AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Committee Of The Whole 11-16-22

[Nicole Morell]: 2-2-014 and 2-2-395, Committee of the Whole. Meeting notice, Wednesday, November 16th at 6 p.m. Meeting is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Kit Collins]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Present.

[Kit Collins]: Present.

[Nicole Morell]: Present. So, just trying to get myself together again. Four present, three absent. Meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6pm in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall via Zoom. The Committee of the Whole will discuss Papers 22-014, Paid Family and Medical Leave, and 22-395, an ARPA presentation from the Administration. The Committee has invited Chief of Staff Nina Nazarian, Finance Director Bob Dickinson, Attorney Janelle Austin from KB Law, and Federal Funds Manager Lorena Escalero to attend the meeting. For further information, aids, and accommodations, contact the City Clerk at 781-393-2499. 2-5. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. I do understand that, Lorena, I think you're trying to get out of here. So we can take the ARPA paper first in case unless anyone else has issues. Great.

[Unidentified]: Here we go. Hello. risk. They just win. Okay, yep. No, you're good.

[Molly Kivi]: Your mic was just taking a second. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. For the record, Lorena scleral room 214.

[Unidentified]: I was planning to share a screen presentation.

[Nicole Morell]: Sir.

[Molly Kivi]: Yep.

[Nicole Morell]: Are you in the meeting already? If you join the Zoom meeting, we can make you a co-host and then you can share your screen. Do you have the meeting ID?

[Unidentified]: Yeah, I have the meeting. Great. So I'm requesting to join.

[Nicole Morell]: If you just want to mute your computer, otherwise we'll get a weird. Do you want to mute your, like, just because otherwise we'll get like a weird sound feedback loop. You can put the mic on, though. Sorry, yeah, because otherwise we can't hear you. But yeah, if you, yeah, it's just the Zoom mic will pick up multiple times.

[Unidentified]: There you go.

[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Tseng is actually in a community fund meeting right now, and he will join when he's able to. And I know Councilor Scarpelli has a work commitment, and likewise will join if he's able to. Please proceed.

[Molly Kivi]: Thank you for inviting me and the finance director to give an update on the American rescue. Sorry, I'm like hearing feedback. Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: Oh, yeah. Sorry. I meant like, yeah, you the actual computer. So now audio comes out of it. Yeah.

