about leverage, and we talk about our operating budget. And if the citizenry sees the vote to do something like a debt exclusion, and they see that the money that would be earmarked to a certain job or a certain facility like the fire station, wouldn't it be great to know we can go back with the figure that's already been publicized and say to our administration, hey, Now that we've come to fruition with this vote, if it does happen, we now have money that we can look at and say, hey, this money was allocated through our operational budget. and let's focus now on our streets and adding park personnel and adding DPW personnel. So I think it's a great idea. I think that, you know, there's so many possibilities. That's why this Committee of the Whole meeting is going to be great just to banter about these wonderful ideas and whether it comes to fruition or not, so be it. It's a valid question and again, we're going to hear from the people who are going to make that decision. So thank you.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor, did you want to speak? Yes.
[Nate Merritt]: Name and address of the record, please. Nathan Merritt, 373 Riverside Ave, Medford, Mass. So the 30,000 foot view here that I saw tonight is the city has a spending problem. The city has a problem making commitments, honoring commitments, then surprises come up. How do we pay for it? before you talk about a debt exclusion, which absolutely it's a tool in the toolkit. You should be able to have it. Be prepared in that same discussion to answer what else can you do? So tonight, right, one of the things that got passed was $500,000 or so on and so forth. Was that a planned expenditure in the budget for the park? I'm gonna ask you, Councilor Marks. It wasn't in the budget. It was a surprise. No, not a surprise. It's not a surprise. It was something else. But in terms of budgetary planning, it was a surprise. You didn't expect to do that last year. Right. It's a capital project. So is maintaining the buildings by the same argument. So now we can't maintain our buildings, we can't afford to honor the commitments that the mayor made, so we're going to go As you like to say, reach into the pockets of the taxpayer. For the record, I am not a million dollar business owner.
[Scarpelli]: It's getting the word out. So, it could be a ballot question that the people that you can make that vote to say no, that's all.
[Nate Merritt]: Absolutely. Thank you. Absolutely. But the proposal is to reach for more money.
[Marks]: One information, Councilor Marks. Right, and that would allow the people to decide, but what if it's a 60-40 vote? Do you tell the 40 percent, sorry, you're going up anyways? So, it's not a clear cut just because it's Just because it passes, just because it passes that everyone's on board, Mr. President. There's a lot of hardships out there, people struggling day to day that, you know, will have to make decisions whether or not they're going to eat or pay their taxes, Mr. President. Those are life decisions that are being made. We may not experience it, but they're out there, believe me.
[Nate Merritt]: And I understand that things need to get done, but I haven't ever seen this council say no to a monetary request from the mayor for something that was a surprise. So when you have that happen in one hand and then, oh, but wait, in order to pay for the things I actually promised, we got to get more money. So we're going to go build Locust Street, and there's going to be, what's the term you use? Linkage. Thank you. Sorry. I'm not a lawyer either. I'm an engineer, right? I actually work for the defense. I get money in a budget. When we don't have any more money, sorry, better find some other work. We don't get more raining down from the heavens. You just can't reach back into the pocket. I know that might be surprising that the federal government actually can work that way, but it's true. I haven't ever heard anyone say no, or for the park, hey, we gotta spend 587,000 or whatever, but in order to get that 300,000 more, right, we gotta spend 580. You couldn't spend four. You couldn't spend 350. Maybe it doesn't have the water part, right? Where can we trim? And a little here, a little there can actually add up, right? So maybe there should be some pushback, not just, you know, pencil whipping and rubber stamping, what the administration wants, which is what happens here, unfortunately. This is what I see. This is the 30,000 foot view. We can't afford to pay our bills. We need more. We can't afford to honor our promises because we have to pay for the things that we didn't make a commitment on. And we're going to build these new buildings. You got Wegmans. Wegmans is awesome. Thank you for bringing Wegmans here. You actually bring in money from outside the community, and you're not just reaching into the, you know, the taxpayers to pay for things. Good job. Locust Street, you're going to get linkage money. That's more than you had in the budget this year, right, when you get that money. Where's it going? It's not fixing a road any more than you would have already. It's not paying for the firehouse. But you're going to get more. Every time you get more, you spend more. See, it's a Pandora's box. So if you're going to go down that road, you should have the tool. Be prepared to answer, where is the accountability? When are you going to say no? When are you going to trim something? So the city needs a, you know, you have a fire tower, you're going to go spend some money to tear down a fire tower, and then maybe build another one in a couple years. So in the meantime, are we going to say, oh, the firefighters don't need training? No, that's silly, and that's political suicide, let's be honest. So what are you going to do? you're gonna pay them money to go train in the neighboring city, because they have fire towers, they're not used 24-7, but in order for them to do their training there, they can't be on duty because they're out of the city. So you're gonna pay another crew to come in to backfill them while they go do their training, and they train hard. I was a firefighter for 10 years. It's very hard, it wears you out. If you're doing it right, it's gonna wear you out. So they're not going back to work afterwards. Not if you're going to go out of town anyways to do it. You're going to spend more money than you think. Start trimming a little bit and have that plan when you come and ask for more money from my pocket. Show the accountability. Yes, we want more money because we got ourselves in a rut, or mayor so-and-so got us in a rut. Good. Fine. Stuff happens. We need to work through it. But show me the plan. and boil it down in English. The budget, every year you guys talk about the budget. I don't ever see a line on them in the budget. It's never broken down enough and digestible for John Q. Public like me even to understand or to see it or pull it up, you know, easily and then hold you guys accountable. Did you spend the money you said you were going to spend here? What were the surprises? Oh, we had more money here so we transferred it over here. That happens every year and it's a lot because we can't plan. Start planning. You people are the money people, right? This is the body that does money? You approve the budget, therefore, the buck stops with you. It's got to stop with someone. Who else do I complain to? You don't have to rubber stamp everything. Maybe push back. If I see that, then I'm