[Nicole Morell]: The 23rd regular meeting of the Medford City Council November 28, 2023 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. I saw him in the hallway.
[Nicole Morell]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records, the records of the meeting of November 14th, 2023 were passed to Vice President Peres nationally. On the motion of Councilor Garbello to table until the Vice President returns, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. The next resolution has Vice President Peres on it as well. It's actually, okay. Motion to table 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 until the vice president returns by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 2, 3, dash 0, 2, 0. We have impeccable timing. November 14th, 2023, committee of the whole food truck ordinance report to follow. So as the states, this was a We're viewing some potential edits to the food truck ordinance. I think we ended the meeting by asking KP Law to suggest adjustments as they saw fit to make it the most sense legally and then also keep it streamlined, which is our main goal of that. Do I have a motion? Motion approved. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 21-050, November 15, 2023. Committee of the Whole on the Leaf Blower Ordinance report to follow. This was a meeting where we made a number of edits to the draft Leaf Blower Ordinance. Again, to streamline it, we will be combining those edits and also sending it out to legal review, and there'll be likely another committee meeting to follow. Do I have a motion?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Nicole Morell]: Motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to take off the table the records and approve.
[Nicole Morell]: The motion of Vice President Harris to take from the table the records and approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes. We also have table 23-455. I'm sure. Would you like to take it off the table? Yeah. On the motion by Senator Bears to take off the table 23-455, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-455 offered by President Morell and Vice President Bears. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we recognize and celebrate International Human Rights Day on December 10th, 2023. the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. Be it further resolved that the Council adopts the following statement made by the Medford Human Rights Commission. Statement in support of International Human Rights Day. The Medford Human Rights Commission recognizes and celebrates International Human Rights Day on December 10th, 2023. On this day 75 years ago, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations. The document, which consists of a preamble and 30 articles, outlines the fundamental human rights and freedoms to which all of us everywhere around the world are entitled. Its pledge to promote human rights without distinction of nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion, language, or any other status is consistent with the principles that established the Medford Human Rights Commission in 2014. The Medford Ordinance expands the rights to include sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, veteran status, or status as a person who is a recipient of federal, state, or local housing subsidies, among others. The 2023 theme of the International Human Rights Day is dignity, freedom, and justice for all. It highlights the equal dignity and worth of every person, the need for a blueprint for sustainable development, the inspiration for stronger human rights protections, and the recognition of human rights as a solution to today's greatest crises. The framework is in alignment with our mission to protect the civil rights of the people of Medford, reinforce a positive community atmosphere, work with community groups and agencies to educate, promote understanding, to eliminate prejudice and intolerance, to mediate within the community wherever needed. The Human Rights Commission embraces diversity. and a culture of respect across differences to ensure that everyone who lives and works in or passes through the city of Medford has an equal opportunity to thrive. Respectfully submitted, Chief Jack Buckley, Stephanie Cornell, Maureen Curley, Immaculate Deluxe, Rob Klein, Diane McDonald, members of the Medford Human Rights Commission. So I want to thank the Human Rights Commission for delivering this
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for co-sponsoring this resolution with me, and I especially want to thank the members of the Human Rights Commission for both making this statement and asking us to consider it as part of our agenda this evening. I think the statement really speaks for itself, but there was a reason 75 years ago that every country in the world came together to create the United Nations than to declare that human rights are universal value. And that's because for the 40 years before that, they very clearly had not been. And I think we see today, with rising violence and death across the world and wars, a need reaffirm that resolution because just the amount The whole idea of the United Nations, the whole idea of the peace after World War II is that we weren't going to do that again. We weren't going to have millions of people across the world dying because of their identity. And I think we are seeing in many parts of the world today a retrenchment of that. And the answer to that is to reaffirm the universal value of human dignity and freedom and justice. And whatever small part this city can play in that, I think it's an important one. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I wanted to thank you and Vice President Bears for introducing this resolution and to especially thank the Human Rights Commission for their hard work of drafting the language of it and sending it to us to be adopted. Very similar to what Vice President Bears was saying, there's Human rights is something that I think oftentimes we take for granted. Oftentimes we see it on the TV screen as something being talked about in a country so far away. But I think we forget that so many of our community immigrated from countries, left countries, because their human rights were being violated. So many of them came to America, came to Medford for a better future, a future where they can live freely and in dignity. In that, we forget that even though so many have left those countries, they still are connected to those countries. And by connection, we as Medford residents, as the city of Medford, are connected to all these injustices around the world as well. We also forget that civil rights and human rights are at the core of what it means to be an American, what it means to be proud of this country and the values that we fight for and that so many have given their lives for. And in that spirit, you know, we need to be continuously self-critical and continuously protective of human rights here and civil rights here at home. Um, and so I'm, um, really thankful. Um, I know Thanksgiving is passed, but I'm really thankful to the Medford human rights commission for, for drafting this and for putting a spotlight on the work of the commission and the work of our city and to re to frame this in the local sense as well. I'm really grateful. Um, and I'll pass it on to my fellow Councilors.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Merle. I appreciate you and Vice President Bears putting this forward and I appreciate the Medford Human Rights Commission for their work year-round to advance the cause of human rights and the profile of human rights in Medford and do what we can on the local level. I think my fellow Councilors have put this beautifully so far, especially this year. We have constant reminders of how many places across the globe the concept of human rights is just a concept and not a reality. And we also know that for so many people, our neighbors around the world, but also many of our neighbors here in Medford, they can't forget about the potential for the violation of human rights because they're living that every day, or they are under the threat of living their human rights being violated. every day. So we don't have the capacity as a local city council or as a local commission to solve the problem of human rights, but what we can do every day is to hold each other close and to regard every neighbor as sacred and to continue to reaffirm this Medford ordinance, which I really do appreciate for going above and beyond the original one that was commissioned all those years ago. So, with gratitude to the Medford Human Rights Commission for putting this forward, it's always an honor to recommit to this ideal and have the opportunity to think about how to do a better job of implementing this within our community to be a safe haven and a sanctuary for all of our neighbors and all of our future neighbors. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. So, on the motion of vices and bears, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[George Scarpelli]: Here, paper 23-458. This is our firefighters. revised wage adjustment. I think they've waited long enough, I believe over 850 days, so if we can hear them sooner rather than later, it would be greatly appreciated.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to suspend the rules to take 23-458, seconded by Vice-President Bears. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Communications from the Mayor, 23-458, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council. regarding proposed wage adjustment for fire union i respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the following amendments to the revised ordinances chapter 66 article 2 city of medford amendment to revise ordinances chapter 66 article 2 be ordained by the city council of the city of medford in chapter 66 entitled personnel article 2 entitled reserve the city's classification and compensation plan formally included as article 2 section 66 through 6631 through 66-40, amend the figures as they presently appear next to the following title by adjusting each to reflect the following percentage wage increases and effective days. Fire. Effective July 1st, 2021, increase the base salary of all fire union titles by 2.5%. Effective July 1st, 2022, increase the base salary of all fire union titles by 2.5%. Effective July 1st, 2023, increase the base salary of all fire union titles by 3%. Effective July 1st, 2024, increase the base salary of all fire union titles by 3%. Effective July 1st, 2025, increase the base salary of all fire union titles by 2.5%. Human Resources, Lisa Crowley, will be available to answer any questions. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Bernalongo Kern, Mayor. I know Lisa's back there somewhere too, but Daniel. We obviously have folks from the fire union here as well. If we have any questions from Councilors, if we just want to hear from our fire aid reps.