[Molly Kivi]: Okay, I think we should be good now. So just to give a little bit more of an introduction on who I am, I know that I haven't got the chance to meet most of you in person. I've been working for the city of Medford for over three years. The first two years in the planning, development and sustainability office where I was very much involved with the first COVID-19 relief efforts. I helped provide administrative support for the COVID-19 rental assistance program and the COVID-19 small business grant relief program. And from there, I moved and was promoted to the procurement office, where I managed and was responsible for executing a variety of bid solicitation and city contracts that included some procurements of ARPA-funded projects and programs. So I'm very glad that this transition has been smooth for me, and I'll be sharing the progress that we've made so far. So the content of this presentation will be sharing the ARPA community survey results, then giving you all the high level summary of the ARPA allocations and approved projects so far, which will then lead to a discussion of future spending plans and how the community input received from the community survey will be incorporated into the ARPA strategy. These are a few data points on the participation rates and the engagement that we received. We received a total of 416 responses from the survey. 95% of respondents live in Medford and 71% of participants work full time. For the complete copy of the community survey results, including the original template and the data received, we'll be posting that on the Medford ARPA webpage. These next section of the community survey results will highlight the community values, the top areas, and needs that were identified by the public. Out of a list of different key areas where ARPA funding should be invested in, these were the top three chosen areas, which were water, sewer, street improvements. Number two, improvements to outdoor green and park spaces. And number three, investment in social services, including but not limited to housing services, food assistance, mental health services, and childcare, et cetera. The top human service needs identified were mental and behavioral services, childcare and youth services, and homelessness prevention. And this slide represents a section in the survey where we asked respondents to select the top nonprofits to be supported with additional ARPA funding. And these are some of the existing partners we have in Medford, which are the Medford Family Network, the Friends of the Fells, the Medford Youth Center at Mystic Valley, YMCA, the ABCD Mystic Valley Housing Services, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, serving Medford and the greater Middlesex region. And just to connect with the previous slide, these providers address the childcare, a youth programming needs from the previous side, mental and behavioral services, and ABCD supports in a range of housing support programs for Medford. For this last section on the community survey results, I wanted to share with you all some individual responses that we received from the public, where we asked the public to answer the following question. How were you impacted by the pandemic? And these were a few of the many responses that we received. Income, anxiety, childcare needs. Children suffered mentally. Loss of work greatly impacted mental health. Isolation and solitude. Our small business was very hard hit. Before the inception of ARPA, the administration and the board of health have tackled many of these challenges and impacts. During the wake of the pandemic, for example, the board of health department launched many community outreach programs, such as the multilingual resource line to help connect with those in need to our local resources and help the people in need and following up with them throughout the process. The RUOK program to address social isolation and solitude among elders. With ARPA, we've staffed many COVID-19 staff positions, including a community social worker, a health equity and outreach coordinator, and five multilingual community liaisons to help with additional outreach efforts with the Board of Health. And in addition, one of the campaign goals. And what was really at the forefront with the administration was to create an economic development department, even before the pandemic, and the pandemic really accelerated the progress on this. In addition, with ARPA funding, we've expanded the economic development program by hiring two positions, which are an economic development staff planner and an economic development intern to help aid the director with small business support programs and other economic development initiatives. And now we'll move on to the many projects and programs that we've approved and implemented so far that address many of these key areas and needs identified by the public. Medford took on a needs-based approach driven by department heads for projects and initiatives that were emergent. We've expended and allocated across 6 different are eligible. Use categories and this bar graph represents 5 out of those 6 eligible expense categories which are public health in blue. Negative economic impact in green. Public sector workforce in orange. Infrastructure in purple and the are but ministry of expense category which is the pool of funding that I'm paid from. So the top. Largest expenditure category so far have been the negative economic impact category and the infrastructure category. In the following sites are going to each more detail on each category and list out of the projects that we've approved so far starting with the largest expense category. We've approved the renovation of Tufts pool deck, which includes the demolition of the previous deck and installation of a remodel and addition of a water mushroom. The free one month trial memberships of blue bikes to low income residents, which was a joint effort between the city of Malden and the city of Medford under our bike share lift contract. The McGlynn playground redesigned for a university accessible playground. Support for community memorial gardens at Medford High School, which was a very special project that I was a part of when I worked in procurement to commemorate the lives of the mentors and teachers that their lives were lost due to COVID-19 and cancer. The parking meter upgrades in Medford Square. Car park phase two, which includes a four season improvements in addition to water play and a covered basketball court, the Gillis Park Accessibility Renovation Project, and a most recent project between a joint request between the Council on Aging and Recreation, which is a transportation van share program. to address the unmet need of transporting our seniors to medical appointments and grocery shopping and youth to expand recreational activities and provide child care assistance. Our next category, the projects under infrastructure. I want to remind everyone that they're under the final rule must be related to water and sewer or broadband, with just a few exceptions, but for the most part, must be water sewer related. Some of the projects that we've implemented have been the sewer lining upgrades as part of the city's wastewater collection rehabilitation project, the centralized wastewater treatment projects on Main Street and Mystic Avenue, the DPW water meter replacement project for our clean water improvements, flood mitigation assessment, a lead rebate program, which was originally funded in the past years with another source of funding, but that funding source has depleted and we've used ARPA to replenish the program to be able to continue it since it's very well received and successful in Medford. other water upgrades on Pinker Street, the Medford fire safety alerting system, and the fiber optic municipal building upgrade. I'll just quickly go over again this slide. We've staffed many COVID-19 staff positions, and we've also used this pool of funding for translation services and communications related to COVID. And last but not least, the public health emergency category. Although it seems like it's the lowest one, I wanna remind everyone that the prior iteration of COVID-19 funding, which was CARES, a lot of that funding was directed to the Board of Health for administrative support and emergency supplies and equipment to run vaccine clinics and additional support for them as well. With ARPA funding so far, we've funded the following projects. Infection control stations, rapid COVID-19 tests, a multi-language kiosk payment system at the parking department, which will prevent the spread of COVID-19 by preventing congregation in public settings while also increasing accessibility for our multilingual and immigrant communities. the water filling stations installed in our schools, a public health rodent program, voting booth upgrades, voting poll pads for our elections, an emergency and response planning and training contract with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council for future emergency planning for any health crisis in the future, and food inspections government mandate project. So in summary, we've allocated more than half of the total grant funding received, and the remaining total of unallocated grant funding is about 19.7 million. And this portion of the pie in green, I just wanna note that it does not include the revenue replacement budget for fiscal year 24 and fiscal year 25. So with the $19.7 million remaining in ARPA funding, this is an outline of how we plan to spend it. We would like to set aside $3 to $4 million to go towards nonprofit support and affordable housing projects that have been proposed to the mayor and I by the Medford Housing Authority. We will be opening up a grant subrecipient process for nonprofits to be able to apply on Jen in some time in January of 2023. We're also looking to set aside 2 million to be allocated for any department had requests that we received over these past few days and recurring our expenses associated with the staff salaries that are funded through December 31st 2024. And so the remaining large portion of this pie and light blue will be hoping to dedicate it to future water sewer infrastructure projects and revenue replacement. So I think I'm pretty sure everyone knows what revenue replacement is in this room, but just as a reminder, this is the sixth eligible use expense category that gives cities a broad latitude to use funds for the provision of government services. In particular, Medford has used its revenue replacement to transfer in our budgets, our school budgets for fiscal year 22 and fiscal year 23. We've also used it for a Medford high school facility assessment, IT and cybersecurity and for recruitment purposes. But for this, this graph is what shows what we predict our revenue replacement to be for the fiscal year 2024 fiscal year 2025. We expect revenues to rise and therefore there be a decline in the following years for revenue replacement increasing the pool of funding that will be used for nonprofit and affordable housing and those other key eligible expense categories that review we reviewed previously. So we're almost to the end of this presentation, but before I conclude, I'd like to share with you all some creative ways that we've been inspired by other communities and how they've spent their ARPA funding. We hope to emulate the following projects, which are the Chamber of Commerce for yearly memberships and some small business festivals when the weather gets warmer. a range of youth programming, rental assistance and fuel assistance, a language access plan for our translation needs, for our press releases as well, and translation and building signage, a ride share programs, such as the blue bikes that we've undertook, and the van share program for our elders and our youth, and a broad range of facilities upgrades. So to conclude, the community survey results are really a testament of our community values and needs. We'll also factor in project readiness and priorities identified in earlier processes to determine what future projects get approved. And I'd like to thank you all for your time. And it was a pleasure to share the many ways in which Medford has made large strides in recovering from the pandemic fully and equitably.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Questions from the council? Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. So all the projects that you said, they're all worthwhile. They're all worthy projects. My question is, we seem to be devoting a lot of money to water and sewer projects. We have an enterprise with millions of dollars in it. Why are we using ARPA funds when we have money to pay for a lot of these projects already put aside, the water and sewer enterprise accounts.