actually open to you saying to fix the hole that we dug ourselves in, This is how we fix it. And then I want to see the plan. This is how I'm going to achieve it. Right? Smart. You people in business understand smart, right? Okay. Show it to me. And not just at some meeting or whatever. Put it on the website. Put it somewhere. I want to see it. I want to hold all you accountable so that when things go wrong, I'm going to come back at you and say, well, I gave you more, and you still have the same problem. Same with the maintenance. We're going to build new buildings. Okay. You still don't have the budget fixed to then once you build that building, maintain it so that we're not doing it again. Oh, in 20 years, we need a new building. Really? I need a new house every 20 years too. I wish I could have a new house. I just want a roof. You know, the library, we needed to approve the library because that was, you know, the grant is here. The grant is here. And there's always that impulse, grant, grant, grant. We got to get it. We got to get it. Maybe it's not the right choice. So just think about that as you do. You should not have the tool, but be prepared to answer that question when you go down the road, Councilor, because I know you're trying to fix the problem. And thank you for that. But show me something with it. Thank you very much for your time. And thank you for the, you know, it wasn't quite my, what do you call it? the donation thing. It's not GoFundMe, but you know, at least someone's listening. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: All in the motion by Councilor Knight. Seconded by. Table for next week. So it'll be, it'll be on the agenda. The table records. Unfinished business. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I move to take paper 18414 off the table, Mr. President. This is a request for the House Bill 3610, commonly known as the Red Flag Bill. Our House Ways and Means Committee is going to be taking this paper up within the week. The Red Flag Bill is aimed at reducing gun violence by establishing another tool for public safety in a way of closing dangerous loopholes related to gun licensure. What it does, Mr. President, it allows a family member, a roommate, or a law enforcement official to petition the court to bar someone from owning a firearm. if their gun ownership presents a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others. This legislation is supported, Mr. President, by the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association. The House Committee on Public Safety has endorsed passage of this bill on April 13, 2018. The governor is weighed in on the bill. The Speaker of the House is weighed in on the bill. However, I think that this is something that we need to do to make sure that our community is a safer place, Mr. President. I know some of my colleagues do have concerns about the Second Amendment rights of individuals in this community and whether or not this piece of legislation is something that they're willing to support, and I can wholeheartedly understand that and support that. As an attorney at Law Council, Alongo has taken an oath to uphold the tenets of the federal and state constitutions, and this is something she might not be comfortable supporting, and I understand that, Mr. President. But with that being said, time is of the essence. The legislative session is closing. It is an election year. It's going to be closing relatively soon. The House Ways and Means Committee is set to take this paper up this week, so time is of the essence. It was put on the agenda for the May 8th meeting. It was tabled so that a copy of the actual text of the bill could be provided to my colleagues on the council, because I neglected to do that when filing the resolution. I had forwarded that information to my council colleagues. They've had it for a number of days now, Mr. President, so I'd ask to move forward on the resolution, and I would request my council colleagues' support.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, second and by.
[Knight]: Send a letter of support to a state delegation in the House Ways and Means Committee saying that we support the red flag bill, House Bill 3610.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes.
[Falco]: Councilor Falco. We report out the subcommittee report, I'm sorry, the committee, the whole report tonight. What report did you want to bring up? The inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning. So during the Committee of the Whole meeting tonight, we met with regard to inclusionary zoning. But we're going to make a recommendation. We're going to make a recommendation. We're going to make a recommendation to the CD board with regard to any new development that
[Caraviello]: The clerk is saying the paper was kept in committee. What are the clarification counts on that?
[Knight]: The committee report contained three provisions. The first provision was that we'd send recommendations to the Special Permit Granting Authority. relative to requests, a requested threshold of inclusionary zoning affordable units and developments. And that was a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Then we had a draft inclusionary zoning ordinance that is requiring legislative legal review by a city solicitor. Then we also had signage notification that was on the paper that was on there. I made the motion to report the paper out. The motion that I made was to keep the inclusionary zoning ordinance in committee and report out the recommendation and report out the signage portion of the committee report.
[Caraviello]: Correct. Yes. Okay. On the motion by Councilor Bailão, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor?
[Falco]: Roll call vote has been requested, Mr. Clark. Adopting the report? To adopt the report. To adopt the report.
[Dello Russo]: We're having a roll call to adopt the report?
[Falco]: Yes. Is it to adopt the report and send the recommendations to the ZBA? To the ZBA. Yes. And the... And to send the... Correct, to send the draft signage ordinance public notification panels to the CD board.
[Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, a roll call vote has been requested. Please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Gattuso? Yes. Councilor Fiala? Yes. Councilor Nay? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative. Motion passes. Do we have any further business before we do the records? Hold on. Records of May 1st, 2018 are still in the hands of Councilmember Kern. Councilor Lungo-Koehn has found those records in order. The records of May 15, 2018 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records? Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Motion by Councilor Dello Russo to approve both sets of records, seconded by Councilor Knight. Motion by Councilor Knight to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Motion passes. Meeting adjourned. Don't forget, Monday at the cemetery, Memorial Day exercises. Tomorrow, lunch here for all the veterans.
|
total time: 17.4 minutes total words: 2232  |
total time: 17.37 minutes total words: 2881  |
total time: 5.47 minutes total words: 739  |
total time: 14.57 minutes total words: 2461  |
|
total time: 34.03 minutes total words: 5527  |
total time: 13.41 minutes total words: 2873  |
total time: 6.12 minutes total words: 1027  |
total time: 2.9 minutes total words: 503  |
|
total time: 7.57 minutes total words: 1370  |
|||