[Adam Hurtubise]: would you say to answer any questions?
[Nicole Morell]: I don't know if there's anything you'd like to say here. You're unmuted if you do.
[Lisa Crowley]: No, I just wanted to thank the union for a collaborative process that we went through to get this MOA done and I do appreciate all the work that they put in so that we could come to a collective agreement.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. First of all, let me publicly say from this body that we apologize that our firefighters had to wait this long to ratify a contract. I think that it's been a huge disappointment for I think the whole community. And it's something that we hope that will never happen again. To be honest with you, I think It really set the tone for the rest of the community and how people felt about the city of Medford. And when you treat your firefighters the way that you were treated and having to wait this long. I still remember some of the banter back and forth is that the reason why it wasn't negotiated earlier is because you were asking for 9%. Uh, you took 2.5%, 2.5%, 3%, 3%. You didn't, you didn't kill us. And, uh, it's very fair. I think it's, I think what you've done is more than fair for our community. So, you know, we thank you for that. I mean, uh, through it all. You still answered every single call. You went into the disease infested homes of the pandemic and did your jobs and, um, above and beyond. So, um, for one person, one Councilor, one friend that has supported you guys throughout, uh, my tenure here, um, I'll do that for the rest of my life that, you know, the rest of the time I'm in any power to help our firefighters. I think that, uh, you deserve it and more. Um, you know, it's funny when, You remember the pandemic and they talked about everybody was standing up and supporting our firefighters and police officers and teachers. And it seems like the people that really got kicked in the keister the last couple of years are the people that stood when everybody else couldn't. Um, so I just want to thank you, uh, from the citizens of the city that, uh, enduring this time and finally settling on a contract. I appreciate that. HR director and the hard work that she came in. It's nice to see that we had some change, we see some movement. And one thing that I will hope for, I'll make a recommendation when it comes to the vote that it wants to prove that we waive all the readings and we get you guys paid as fast as we can. And then I know that hopefully I've reached out to the chief of staff. I don't know what's happened the last couple of weeks, but it's been, the city has been getting back to us. in a timely fashion. Any questions I've asked, I've gotten great response from the chief of staff. The question I posed was for the DPW, but I asked also with the firefighters retro, and hopefully they're gonna move that in a timely fashion, not what they've had to go through with the DPW. So I'm hoping that track can follow through for the commitment that you've given us and making sure that you get that money in a timely fashion. your families deserve it. So, again, I'm winded. I could talk about you all night because you deserve it and I just want to thank you. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, councilor.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. I won't go into all the that my fellow council went into but I just want to thank you for the service through all those tough times. You you answer the bell every time people call. I know you Again, just thank you. I want to thank you for having to wait so long. I'm glad you finally settled your contract. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor.
[Nicole Morell]: Vice Mayor Paris.
[Zac Bears]: What are you cooking, Rick? But seriously, I want to echo comments of my fellow Councilors. Glad this is done and that you're going to be getting, you came to an agreement, you're going to be getting these wage increases. And I know If there's anything that we can do to accelerate the process of the retro calculation, Councilor Scarpelli has shared all that information with the council as well about the other units that have been getting work done. So I'd be happy to help. And pending comments from other councillors, I would second Councilor Scarpelli's motion to approve and to waive the readings.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I know it's been incredibly frustrating for you all these last few years. I talked to a lot of voters who are frustrated for you. We'll talk to a lot of family members of firefighters who were particularly frustrated with the process in the last few years. Um, I'm glad that something has finally come. Um, seconding, um, Councilor Scarpell, I mean, seconding all his remarks, but particularly my hope is that this isn't the case. We need to build in more systems of financial accountability on the administration to make sure that we can pay our workers. That's a bigger project that we need to do that will affect all of our frontline staff, especially you guys, but I'm just, I'm really grateful that you all have worked through such frustrating conditions. You know, I, there've been a lot of notable incidents this, in the last calendar year, where the fire department's really stepped in and saved lives that, you know, it was particularly my own neighborhood as well. And so I'm really grateful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'll be brief. My fellow Councilors said it already, but thank you for the job that you do all the time, especially during the pandemic. I have probably 1% of the view of just how hard your job is. It's my best friend's father is a retired firefighter and it boggles my mind. I know it's a lifestyle. It stays with you your entire life, your family, their entire life. It's a, it's a lifestyle and a sacrificial one, but thank you for always showing up for the work despite the circumstances. And we'll do what we can on our side to make sure that this long wait doesn't happen again to the extent of our power to do so. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Collins. And like Councilor Collins said, it's all been said, but I'm thankful we're here tonight. A fair contract is the bare minimum we can do for our first responders, for our firefighters. So I'm glad we're finally here. Hopefully this does not happen again. So we have a motion from Councilor Palacio, but I don't know if anyone wants to speak.
[George Scarpelli]: One more thing, Madam President.
[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Palacio.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Just so you know, this doesn't end here. I think this is the beginning. Um, my first meeting in January, I'm going to push my council members to make sure that we follow through on the, the, uh, fire station and the training tower. I think that's something that is, um, we've waited long enough. So I think the administration has to find a way. I think that I was one of the councils that put forth the debt exclusion that I believed, uh, to, to, to handle those situations, eliminating, the seniors and veterans that our taxes would increase and the debt exclusion, I believe it was $17 a household to make sure that our firefighters have a safe and working environment and a training tower that would support the training of all of our firefighters. So that's something that I will revisit right away. It's not something that we are now, I think that we gotta keep moving forward for what we've done tonight and moving forward. And as a great, not a great man said one time, Mr. Buckley, stand up. You stand up.
[Nicole Morell]: I don't know if you have anything you want to add before we take the motion.
[Bob Jones]: Just answering questions. If I may. Thankfully, we do have a contract with the firefighters union. There are other unions in the city that don't. Both police unions do not have one. There's some local 25 unions that don't have one. The statewide, I'm sorry, the citywide insurance contract, the PEC contract is still outstanding. It has been since June 30th of 2022. So I'd like to have some more collaborative effort with the personnel director and the city administration to get that on the contract. And I look forward to sitting in the room with the city and the stakeholders, the chief of staff, the mayor, personnel director, and I don't think we need A bunch of lawyers there at $250 an hour. I'd like to handle it in-house with city employees. Thank you very much. I appreciate the forum. Thank you for all you do.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve and waive the remainder of the reading, seconded by Vice President Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, 6 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 1 absent. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take papers 23-461, 23-412, and 23-460. 461 is under suspension. So 461, 412, and 460? Yes. The rule's already suspended, so motion to take those papers.
[Nicole Morell]: Are we going to take those papers? Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I apologize for this not being on the regular agenda. Mr. Maskell's untimely sad passing happened sometime before the agenda was presented.