[Molly Kivi]: Okay, so in fact, our infrastructure project right now is the second largest expense category. Our largest expense category is the negative economic impact category. But to address your question, I'm not a financial advisor on how the city spends funding, but what I know from ARPA is that Water and sewer is an eligible use categories across all communities. And with my research that I've done, a lot of the other communities have used a lot of the ARPA funding for water and sewer.

[Richard Caraviello]: I'm not questioning you, but we have probably about six, $7 million in our water and sewer enterprise account, which is supposed to be used for projects like these. some of this money that we're dedicating to these projects could go to other projects that are probably maybe more, maybe more needing or something like that.

[Molly Kivi]: That's just- I also think like some of the water sewer projects are directly public health related as they're improvements to clean water, for example. And just, this is one of the first, this is a historic type of funding that we'll receive. So we do wanna take advantage of what we can do. So thinking long-term, And some of the water sewer projects are public health related in that sense.

[Richard Caraviello]: Well, let's say just my opinion, we do have money allocated for that already. The money that's going to some of these things could be going to other projects. That's just my opinion on that.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. I appreciate your opinion. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And Lorena, how are you? Just, I think maybe it might be helpful for us to have context for the questions that we can ask you and maybe expect you to answer. The scope of your role, at least as far as I understand, and feel free to correct me, because you're probably the person who knows the most about it, is kind of like putting together and releasing the survey, analyzing the results, and looking at legal guidance around ARPA and the federal funds. And, but beyond that you know you're not like the person who's kind of making decisions about the prioritization of where funds are going to go right.

[Molly Kivi]: I'm not the sole person yeah but I'd say yeah the administration.

[Zac Bears]: Cool.

[Molly Kivi]: Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: And that's just helpful for me to kind of put the scope of my questions because I know. You know that you were not the final just you know you're not the final decision maker and may not have the reason rationale for why a decision was made by the, you know, top levels of the administration so I'm just saying that because I have a lot of questions about that the decision making the process that I think I'm going to hold on on those categories of questions until. I think we have hopefully something on our agenda next week and maybe the mayor or the chief of staff could maybe answer some of those questions.

[Nicole Morell]: And I do want to know, we do have the chief of staff on the call and the chief of staff and mayor specifically asked for this meeting, so I don't know if they want to address any.

[Zac Bears]: In any case, So some of the things that I think maybe you could answer, since you're kind of the one who's looking into the federal regulations and guidance, the funds have to be expended by December 31st, 2024, right?

[Molly Kivi]: They have to be obligated. Mostly construction projects can go to the December 31st, 2026 deadline, but our salaries and pretty much everything else except for construction must be obligated by December 31st, 2024.

[Zac Bears]: Okay. That's helpful. Um, cause my question was, you know, if we are going to use five or $10 million, you know, on water and sewer infrastructure, it seems like kind of a short timeline to maybe get all that out the door by December 31st, 2024. So it sounds like we just have to know what we're going to spend it on and have some sort of met some conditions and then they can go all the way to 2026.

[Molly Kivi]: That's correct.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Um, One just kind of suggestion, and I know that I think there was kind of like a community version of this presentation that you made as well. And I think it's maybe has gone up on the website already or maybe it will be going up on the website. And I think you kind of get to it to the end, but I think it would be valuable. And the kind of the first few slides to actually include revenue replacement as part of the funds already expended because one of the big questions I get, you know, as people say we got $50 million for ARPA and 50 million sounds like a really big number and people expect it to go a long way. But, you know, then I have to say, well, we've already spent you know, a good 20 million on revenue replacement just to backfill spending that we already were doing. So I think that's just a suggestion for the presentation. Maybe it could be amended when it goes up on the website, because people are going to say, oh, we've only spent 5 million and then have to go down the slides and see the revenue replacement piece. And it's, you know, it's such a huge chunk of the money is actually just revenue replacement. That would, you know, it's just something that I hear a lot, I think could be a helpful thing for so that people don't ask that question or get confused.

[Molly Kivi]: Yeah, I think I think part of it was, I wanted to like focus on what was spent other than revenue replacement, just so it wasn't as overwhelming to the public. Yeah, but I do appreciate your recommendation.

[Zac Bears]: Thanks. So and I totally understand that that approach to right because you want to show exactly what's the new what are the new things that we've done with that? Or what is the additional piece of it? So I think, you know, some middle ground there could be helpful too. A clarifying question, just you kind of said at the end that there were kind of projects from neighboring communities that we were hoping to emulate maybe with some additional funds like the rental assistance and the Chamber of Commerce fees and whatnot. What chunk of the additional money would that come out? Would that come out of like the 2 million for department head requests or the 4 million for nonprofits or the other big chunk?

[Molly Kivi]: That's a really good question. I believe it's for the $2 million for future department head requests.

[Unidentified]: Got it.

[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And then just finally, in terms of the survey demographics, I know that a lot of the responses were from homeowners, like a really huge skew towards homeowners versus renters relative to the more equal balance that we have in the city. And I guess my question there is, And it may not be a question you can answer, it may be a question that was decided by someone else. But given that so much of the survey results came from homeowners versus renters, and given that affordable housing is such a major issue in the community, was there any discussion or thought to maybe putting a bigger chunk of the remaining funds towards affordable housing, just knowing that the survey results may have prioritized streets and sidewalks and parks? And that may, I mean, I think the top three issues were really I'm sure everyone in the community shares them, but it wouldn't surprise me that if we had been able to get more renters to fill out the survey that the affordable housing piece may have kind of bumped up the list a little bit. Was that talked about at all?

[Molly Kivi]: Yeah, I agree. I think like even though the responses mostly are from homeowners, they did show interest for rental assistance and homelessness prevention was a top area. And so no, this hasn't been a discussion. We are looking to fund an affordable housing redevelopment projects with the Medford Housing Authority and yeah, working with the planning development office for CDBG and CDPA funding to be able to come up with a unified plan on how to work through more affordable housing in the community.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I guess it would just be, that would be, My one recommendation as a Councilor, I think, you know, unless, and it may be true that we have five $10 million of shovel ready water and sewer projects and they're all saying like let's, you know, we know we can spend the money on this in this amount of time but you know, shifting that allocation a little bit of one, two or three million more towards affordable housing. You know, there's a lot of projects that we could incentivize more affordable units in. And that would just be my preference on that. That last pie chart is if we could just grow that piece for the affordable housing a little bit more than what's there. So if you can, I know we have some folks listening, but if you could take that back as a recommendation, that that's something I'd really like to see, and I think would be good for the city.

[Molly Kivi]: Yes, I will. Thank you. And we also expect revenues to rise, so a significant decrease, hopefully, in that revenue replacement funding to be able to free up that other portion of funding that can go towards affordable housing. So thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, and again, it's just that last chart, it looks like it's 75% water and sewer and 25% everything else. Even if we could push that up to 66% water and sewer and 33% everything else and get a little bit more for affordable housing, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, at least for federal dollars for us to maybe do a little bit more around that. So thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: I agree. Is that address your questions for now, Vice Mayor?