[George Scarpelli]: Steve Maskell was a very special person, not only in my life, but I think in many people's lives. He was an outstanding coach, teacher, and then his administrator at Medford High School. For those people that don't know Steve Maskell, he was a kind, funny, strong voice for everybody at Medford High School. I grew up at a time in Medford High School where we only had a few classmates of color, and Mr. Maskell was a strong black man. And for most kids, the first interaction with the man of color, and he was an amazing person. He was someone that really taught you right from wrong. I'm sad to say that I've heard people use language that was off color in front of Mr. Maskell. And I never saw him get angry. I never saw him lose his mind. I've always watched the gentleman who calmly, collectively would bring that young person in and explain what those words meant and how damaging they could be. And he was someone that we all loved. He had such an impact. Personally, for me, I was a very young, immature senior that thought I had the world by the tail and I was going to do anything I wanted until the colleges of my choices, that they just weren't coming. And I remember sitting, crying, 17-year-old kid, just lost. And my parents were immigrants from Italy. They didn't know any better. They went to work every day, three jobs a day, and I was lost. And Mr. Maskell brought me into his office, sat me down, put a plan together, and helped me on my path to become a teacher and a coach and hopefully a positive role model to many students that I've been around. So he changed my life. I talked to his nephew at the Hall of Fame banquet. By the way, he was inducted this past Sunday into the Medford Mustang Hall of Fame, which is a great honor. But he was supposed to be there, and he was taken to the hospital, and his nephew came instead. The stories that went around, what they shared about such a great individual, He's someone that the city is going to greatly miss. He had humor. He had strength. He had knowledge. He had warmth. He was just a good person, somebody that I know my parents are waiting for him at the Pearly Gates, and they're going to sit down and have a big bowl of spaghetti and a glass of wine with him like he did many times at my parents' table. My condolences to the Maskell family, my condolences to the city of Medford, and to all of his former students and athletes. He definitely left a mark that I hope we all can do for the people we come across our lives because he did a remarkable job. So thank you, Steve Maskell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Scarpelli. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I didn't have the same relationship that Councilor Scarpelli did, but my first year at Medford High School was Mr. Mask's last year at Medford High School, and he was the senior class submaster assistant principal. They changed the title to later. When I was there, and all I really knew of him was that he was both the person who didn't want to do something wrong in front of in the hall, but also the person who wasn't going to yell at you If you did it right and I think that that speaks more to George's example it wasn't it wasn't you know there's people who who walk the halls and and enforce order through screaming and shouting and he enforced order through a stern look and then you just walk to the office. But beyond that, you know, it was clear to me that he was a mentor to a lot of folks, that he had a long history in the building, that he meant a lot, not just to the students in that grade, but people who came before, to educators in the building, to the community and the links with the community through sports and through other activities, but also through how many kids he wrote a recommendation for to go to college, and how many folks he helped who were struggling, who didn't maybe have the knowledge or the resources or time at home from their parents to help them navigate the difficulties that come when you go from high school into college or into work or into the trades or anything else. I remember also how everyone felt when they found out that he was leaving at the end of the year. And the fact that it was like, you know, and I'm like 14, I don't really know much, but it was clear to me that there were people who knew that that presence no longer being there was going to be really significant. And I didn't quite get how much of that was true until right now, when I heard what George said. sorry, to you, to his family, and to everybody that he was so meaningful to in our community and beyond. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, all those in favor? All those opposed? Dedicate? Absolutely. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, all those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 23-412, Adam Dash and Associates, Attorneys at Law. I've read this a few times, so I'm just gonna skip this. Attention, Adam. Heard of me, City Clerk. 12 Dell Avenue petition to amend deed restriction. Petitioners and owners, Gerald L. Alves and Janet R. Alves. We have Attorney Dash before us tonight, I think, with an update, so I'm gonna avoid reading the whole paper, so if you wanna provide us an update.
[Dash]: Thank you, Madam President. I will be brief. Attorney Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street, Summerville with Mayor Gerald and Janet Alves. We've been working with staff. We'd like to continue this matter till December 12. We thought we would have something for you tonight, but we do not. I would note that staff had a very creative idea that came up this afternoon that we'd like to explore. So I know that's your next meeting, so hopefully we'll have it. Yes, that's right. We will have it wrapped up by that point.
[Zac Bears]: But that's where we stand.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to continue to our December 12 meeting.
[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Vice Mayor to continue to our December 12 meeting seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thanks for being here. We'll see you on the 12th. Going to 23-460. Under petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 23-460, petition for a common Mitchellers license by Chung H. Lee, Esquire, on behalf of Wiley Enterprises, Mei Ling's Restaurant, 434A, Salem Street, Medford, Mass, 02155. On file business certificate number 208. I believe we have the petitioner on Zoom. I think I see Chung Lee, if you could give us a wave if you're gonna talk. Great, and I'll pass over to Councilor Scarpelli. chair of our licensing subcommittee and then we'll go to Mr. Lee.
[George Scarpelli]: I know I saw it online, and I did go through the process. It looked like everything was in order. Now, if the petitioner just give us a brief breakdown, Madam President, it would be a huge help.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, Mr. Lee, if you could just tell us a little bit about the business and what you're seeking as far as hours, things like that.
[SPEAKER_13]: Sure. Hi. Good evening, city councilors. My name is Chong Lee. I'm from Boston, Mass. I represent the Huali Enterprises Inc. We are here on the petition for a common victim license for the restaurant to be operated at 434 Salem Street in Medford, currently known as Mei Ling's. This is essentially a transfer of ownership as my client is not expecting to modify or change the operations nor the hours. In fact, Mr. Jiahua Mei, I see he's in the Zoom meeting as well. He is one of the principals and the 100% equity owner of the corporate applicant, Huawei Enterprises. He will continue to work there, obviously. And we are here tonight on this application for the standard operating hours. I've been working with Ms. Annie Kelly, who's been extremely helpful in this process. And I understand that For the extended hours up to the current advertised operating hours for mailings, we do have a follow-up extended hours petition that's already been filed, which I hope will be entertained in the near future. But the current application is principally for a transfer of ownership from the current operator, 2 Chance Restaurant Inc., to my client, Hualien Enterprises. The menus, the times, even the employees are essentially gonna remain the same. So we are hoping that this city council will approve this application for common vehicle license for my client.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: How many employees will be working the same amount? Nothing really changing?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, it'll be the same amount. In fact, my client's working hard to try to retain the current employees. And we've been working with Ms. Kelly to see if we can actually make this meeting, which she was very helpful in. Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, so I, Madam President, I see everything is in order. I think that, like the gentleman said, I think that the only issue is that they're going to have to come back to the extended hours because that portion is dismissed with the new ownership. So as long as they've They understand that, which sounds like they do. I don't see any other issues to deny, so I will move forward after my Councilors have any questions that they'd like to share.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any questions from the council? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Caraviello to approve, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you so much, congrats.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you very much.
[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears for virtual regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Going to hearings. 23446, legal notice of a public hearing, City of Medford. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hadsett Drive, Medford, Mass., and via Zoom on Tuesday, November 28th, 2023 at 7 p.m. A link to this hearing will be posted no later than Friday, November 24th, 2023. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the purpose of allocation of the FY 2024 property tax. One, to determine the residential factor to be used for FY 2024. Two, select an open space discount. Three, select a residential exemption. Four, select a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2501 for any aides accommodations. TDD 781-393-2501. 2516, the city of Medford is an EEOAA 504 employer. For additional information, contact the office of the city clerk at 71-393-2425 by order of the Medford City Council, signed Adam L. Herdimese, the city clerk. And we have Chief Assessor Costigan here with us tonight, who already has a presentation about to get started on the screen. Unless the councilors have any questions to start, we can go right to the presentation.