[Unidentified]: I'm good, yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: Any, I have some questions from Councilor Tseng that he had emailed me, but any other columns you have anything at this time. Okay. So yeah, I just have some questions from Councilor Tseng you touched on this a little bit, I guess, by some bears touching on the renters versus homeowners, but. just what are the breakdowns when it comes to race, language, and we already talked about renter status relative to city demographics, and is there work being done to get greater feedback from these groups? Again, I know we talked about renters already. Was there outreach groups like the West Metro Community Center or immigrant and renter assistance groups to get survey respondents?

[Molly Kivi]: I'm sorry, I I like picked up on most of what the question was, but I could you sure.

[Nicole Morell]: I mean, if there's anything you can share high level about the breakdowns regard regarding race, language and renter status relative to city demographics. So understanding the city, the information, the city level, and then also relative to the folks that actually took the survey.

[Molly Kivi]: So in relation to the survey, the demographic. Like the. the results from the survey on demographics.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, like who took the survey?

[Molly Kivi]: Yeah, so mostly white homeowners. There was a good variety of household income and age. The community, the full results will be posted on the Medford ARPA webpage. And this has been a discussion about the participation rates compared to Malden. Malden did not do a community survey. And with Salem, they're a little bit smaller than us, but we did have comparable response rates. But to your point about engaging underserved communities, we really hope, I personally am working with Steve on a language access plan that Malden started for multilingual communities and for becoming more aggressive with the way that we engage with the public, with translating our press releases, building signage and additional information. We're looking at estimates for a program like this.

[Nicole Morell]: For sure. Thank you. And I appreciate that. And I just, and this is not a comment directed at you, but just in general, just to note that participation rates are obviously important, you know, higher participation rates. Great. But then it's, you know, if it's, overly sampled from a group, if a group is overly represented, then those participation rates perhaps are not as important if we're not getting the fair weight of it. But I'm just, again, not aimed at you. And then, so great, so I believe that covers everything of that question. Is there a survey in the data breakdown, survey responses by neighborhood?

[Molly Kivi]: Yeah, there was a question about what neighborhood you reside in, something like that. So that will be shared when the full data is shared? Yes, that will be shared. The whole copy, the template, and the results with the raw data will be uploaded on the Medford webpage, the ARPA webpage. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: And so the council has received in the past few weeks a few papers from folks from the the chief of the fire department from consultant working in IT talking about their projects that are seeking approval for appropriation. And that's not something that has come before the council before. It's something we've asked for. It's never been something we've been involved in. Can you explain what the process or are you able to explain what the process is for appropriations going forward?

[Molly Kivi]: We hope that appropriations over, I believe, 200,000, I'm sorry, between 100 or 200,000 will go to the City Council.

[Nicole Morell]: And is that based off federal regulations or was that a decision made within this building?

[Molly Kivi]: Yeah, I think that was a decision made with the administration and I going forward with the rest of the unallocated grant funding.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Thank you. Those cover Councilor Tseng's question. I do have one question. Knowing that surveys are hard, I have to do them for my day job. It's impossible to, you know, it's really hard to get the representation and everything equal that way. But understanding that based on the participation rate and the demographics relative to the city of who participated, how much weight is being given to these survey results to decide the remainder of funding? Is it balanced among other decision factors? Is this the main thing pushing things going forward, or is it still up for debate?

[Molly Kivi]: I think the question's kind of two-coined because on one side, many of the projects that we've funded align with the results, although we didn't get the ideal participation from those voices that really need to be heard the most in the community. And so like like what councilor Zach bears mentioned about affordable housing we hope to make more of the funding and use the community values that were identified in the survey to to steer how we fund in the future.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. And then another question actually from Councilor Tseng, I missed. With the open-ended responses that folks felt comfortable sharing, is that something that would either, that the council could have access to?

[Molly Kivi]: Yes, those will also be included.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions from the council? Letting Councilor Tseng settle in. I just asked the questions you sent me, but.

[Zac Bears]: to clarify, everything over $100,000 you think will now start to come to the council for the remaining unallocated grants?

[Molly Kivi]: Yes, I believe so.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thanks.

[Molly Kivi]: I'm sorry, it's between $100,000 and $200,000. I'll confirm with you.

[Zac Bears]: Oh, but that's like the floor. Yeah. All right, great, great.

[Nicole Morell]: I do see Chief of Staff Nazarian with her hand up. Do you have a clarifying point you'd like to make, Madam Chief of Staff?

[Nina Nazarian]: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that pursuant to the email that I believe I had sent this week it the number is quarter of a million dollars so it'd be roughly 250 but we do have some items that are going to be discussed on the city council agenda. Hopefully on the 22nd, I believe the city clerks confirmed that they'd be placed on the agenda that are in the vicinity of upper 100,000, close to the 200,000 range. I think the reason generally we put those together, Councilor Bears, through you, President Morell, is because, you know, there were a couple of requests from the same department. And so adding the two projects together was well over a quarter of a million dollars. So just a little clarification, you know, the threshold we're generally using is 250. but that doesn't mean it's gonna be like exactly 250. We may present things underneath, if it seems in the spirit of attempting to present larger projects.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Madam Chair and staff. So understanding, just a question for me, understanding that kind of sliding scale saying you may present things underneath, it would be binding the vote from the council. It's not like just a courtesy. This is actually, we either vote to appropriate or we don't,

[Nina Nazarian]: I can't thank you, President for the question. You know, the mayor's putting these forward. I don't believe she has an obligation to do so. Um, you know, obviously, the mayor would be looking for the city council support and the positive feedback and the essentially the majority of the City Council, if not unanimous approval of the City Council on these, that would be very positive. Obviously, you know, in the end, if the decision lies with the Mayor, I can't speak to it if she feels that one of the projects is a major priority. My understanding of why the City Council is looking to have these projects physically presented before them is to present ideas on how the projects may improve before they get out the door. At least that was one member's, Vice President Bears's comments. In the end, the reality is the mayor was looking initially to pass these projects before the council to get any feedback. So our values align on that, it's just a matter of you know, do you have any suggestions or thoughts? Do you have any feedback on this that we need to take into consideration? I can't commit to anything much beyond that, but as we are discussing here today, we appreciate the council's comments and feedback, and we'll definitely take them into consideration. If you want a more, I'd have to speak with the mayor for a more firm answer.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further discussion from the council at this point? Chancellor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you so much, Lorena, for being here. We know this has been a really big undertaking, and you've jumped right into it. So thank you so much for all of your work on this survey and doing the outreach. All of my questions that I had written down before this meeting have been asked by my fellow Councilors. I don't want to retread over things we've already discussed, but just in the spirit of giving feedback on city projects and knowing that this is not your project to manage, but certainly you're not the only decision maker when it comes to the allocation of our ARPA funding. So this is more comment on the overall scope of work here. And I know that you're just the messenger, whether the news is good, bad, or just interesting. But I did also just want to chime in and note on a couple of aspects of this regarding how the feedback is allocated amongst the city. It's been said before, but I heard from other constituents as well, concern over the racial and economic and living circumstance makeup of those who responded to the survey. Again, that doesn't lie with you. I've made lots of comments before about the city's capacity for robust communication outreach strategy. I think this is a symptom of that. That's a long-term project. I'm glad that there's some language access programs already baked into our allocation of future ARPA spending, and that'll be a great start, I think. Overall, what I want to give voice to is that I've been hearing from residents for months that we want to make sure that this survey and, more importantly, our actual spending patterns, you know, meaningfully incorporate the perspectives of our entire community and also people who are most marginalized in our community, those who are most likely to be hardest hit by the pandemic and, unfortunately, those who are least likely to be reached by the survey and reached by survey communications in general. So again, that's that's not a criticism of anybody in the room but that's just something that I wanted to put on the record. And in addition, we already touched on this a little bit, but I'm really interested in metrics for how that future spending. will be tracked and cataloged and we'll make sure that it does hew to the priorities expressed by the constituency and the surveys, you know, where there's still a little bit of ambiguity in the unallocated, especially since we don't have the budget numbers for the revenue replacement yet. I think as an accountability measure, I'm really interested and this constituency is really interested in saying, you know, like President Morell touched on, we had this much money available These are the projects that we considered for it. This is how much money we decided on it, and we did it using this algorithm or this rubric. I think that'll be really important for the community to really be able to see this is how my input was incorporated. So thank you again for all your work.

[Molly Kivi]: Thank you. That's a really good point, Councilor Collins. I think we'd be happy, I'd be happy to do another report on the remaining ARPA funding. And we also, upload our quarterly expenditure reports where you can see a full list of projects that we've approved. Yeah, the community survey is a written testimony of the values and needs of the community, so I'd be happy to work to schedule another meeting like this and report on how the future spending goes. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Any further discussion from the Council or members of the public? Understanding we have two papers before us tonight, do I have a motion on this paper?

[Zac Bears]: Motion to receive and place on file.

[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to receive and place on file, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor?