[Costigan]: Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here. The assessing office works hard every year to develop fair cash values for our over 18,000 parcels, and this tax policy is left to the council to decide, so I'm going to just take you through a few policy options we have. Tonight we'll be adopting the city's tax policy by allocating the class among the property types. And these are the three votes we'll make. Either a single tax rate or maintain the 175% shift of the tax levy from the residential class to the commercial, industrial, personal property class, voting on whether to adopt a residential exemption and whether to adopt a small commercial exemption. So just to review our property evaluation process, we take calendar year 2022 sales and they're used to establish our fiscal year 24 values. By state law, we're between 90 and 110% on an assessment to sales ratio and each class. We submitted all our values to the Department of Revenue. They approved our values that I'm presenting tonight on November 6th. As you can see, it's hard to see on the screen, but each of our classes, single family, condo, two family, three family apartment, commercial, industrial, have to be within the 90 to 110% ratio. For instance, our single families this year had an assessment to sales ratio of 0.92. This just gives you an idea of our fiscal year 23 average assessment versus our 24 average assessment and the percentage change. Again, values are multiplied by the tax rate and that is how the tax bill is derived for each property owner in Bedford. This slide just depicts the average single family condo, two family, three family apartment commercial industrial property in regards to our surrounding communities. And the percent change in each of those classes. So we saw about a 7% increase, valuation increase in our single families this year. New growth, I wanna touch on quickly. The Department of Revenue did approve on November 6th our new growth number. I wanna point out Jim O'Brien's here. He's our part-time field assessor. He's back here. He has been instrumental in our property visitation process and our capture of new growth. We captured 2.85 million in new growth. And as a reminder, other than the Prop 2 1⁄2, and I guess a debt exclusion if you chose to do that, this is the only way to increase the tax levy. So as you might know, 72% of our city revenues come from this tax levy, so this is kind of the only way to sort of capture more growth in that area and increase revenues for the city. We had, again, 2.8 million, and I know this is hard to see, but about half and half between commercial and residential. Again, this was our best year for new growth. I do thank our staff, including Jim, our field assessor, and Jared, our assistant assessor. We had a 30% increase in new growth this year, and that is what a fully staffed office can do going forward, and we appreciate that come budget time. And the fiscal year 24 value by class, I just wanna touch on. So 89% of our value is from the residential class. 8% from commercial one and a quarter from industrial and 1.76 from the personal property class So the first thing we're asking today is that shift. If we did not shift the levy, it would be $9.39 tax rate applied to all of these values across the board. What the City of Bedford has done in the past, it has shifted these values to the commercial industrial personal property class, and that creates a split rate where the residential gets brought down to $8.52, and the commercial industrial personal property gets brought up to 16.43. This shows the percent. So as you saw, it was about 89% of the value. Well, it brings it down to about 80% of the levy. And the selection of the minimum residential factor is the way we drive this to get to that 175% split. And what that does, as you can see, at the one, if we didn't do the split, you can see the residential commercial breakdown, and at the 175% split, it again brings that tax rate on the residential down from 939 to 852, and brings the CIP, commercial industrial personal property, up to 1643 from the 939. These might be rounded by a penny during our tax recap, but these are estimates and good estimates. Just to give the impact on a single family home, were we not to do this, single tax rate, the 939, the average single family house would have about a $7,200 bill. The effect of this policy has been implemented in the previous years by city council, draws that tax bill for that average single family down to 6,551. That's the savings. This is a historical chart, the average single family going from 718 to 768,000, fiscal year 23 to 24. The year over year change in tax dollars, about $336.
[George Scarpelli]: Point of information, Madam President. Just to, I know we're gonna get questions.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[George Scarpelli]: The slide that went up said that our assessed values have gone up by 7%. We're going to have phone calls saying taxes are going to be raised by 7%.
[Costigan]: That's incorrect because the tax rate's going down.
[George Scarpelli]: Right. So, okay. But when they read the tax bill, this is what, so the understanding, because we're going to get phone calls. So the taxes, our taxes are going to go down, but the assessment's going up. So the tax bill now will read higher.
[Costigan]: Yes, the average single family tax bill, on average, would be about $336 higher.
[George Scarpelli]: OK, so again, just people, when I start getting the phone calls in 15 minutes, it's not saying, George, our taxes are going to go up. This city, we don't street sweep. We don't fix the trees. The parks are a mess. So the understanding is that our assessment has risen, not the tax rate.
[Costigan]: Correct. The values have gone up 7%. The tax rate has dropped.
[Zac Bears]: And just to further clarify, just the tax, the year over year change in bill is less than the increase in the valuation. Values are increasing fast.
[Costigan]: Correct. Correct. That's a good way to put it. Yes.
[George Scarpelli]: Now the values general everywhere. So I think that people, you know, have to understand that because I know I'm going to get, I'm going to get the phone calls saying that what's wrong with you. I voted for you and you're raising my taxes. So I just want to make sure it's clear. So they, they, that I set the dialogue for these future phone calls. Absolutely. So thank you.
[Costigan]: Yep, so the other two parts, two votes we're making tonight, residential exemption. This option is generally established early in the fiscal year so that it gives the assessing office time to implement it. The residential exemption in Medford, if we did adopt it at that 35% exemption, the break-even would be approximately $936,000. So any property on the residential properties valued over $936,000 would experience a tax increase. Those below it would experience a tax decrease. There are about 18 communities in the state that have implemented a residential exemption. And the same with granting a small commercial exemption. Generally, early in the spring, we would do this proceeding that started the fiscal year. There is a provision in Mass General Law to give businesses a 10% exemption on values of less than a million dollars that employ 10 people or more. So just to clarify the vote summary, we'll be voting tonight on that minimum residential factor as we have in previous years, the residential exemption and the small commercial exemption. And I'll take any questions at this time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think similar to Councilor Scarpelli, you know, the way that Proposition 2.5 works makes it very hard for the average person to understand how taxes are affected. Proposition 2.5 doesn't mean everyone's individual bill only goes up 2.5% per year. It doesn't mean that at all. It means the levy goes up 2.5% in the aggregate. And how that's distributed is based on assessed value times the tax rate. One thing I like to highlight is that the tax rate in Medford is less than 1%.
[Costigan]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: 0.852 if we do the full shift, I think is what you said, or maybe off by a digit there.
[Costigan]: That's correct.
[Zac Bears]: So probably the lowest tax rate you'll find on a tax anywhere. My main questions are around a few things. One, new growth seems really strong at 2.8 million. And one thing I noticed was there was a pretty big increase in the personal property valuation. Do you have any further kind of information on either of those questions that you can share, like how we captured so much? It sounds like you credited some to full staffing levels in the department.
[Costigan]: Absolutely. Anytime, so first of all, yes, the staffing levels in the department are crucial. We cannot capture the growth if we're not going out and seeing the growth, if we're not pulling up all the permits to align with the growth. Whenever we submit growth to this state for approval, it's gonna mention that permit. And so we have to do the work. We had over 1,000 entries in new growth this year. That was up 30% right there. In addition, this year, we had large permits in the industrial space. We also had several exempt to taxable parcels. One was across the street. That's all new growth. It's on the medical center across the street. And lastly, there was a personal property audit that resulted in hiring new growth there as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and that's a good transition to kind of my next question. You hear a lot of rumblings and rumblings online of things aren't assessed fairly, people get favorable assessments because of who they know, and this person's paying very low taxes, and my assessment always seems to go up a ton. Could you explain a little bit more about the assessment process and how, both in your office and because of the state review, it's legally and procedurally impossible for that to be happening in the city?