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you so much for being here for the presentation. Moving to 22-014, this paper is on the potential opt-in for paid family medical leave for municipal employees for the city of Medford. We met on this all the way back in February. And there was a motion for a few upcoming meetings on this, eventually to talk to union leaders. But one of the main things that we were hinging on is the potential financial impact of the city opting into this. So finally having our finance director here with us. Hopefully we can address some of the questions and continue the conversations as the council, I believe the majority, if not all of the council expressed an interest in this, but of course there are questions on what the financial impact would be to opt city employees into this extended leave program that most private companies are already opted into. Would anyone like to start with questions or finance director Dickinson, is there any, to share with us or anything related to this? I do not believe in the time period since we first started talking about this that any other municipalities have opted in. Okay.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, madam president. So I think you heartfully said this is a council priority. We really are very supportive of this initiative. We think it shows real opportunity not just to support all of the people who work for the city and the school department, but an opportunity for Medford to lead. As you noted in 2018, the paid family medical leave law was passed and offered to every worker in Massachusetts except public employees, particularly municipal employees. So when we talk about recruitment and retention and the difficulties with bringing folks to the city, one of the potential issues with that competition is that if you wanna say work in an engineering job or a communications job or a clerical job, you may have a better benefits package working in private industry than in the city of Medford. And, you know, there's also by joining a large pool, which is essentially what the state's paid family medical leave insurance is, we benefit by being part of, you know, a larger insurance pool, which can means that the, you know, we're benefiting from sharing the costs and the burden of that. And I'll just finally note that the authority within the law for a municipality to join this program sits with the legislative body, in this case, the city council. So those are just some of the reasons that I think this is important. It was one of our top priorities, one of the first things we introduced in January. I'm glad we are at a point where we can meet with Director Dickinson about what the impact of this might be. But again, it's, There's about a million reasons why this is a good idea. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: And just first is embarrassed to add on to that we did ask former city solicitor, Kim Scanlon, as far as the, just the vote required for this and it would just be a civil majority to vote for this. Any other questions from the council before we hear from France director, Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Have we done a survey of the. City employees to gauge their interest in joining this program.

[Nicole Morell]: We have not I think we were really. I think a lot of it just hit John can we even consider going forward financially and I think if we get that information. I'm happy to work with whichever departments. The best way to do that, I have I know I as a Councilor have heard from a handful of folks when we first started talking about this that they were very much interested in the reason yes I've heard mixed for many employees and say you know something that's a good idea some don't.

[Richard Caraviello]: Some of us it's it's a mix bag and on both on both sides of the argument. how, you know, where the employees stand on. I think there is a cost associated with this to them also. So let's say, you know, I know we do surveys for everything. I think this might be a worthwhile survey to see, to gauge the interest in this.

[Nicole Morell]: I think that's a fair point.

[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins, sorry just a question on that point I had a note from our previous meeting and I wanted to clarify is, um, if we were to enact this would every city employee be automatically opted and I thought I remember that it. You don't have to be on the program, even if Medford were to adopt that is that correct.

[Bob Dickinson]: I think that if this is adopted, then everybody contributes to it. I don't think an employee can opt out of it.

[Kit Collins]: That makes sense. I just want to clarify.

[Zac Bears]: The variability is that the employer can choose or potentially could be bargained what port there's a minimum that the employer has to cover. I know workplaces for the employer covers 100% of the premiums for the medical and family leave obviously that would mean a higher cost for the city versus a lower amount, but that's what's variable is there's a a minimum that employers have to cover. But there's an employer could voluntarily offer or could negotiate a different percentage of contribution from the employee.

[Richard Caraviello]: And would the school department be included in this plan also?

[Nicole Morell]: I believe so, it would be all city employees.

[Richard Caraviello]: So the school department, they would be included in this, right?

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: And it's not a formal survey, but I have talked to many city employees, including a lot of folks in the school department who would like to move forward with this as well. But I know it's mixed, so more conversations should certainly be had.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other questions for the council at this time? Director Dickinson, is there research information you can provide us relative to what this might cost?

[Bob Dickinson]: I've gone through the, you know, the websites to look at what exactly the contribution rates would be. And as Councilor Bowers said, the city can, city could fully fund everything or it could fund what is minimally required, or I believe any sort of, you know, in between. Obviously, if the city did not fund it fully, then that becomes, I would think that would become an issue with, you know, it would be a negotiated thing with all the unions. So that's one thing.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, Solicitor Scanlon did mention that last time.

[Bob Dickinson]: From what I've done, Just quickly to look at what we paid for in salaries, because it's obviously a percentage of salaries. The total contribution would be 0.63% of all the salaries. And that would pay for everything. This is all available on the state's website. And I could get you all that stuff if you want a copy of this. And I have a spreadsheet that basically pulls it all out. Medical is 0.52, of which the employer would be, the employer is required to put in 0.312% of salaries for the medical portion of the family medical leave, and none for the family part of it. And what that works out to, well just for the general fund, So I cut it up for general funds, school, water, sewer, what happens with school grants, city grants, and CPC. And if we were to fund just what the employer had to do for 2022, that's coming out to about $315,000. That's at the minimum. That's just the employer contribution for medical. And obviously, when you look at this water sewer, there isn't a great deal of salaries coming out of water sewer. However, that fund would have to fund its portion of it, unless there was other language that said that it didn't. I would assume the school would have to come up with the money to fund its portion of that. Yep. That's not all inclusive. Is it okay to just hand out copies of this so that everybody can see this?