[Costigan]: Sure, absolutely. So every year our office is responsible with basically deriving the fair cash value of each parcel. the previous 1st of January. So for fiscal year 24, it's gonna be 1-1-23, the 1st of January 23. We take great pride in doing property reviews and inspections. So any, I call it property record card change. If you add a kitchen, if you add a bath, if you're putting an addition on, if you're adding to your parcel, we have the field staff now to capture that and update the property record cards. a process that takes several months. We are also engaging in a cyclical project where every 10 years we are going to the property and doing a physical inspection. You may see a number of your constituents now get letters. We always now send letters before we do any of that. Once I have all the data together, we can then make market adjustments, and we do that in the commercial space, the industrial space, and the residential space. Those market adjustments are based on the sales sampling, really, in the calendar year preceding the fiscal year. We're using those sales to inform our market adjustments. So there's really no window whereby we could be preferential. It doesn't really exist in our office. We are happy to talk through valuations with taxpayers. In fact, if they call in and they want to do a physical inspection, we'll make it happen that week. We'll be right on the ball in that regard. But that's really the process.
[Zac Bears]: So if a resident says, hey, I think the valuations are way out of whack, they could call your office and they could talk through it?
[Costigan]: Yeah, and on January 1st through February 1st, they can file an abatement.
[Zac Bears]: They can even file an abatement.
[Costigan]: Exactly.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I just think that's important to know because I think there's just false rumors constantly spread online that assess values are politically motivated. And I think that that is the, it undermines, you know, you guys and the hard work that you do. And just so I understand it, the valuation, The state also does some sort of certification of the valuation?
[Costigan]: Yep. So we had to submit to the state and they approve the values every year.
[Zac Bears]: So it's not just a process of integrity in your office, but also there's the oversight of the state. Exactly. Great. Thank you for that. Just two more questions. What we just did to extend the valuation year, when does that hit? Does that hit us next time we calculate?
[Costigan]: That'll be fiscal year 25, yes. We'll be able to pick up new growth through June 30th as opposed to January 1st.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And then I think the big policy question that we look at every time we have the classification hearing is the residential exemption. To me, I think there's a lot of reasons why we could move in that direction, and I think it could be a very good thing. I think it could especially be a way to help mitigate fact that we have massive need and we're likely to explore the override and debt exclusion tool for a number of massive projects over the next several years. There's big projects we have to do and we have understaffing. As you're aware, your staff levels finally hit where you need to be and suddenly you're able to do things that your office hasn't been able to do for a very long time. And I'm glad we prioritized that, but I think if I talked to any department head in the building, they would say the same thing. Our level of service would be much better if we had the staff levels that we need. So just given that fact, I personally think, and as you said, the tax policy sits with us, I think the resident exemption could be a way to mitigate for certain people, for owner occupied under the break even, the impact of an overrider or debt exclusion. And I think we need to explore that. But my two questions here are one, This break even seems significantly higher than the last time we looked at this last year. Are we expecting that the break even is going to go up over time or down over time, or is that not something that we can kind of project?
[Costigan]: Yeah, as values go up, it's going to go up over time. That's correct.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. All right. Um, and, and what that means just so that folks can have a little more understanding of it too, right? Basically like the lower your houses, your, your home, your residential property is valued. the more the exemption matters, and then the closer you get to that 936 figure, essentially the exemption matters less. Once you hit that figure, the exemption is not matching up with the increased tax that you're paying because the rate went up.
[Costigan]: The rate went up, exactly. Yep, that's exactly correct.
[Zac Bears]: And so just for your office, and we asked your predecessor this several times, and I'm guessing the answer's gonna be similar, and you kind of included it in your presentation. If we wanted to go in that direction, what timing would you need to implement an exemption?
[Costigan]: It would be timing before the start of the fiscal year because in communities that do allow the residence exemption, they have applications start July 1st. And that's just helpful because in year one, I would expect us to get around 10,000 applications. Each application has to be reviewed because we have to certify that they are a resident of Medford. We would ask for the redacted page one of their Massachusetts state income tax return listing the Medford address. That would be an extremely time-consuming process, in year one particularly. And so I would be asking the mayor and council for an additional staff member to accomplish that task. That would be the administrative cost. To your point about it really shifts the tax around within the residential class. It also pushes up significantly the tax borne by apartments. being cognizant of that, I mention that because basic economics, if a landlord is going to experience a significant increase in their taxes, they're going to push that on to the rental class, the tenants, who if that's the policy outcome, that's something that council should be aware of. But yes, to your point, condominiums would see a reduction, single families a reduction, two families depending on the value, three families and apartments, the tax burden would go up on those classes.
[Zac Bears]: And it would be progressively metered because basically the same way that your exemption loses value to the breakeven. The increase above the break-even is also, yeah.
[Costigan]: Exactly. So a large apartment building would have a large tax increase.
[Zac Bears]: A 500-unit building is going to see a very large increase versus a three-family is going to be maybe not so bad. And I'll leave the basic economics to another day, because my opinion is that the rents are set by the market, and you only have an indirect impact of a tax increase on rental price. But you can go either way on that. But essentially, you would need, for us to have made this decision six months ago, in order for it to be... If we were to vote on it tonight, you would have needed six months of implementation time.
[Costigan]: Especially year one, yeah. It would be a deluge of papers.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Much appreciated. And I think we just need to keep that in mind, that if we're going to make this decision, we're probably not making it tonight at the classification hearing.
[Costigan]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you to that point. I know that your predecessor really stressed the negative impact on the owner-occupied because of the fact that it might hurt more than it helps. And I think that that resonates for, especially with, you know, when you're talking about keeping families in Medford. You know, I lived in a two-family. We owned a two-family. I lived in a neighborhood of two, three-family houses. I will guarantee you that whatever rate, market rate is, the landlord's gonna raise the rent through the roof to make sure they cover that cost. Let that be, that is personal experience. So I just think that we should be very careful when we think of what your predecessor really shared with us. And that keeps resonating to me. We talk about keeping families in Medford, but understanding that the impact, what it, what it really, the benefits from it, how it really is not much of a benefit, um, when it comes to, who has to pick up the slack. So I think that, like Councilor Beall said, this is something that I would be willing to vote for, but it's tonight. But I think that this is a longer discussion and a deeper dive into the numbers to see who it truly impacts and who it could possibly impact negatively if that does happen. So thank you for all your work. I appreciate it. Thanks.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Murl. Thank you so much for the thorough presentation. I enjoyed looking over these various charts and graphs earlier, so thank you so much. And it's really great to hear about all of the positive changes and increased capacity in the department this year. It's great to see sort of reality meeting the goals for the office, so thank you for steering that ship. I think all of my questions on the overall presentation have been addressed already, but since we're kind of on the topic of the presidential exemption, I'm glad to hear, I mean, it sounds like there's broad consensus that this is not something that we voted on tonight, even if it were, I'd be disinclined to adopt on this timing. I agree, I think that there's a, I think there is a debate to be had on the effect on apartment dwellers, you know, there's the impact of just the raw cost property tax on apartment building owners, and there's the fact that most landlords are reacting to market rate for for rents. But my disinclination doesn't even lie with that conversation, which again we're not having tonight but rather. I think the reason that this comes up all the time in the community is because home values in Medford have gone up so much as they have in the rest of the region. And most of the folks who live in homes that now have higher assessed values than they've ever had before, they didn't move to Medford and buy a mansion or buy a palace. This is just a very desirable place to live in right now. And I'd be very wary of adopting the residential exemption, which would You know, in some cases, marginally decrease tax rates for some owner occupants, but increase them for others, knowing that some of those folks who would see an increased tax bill on their, you know, on their bill are maybe folks who can't afford that or can't afford it any more than the folks below the break-even point because of where the break-even point is given the current market. And I also just, I'm sure you were planning to touch on this, but on the topic also of the small commercial exemption, it seemed to me what I gleaned from your presentation is that this is not an exemption that would, if my understanding is correct, and most of the small business owners in Medford are not property owners, but rather small business tenants, this didn't seem like something that would be advantageous to the folks actually on the ground running small businesses in Medford. Is that accurate?
[Costigan]: That's correct. Also, the less than a million dollar valuation, that hasn't been updated. We have to be owner occupied and under a million with more than 10 people being employed there. That's not really an equation we see much in the city.
[Kit Collins]: Are those eligibility characteristics state imposed? Correct. Got it.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think much like Councilor Collins, since we did start talking about a residential exemption, Again, we know it's not gonna happen tonight, and it requires a lot of planning, but I just wanted to add my kind of voice and saying I think it's worth exploring. I think the crucial question lies in which, well, essentially, It is pretty unambiguously progressive when it comes to the homeowner side of it, but when we look at renters and apartments, we should explore the consequences of it. I think Councilor Beres makes a good point in that given how unelastic supply and demand can be the markets and might be the one setting the rate, which I think makes a lot of sense given that if it's too expensive here, people can choose to move out of Medford theoretically. But, um, you know, the other economic argument also has seems to have some merit and so we should in the next term, explore, explore this a bit more. Some of this is not in our prerogative. I know Provincetown has an exemption that expands to the full-time renters. They got special permission from the state legislature. Again, that's why it's not in our prerogative. So it is something worth pushing for and exploring, in my opinion. I was curious also about the small commercial exemption. It seemed like the definition was quite specific. And so I was curious as to whether you knew how many people, how many properties would be affected by it, and whether we've ever done it. It doesn't seem familiar to me.
[Costigan]: I can certainly provide the number of commercial properties under a million dollars. I don't have the labor data for those. I'd have to kind of an individual application basis.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any Vice President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just two more questions. On the residential exemption, at 35 percent, what was the new rate? Do you have that? Did you calculate that? What's in the PowerPoint, so if you don't have it, totally understand.
[Unidentified]: Excuse me one second.
[Costigan]: I can get that for you tomorrow. I have it on my desk. I just can't remember exactly what it was. I want to state hearing what exactly, you know, yeah, but I'll send it to you tomorrow.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I really just wanted to illustrate the point, like right now we, because we shift, The property tax is a wealth tax. Right now, we have a flat rate wealth tax at two brackets, 1.6% basically, if we adopt everything tonight. For commercial, 0.85 for residential. If we adopted a residential exemption, we'd still have that flat split for the commercial. But instead of being a flat rate, regardless of how wealthy you are, a landlord is, the exemption would basically mean that your rate would be, if you're lower wealth, your rate would be lower. And if you're higher wealth, your rate would be higher. So you'd have a graduated wealth rate for residential property instead of a flat tax, regardless of how much your property is worth. So certainly there could be impacts because some of those high wealth, you know, whoever owns Lumiere or whoever owns the Hanover on Mystic, right? I mean, they own a multi hundred million dollar value property. They're very wealthy landowners. But our tax question could have an indirect impact on the people who rent those apartments, right? So there is an impact there. But my point being that essentially putting a residential exemption is you're creating a graduated wealth tax. So if you're lower wealth, you pay a lower percentage of your property's wealth. And if you're higher wealth, you pay a higher percent. So if we're framing the debate there, there will be individual cases where you know, there's a very, someone who owns a $2 million home and has a very low, you know, uh, fixed income. Right. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to factor in for that, but in general, the principle would be instead of if you own a $200,000 home and I think councilor Schafer is trying to shoot, but right now we basically say, if you own a $200,000 home or a $200 million apartment building, you pay the same rate. That's our current tax policy. The residential exemption, to an extent, would be saying maybe we should treat someone who owns a $200,000 home a little differently than someone who owns a $200 million apartment building.
[Costigan]: Right. It would effectively push the tax rate up a few dollars, but it would give the exemption to those who applied.
[Zac Bears]: And the effective tax rate would actually be lower than the current tax rate for low wealth. and higher for high wealth, and the break-even point would basically be where we are now.
[Costigan]: Yeah, if you're equating wealth to the value of the property, that would be correct. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So I just think, you know, we talk about property, property's an asset, and it's essentially a wealth tax, so, versus the other taxes, we have income and sales taxes, et cetera. So I just think that's helpful to frame the debate. One other thing, I don't know if you've seen it yet, I got an email from someone, I haven't done my research on the legislative back end, but apparently it's either in, a supplemental budget that already passed at the state level or it's in the governor's housing bond bill, and I have to follow up on it. There's some sort of good landlord tax credit that has moved forward. Have you seen anything about that from DLS or anyone you talked to?
[Costigan]: I saw the October bill that the governor signed. I wasn't aware that that provision was in it, but that would be the one that I would think it would be in, but I can review that.
[Zac Bears]: If you could, and I'll do my research too, my understanding of it was basically that you know, if some, if a landlord agreed to rent a unit at an affordable rate, we could.
[Costigan]: Oh yes, that was the October bill. Yeah. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: We could offer an exemption.
[Costigan]: That's correct.
[Zac Bears]: Um, what would, would that be a similar to any other exemption where it would just shift the burden within the class? Or would it be an actual credit, like reducing our tax levy?
[Costigan]: Um, that would be, I believe an exemption, which would come off of the overlay, but I have to check into that, the text of the bill.
[Zac Bears]: Because that seems like it might be a policy tool that could mitigate the impact of, say, a residential exemption. Now that I think about that further, it might just
[Costigan]: adjust the value down, and that would be there. In other words, it would be within the levy. So let me just, I don't wanna say which way it is. So I'll look into that.
[Zac Bears]: If it's a shift, it makes sense. If it's a reduction in the levy, that's.
[Costigan]: Yeah, well, a reduction in the value. So it's not, I'm sorry, it's not a levy reduction, it's just a reduction in the value, which would push the tax rate up.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yep. Because that could be another way to mitigate some impacts of what we're talking about. Correct. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you so much, Ted.
[Unidentified]: Yep. Thank you. This is my favorite meeting.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. As a lot of people don't know, we have a lot of people that have lived in this community a long time and bought their houses many, many years ago for a lot less than what they're worth now. And many of those people who live in those houses are on fixed incomes. So I think the residential exemption hurts them. And please make people know that we don't collect any more taxes when we do the shift. We still collect the same amount of taxes. We just shift the burden of who pays more. So like Councilor Beall said, you've got someone who lives in a house that may be worth a million and a half, but bought that house 40 years ago for nothing, and now it's a widower living in there on a fixed income and struggling to pay the tax bill. Before we go and do things like that, I think we need to look and see what percentage of people that are living in those higher-end houses, can they afford to paid that shift that will go over to them. So in the future when that comes over, please think hard and fast about how you vote on that.
[Costigan]: Absolutely. We have a number of individuals in our member community who file for personal exemptions based on their low income.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilmember Caraviello. Any further discussion from the Council? I know we likely have at least one member of the public who wants to speak on this. No? Do you want to speak on this? I said I'm sure we have at least one member of the public.
[Unidentified]: I have to start off by saying Castagnetti Andrew Cushing Street, East Medford.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: As Dr. Starelli used to say, you haven't lowered our real estate taxes even once, not even in his lifetime, rest assured, 96 years old, and not in mine either. He says, can you lower it, even for one lousy dollar? Of course, it doesn't happen. It's gone up every single year since before I was born. It seems to me, I'm here for the 19th time, I'm asking you, the city, to adopt and pass the homeowner-occupied real estate tax exemption, known as Mass General Laws, Chapter 59, Section 5C. As you must know, Boston, Cambridge, Malden, Everett, and Chelsea have been doing this for many, many years, and they are still doing it. So, again, I ask, why not here in 02155? From the conversations I was hearing, I wanted to say a few more things, maybe I can catch up later, but I wanted to ask our new real estate tax assessor, who seems very, very competent. And whereas he last worked at the Chelsea Real Estate Tax Department, who does owner-occupied real estate tax exemptions. Three simple questions from Mr. Ted Costigan, Chief City Assessor. First question, did you hear any complaints when you were in Chelsea working about this program? And is Chelsea still doing it? And what are your recommendations going forward to adopt 59-5C in Medford?
[Costigan]: Yeah, so the process, is somewhat iterative in that when there's a property that sells or someone buys, they have to be aware of it. So it is certainly an information drive that we need to get out there. It does affect, like we looked at Medford, it's going to affect about 10,000 parcels. We've debated kind of the merits of it back and forth, but it is administratively pretty high level on an assessing office in addition to valuing all the parcels we have to kind of do a double check on making sure that you know constantly checking to make sure if it's rented If someone sells the home, is it truly owner-occupied, checking motor vehicle records, it's a real process to make sure that no one's getting the exemption that shouldn't be. That's probably the number one takeaway. And I think we've talked about the merits back and forth. I'll let that stand.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: And you're going to need two more assistants in your office, I presume, to the owner exemption?
[Costigan]: So in year one, again, it would be quite difficult. We estimated between 9,000 and 10,000 applications. Medford is a pretty high owner-occupied community. So we had that number right around 65% to 70% of the parcels. So you're talking about roughly 10,000 applications coming in, which all need to be vetted.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Because across the street from him Cushing Street is a two family that's owned by an absentee owner who lives in Winchester down the street, three houses away so no one was in Beaumont, and another one. And they don't live in the houses so therefore I consider them commercial enterprises they're running it as a business. At $3,000 a month rent, there's five bedrooms upstairs, just on one flat, mind you. Five different cars, and every month it changes. I'm not sure if it's like a Uber type hotel, so to speak. And it changes a lot. So they're running it as a business. And they would get slapped with our savings, because the city's still going to get the $130 million tax levy thereabouts, period. So if we get the tax savings as unoccupied, and that's been the backbone of the city. They've carried this weight for 1900. And I don't want to see anyone see an increase, to be honest with you, including the rentals. And getting back to what Mr. Beers made a comment about, I'm not sure what it was exactly, but it triggered this in my mind. It is true, if we adopt that the full 35% exemption, which is allowed by law, without asking for special exemption, like Somerville has tried. But if we get the full 35, they say go for the full 35 or it's not worth it, a full one with 5%. But if you get the full 35 or even less, on a $200,000 condo, and you probably can find one, their $4,000 tax bill would go down to like $1,000. That doesn't seem fair to me. So I think the law is flawed, because if you had a $2 million house, you're going to see an increase after the $930,000. So I think this law is flawed on a state level, because every single owner occupied should get the same dollar value of savings, no matter if you have a $100,000 pad or a $5 million mansion in Mystic Lakes. Everyone should get the same, it might be $1,000, $2,000, or $3,000. And it should be a simple mathematical computation. I didn't go to MIT, but if you take whatever it is, it's a huge number, 35% of the valuation. It's like a trillion dollars or something like that. It's really big. And if you divide it by, The total amount of all owner-occupied will come out to a set dollar amount. That would make sense to me. Instead of some person saving half on the tax bill from $4,000 to $2,000, the other ones It just doesn't make sense. So I can't fight City Hall and win. How am I going to fight the state and get them to correct that? And he can do it for me right now. He knows the valuation of the 35% of the valuation and divide it by how many owner-occupies there are, and that would be the amount, wouldn't it? So if you had a calculator that was that big, you could do that for me right now. But I want to thank you because you seem very efficient. How long did you work in the Chelsea operation?
[SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Gatson, if we could just wrap it up, you guys could continue after.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: But the bills are out of control. And I must repeat myself. I can't even say biodynamics. It's worse than that. Thank you for listening.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak? So we have four. So we have three. So we don't take a vote on the open space because we don't have a supply to us. Yeah, there is no open space. Yeah. OK.
[Lisa Crowley]: No, she's just standing up to not sit down all the time.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, yeah. I've been watching them, yeah. So we have three votes before us, so determine the residential factor reused, whether or not to select a residential exemption, whether or not to select a small commercial exemption if folks have any motions.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to take on the first one, 1.75.
[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello on the determination of the residential factor to take the 1.75 shift seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll when you're ready.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the right vote, Ted, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: That's what we've historically done. I'm sorry, oh yeah, the language.
[Costigan]: Just to read it in, just that minimum factor would be, yeah, it correlates to the 1.75. So that factor 0.9079 yields the 1.75 factor.
[Zac Bears]: So adopt the 0.90729 minimum residential factor.
[Costigan]: Yeah, just to have both in there just in case they come back.
[Nicole Morell]: And that's your intention? Yes. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So to adopt the to take the 1.75 shift, which is also adopting the 0.90729. Correct.
[Costigan]: Okay. So we're adopting the minimum residential factor.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Costigan]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And I have that from Councilor Caraviello with a second from Councilor Scarpelli.
[Costigan]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And can we just make sure, is the phrase minimum residential factor in there? Maybe 0.90729 minimum residential factor. You never want the last question.
[Unidentified]: Oh, I agree.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Next we have whether or not to select a residential exemption.
[Zac Bears]: Motion not to adopt a residential exemption.
[Nicole Morell]: We have a motion for Vice President Bears to not adopt the residential exemption seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Is that language correct?
[Costigan]: So you're voting yes to not adopt. Correct.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative one absent motion passes. And then finally we have whether or not to select a small commercial exemption. to not adopt the exemption.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Six in the affirmative. Zero in the negative. One absent. The motion passes. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: I also appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks to your team as well.
[Nicole Morell]: Going to motions, orders, and resolutions. 23-456 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Administration give the City Council an update on approved contracts for the DPW. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. Again, I want to thank the Chief of Staff because when this was we put this on the agenda, I received an email from Mrs. Zarian that they are now in the process, I believe on December 6th, they'll be meeting with individual DPW members to review their retroactive pay for their raises that, excuse me, their raises they received this past couple months ago. And then I know that It's also working on the fire department's retro, so everything is in order there. So thank you for the communication. And I know the DPW workers are, have been informed and I'm thankful for the administration for that. So thank you, Madam President.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pele. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-457 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be resolved that the Community Development Office will be present at the City Council meeting and allow the residents from the Carr Park neighborhood to discuss Carr Park construction concerns. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. I think that we've had some residents that have reached out, um, um, also from that neighborhood, uh, a very large, uh, dog walking community. And, um, with the construction work being done at car park, there was some concerns that the park would be closed for two winters. And because of the, the area that we live up in the Heights, especially during the icy and snowy times, it really leaves for dangerous walking in that area. So the conversation that a few of the residents that were asking is that to meet with the city administration to see if they can remedy the situation that maybe leave an area as they start the construction that could be a safe area that they can walk their dogs or just have their, you know, place that the dogs can, you know, just, do their business per se and I did receive an email from Alicia Hunt and we're looking to put together a community meeting for all the residents in that area that have that concern with Ms. Hunt's office and she's invited myself and anybody else would like to come to discuss any remedies and any solutions for that neighborhood. I think the other issue was that the notifications of the process of the park remodeling is really, that was one of the other issues that we heard over and over again that, you know, I live two streets down and I didn't receive a call or an update, my neighbors didn't either. So I think that I appreciate for Ms. Hunter to reach out and push this forward so we can get a resolution for the residents before, and I'd like to get something, you know, taking care before the first snowfall comes. And I think that's biggest concern right now. Um, the Heights is a very different area because there's no other, there's nowhere else to go. If you live in the Heights and you have a pet, it's very difficult. You know, you're not going to traverse down the Hill in the ice snow. Um, you know, in different parts of the cities at different areas, if they're doing some construction over Gillis park and go over to Hickey park, if they're doing something at Tufts, you can go to Barry park. Well, In the Heights, you're really stuck with, you know, we, we love our car park, but it's, you know, now with the construction, we'd love the fact that it's going to be updated and the changes that are gonna be made, but at the same time, we want to see if we could try to maneuver some kind of solution for those residents. So thank you. I know that we have some residents say, I don't know if they wanted to talk, but I just wanted to, to give everybody an update and hope for a meeting very quickly with Ms. Hunt and her staff. So thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: If any residents would like to speak, you don't have to.
[Zac Bears]: What about Scarpelli Park?
[George Scarpelli]: We do have that. Yeah, my wife's downstairs outside. I have a little patch. If you do want to walk down. We do want to walk down.
[Unidentified]: To Bear's Park.
[Nicole Morell]: Any further discussion from councilors? Okay, so on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 offered by Councilor Svang. Be it resolved that the City look into the impacts of a proposed soccer stadium in Everett and if Medford can negotiate community benefits to mitigate potential impacts. Be it also resolved that the City follow Encore Casino's plans to redevelop their adjacent property and, more specifically, look into the potential to renegotiate our current community agreement with Encore if necessary. Councilor Tsengeed.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. The state legislature is now considering a bill that would enable the creation of a soccer stadium in Everett. I think this is a development that a lot of people are looking forward to, but we know that with developments like this and with the traffic that these developments can bring in, it can affect parts of our city, like Wellington Circle, even more. And in light of this, I think it would behoove the city to create a coordinated strategy to follow the developments of this and to see what community benefits we can negotiate out of it, just like we did with Encore Casino. So that's part one of this resolution. Part two of the resolution talks about Encore's plans to develop their adjacent property. This was one of the first things that we talked about, during Councilor Collin in my first year on the council, thanks to Councilor Caraviello-Viello's leadership on that issue, making sure that we protect Chevalier Theatre. And they did actually downsize their plans quite a bit. There are still plans, however, to develop it. And for similar reasons, I think it would behoove our city government to try to renegotiate that. now to renegotiate our host continent community agreement with Encore. Let me see. Yes. I can do it. I have it with me too. Steve Schmerti, the communications director, did send us an email. basically saying that the administration has been advocating for renegotiation of its host community agreement with WIN in light of the proposed expansion changes, as well as alterations to the community mitigation fund distribution model. He attached a letter from the mayor sent in July to the chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, basically detailing that. I think it would be nice for the city council to know what we can do to support this effort to help the administration move this forward. greater coordination, teamwork can really help us in this instance. Back when Encore was coming in, the council and the mayor's administration did work together quite a bit to get us the agreements that we sought. I think it would It would only help if we were a coordinated team on this. Um, this, the email doesn't, uh, Steve also noted that in, um, October, the mayor testified at the, um, gaming conditions, uh, commissions public hearing on the proposed changes, um, to the allocation, uh, funding allocations from the community mitigation fund. Again, if there's any way in which we can support. Um, it would be great for us to know as a city council. Um, I don't, there wasn't anything in this email about the soccer stadium. So that's, um, that's a separate effort perhaps that we can take on together. And actually, sorry. Um, I think it would also, um, I know other Councilors here have talked about an idea of a community benefits ordinance or commission to kind of organize our efforts around these things. Um, that's something I believe in the future we should look at.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. To speak about Councilor Tseng's motion, I chaired that committee for the Gaming Commission, and the formula has changed. It's going to be all the cities now are going to get a flat rate of what they get. But part of the problem is there is so much money in there, they can't give it away. And part of the reason they can't give it away, because they can't mitigate, I mean, all the damages that have been done by the casino have been mitigated. And cities and towns are having a, they were trying to get a little more creative on what they thought were damages. And the Cayman Commission says, you know, enough. So the city has negotiated a new deal. They're going to get a flat rate. There'll be some supplemental grants coming through it for it, but going forward, The properties he talked about that they're developing are no longer owned by the casino. That's how they backdoored their way into getting that license there for the entertainment, because now he says, well, you know, it's not a casino, it's a private company now. So that's, it's a little bit, it was a little bit underhanded and backdoored, but that's how they got around. uh, to do that and, and get their license. The soccer stadium is also private agreement. So, um, this traffic has been minimal, you know, because of the casino. I mean, I know when, when we talked about it, them coming here years ago, uh, they were talking about traffic backup and the med fit. Well, um, there's really other than maybe a little bit the fellows way, but there's really been no traffic, you know, caused by the casino. And they say they're at the point now where All the damages have been mitigated and they have, I say, we've got like $17 million in the fund that we can't give away because they've just run out of things to, you know, mitigate and say community is trying to get, you know, creative and it's just not, you know, there's just no way of spending any more money, but we are getting a flat rate, a little increased rate of what we got before.
[Justin Tseng]: If I may, I forgot to mention that the Gaming Commission did put a pause on the new Encore development plans. I know the Chivalry Commission expects that to go forward pretty soon. It's not Encore. Yeah, and it's not Encore, but yeah. But with the soccer stadium, it is a slightly different picture because they're basically proposing no parking for cars or bikes. And so there's just, we don't know what's going to happen there. You know, people could park at Wellington station, take buses over. That's a long way to go. Yeah. But it's still worth looking at. And like other cities around Everett are already getting their act together with regards to it. So I know Chelsea's already done something.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng just passed it to me. I was actually making fun of Councilor Tseng. Respect the president. I just want to say that the private agreement explicitly prohibits the new stadium from using Encore parking. So it says you can't use those lots or any of the Encore lots. So I would think if you have a 25,000 seat stadium and there's a game, there's going to be traffic problems if you have Especially if you don't have parking people are gonna be parking at the Wellington garage, you know And they say they're gonna fix Sullivan Square. God knows when they're gonna fix Sullivan Square. It's been a mess for 50 years, so I think we could see some impacts but Yeah, I don't know we'll see it all depends on whether this sweetheart deal gets through the supplemental budget and whoever stops out at the statehouse So we'll find out Yeah
[Justin Tseng]: A lot of the variables, I think, in my opinion, just earlier the better, the more that we can pay attention to put this on our bracket, the better.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Collins?
[Kit Collins]: Motion to take 23447 off the table. Oh yeah, to approve for third reading.
[Nicole Morell]: Great, so on the motion, we have a motion from Councilor Collins, take 23447, loan order from Carr Park, phase two, off the table for third reading, to approve for third reading. Before we take a vote on this, do we have any further discussion? Questions? So on the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for third reading, seconded by- Second. Vice Mayor Farris, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. 6 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 1 absent, the motion passes.
[Nicole Morell]: Motion to adjourn from Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor of adjourning? Yes. All those opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 15.21 minutes total words: 1490 |
total time: 14.72 minutes total words: 1515 |
total time: 9.32 minutes total words: 676 |
total time: 4.55 minutes total words: 291 |
|
total time: 16.12 minutes total words: 883 |
total time: 3.67 minutes total words: 395 |
total time: 5.44 minutes total words: 294 |
|