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Bob Dickinson]: At some point, maybe there's a tutorial on going before the city council on how I get all this stuff to you.

[Nicole Morell]: Well, usually it's Larry.

[Bob Dickinson]: Anyway, so if you look at this, the top has the 2023 rates for total contribution, how it's cut up between employer and employee for medical, employer and employee for family portion. And then down here, you take the general fund school. On the left, that's the total salaries minus workman's comp minus the retirement contribution, because obviously we wouldn't have to put in for that, take out Medicaid. I would want to much more thoroughly vet this number to make sure this is exactly, I have to go through all of the state requirements for what constitutes wages. Obviously stipends and longevity pay is included in that too. So these are a little bit rough, but they should be very, very close to what it would end up being. So for 2022, we ended up paying about $100 million in salaries. And then if you just go across, that's what the employer would have to pay for each one at the minimum rate. That's what it would cost for the employees, family for the employees. If we decided for 2022 to fund the entire thing, it would cost $637,000 according to the spreadsheet. Then I put 2024, I just given, hopefully, a nice 2% COLA for people plus contractual obligations with step increases, et cetera. I just added 1.025 to the 637 to see what it might look like for 2024. Obviously, that can change. Just so you know, the 2023 rates for this are actually lower than they were for 2022. So they could change in the future. I don't know if they'll go up or if they'll go down. That's a little bit of uncertainty there. But if you add 2.5% for 2024, when we probably get this thing running, you're looking at about $650,000 to fully fund the program. One other point. If you look through all the documentation, in order to actually administer this program, you need a registered leave administrator. So there's probably going to have to be another position in human resources just to make sure that all the contributions are being reported correctly. And also, if anybody takes advantage of this act, that all the paperwork is filed correctly and in a timely manner. So that's roughly what we'd be looking at if the council votes to fully fund this. In any event, we would need some sort of administrator to make the program work. I'm not sure that HR can take that on right now. Sure.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Vice President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is helpful. So essentially the range we're talking about if the city were to enact it and then fund the minimum, the city would be paying about $315,475.80 plus the potential either partial or full-time cost of some sort of leave administrator. And then the maximum would be, and again, obviously it would go up in following years as everything does, would be about 637,000. And that would cover, that would mean that employees pay no extra, there'd be no deduction from employee paychecks if we did the 637. I noticed you had out here kind of a little bit of a draft, what an individual employee may pay. You know, I mean, obviously this is someone whose weekly earnings are 1200 per week.

[Bob Dickinson]: So yeah, at $30, that's a quick one. At $30 an hour, they'd make $1,200 a week. The family deduction portion would be $1.32, and medical would be $2.50. So it's $4 a week per employer, about $200 a year for somebody. And $30 is probably on the low end of what we pay everybody. Another consideration on these numbers is that I'm not sure how many employees it would actually work out to, but there's a cap, which is the social security cap, which is what, $120,000. So if you make over that, there aren't that many people who make over that working for the city, but there are a few. Then it's capped at that, so the percentages only apply up to that point.

[Zac Bears]: Okay. but you know, so for 1200 a week, we're talking four bucks a week. Um, and it's linear, right? So if we're talking 2,400, we could be eight bucks a week. Yeah. And that's if the city was putting in its minimum. Yes. Okay. So, you know, again, I mean, obviously have the discussion, but that's, um, and again, I think the thing we haven't actually voiced here is what the benefit is, which is, I believe it's, uh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but, um, up to 12 weeks of personal medical leave if you're at 80% of your pay, I believe, and up to 20 and 26 weeks in certain cases of family leave to not just parental leave, but to help out if you need to be caring for a sick parent, you know, sick child. So you have, you know, it's really to address a broad range of needs for people of all ages. I think one thing we know a lot about right now is there's kind of a whole generation of people who have kids that they're taking care of and older parents that they're taking care of. And this does give an option for folks there. So we're not just talking about parental leave, we're talking about a really broad range of benefits for yourself, for your family and different family members. And I think we know all of us have probably experienced in our lives, someone in our family needing that kind of care at some point. And the really difficult decisions that folks have to make to leave a job because they need to care for a parent for half a year, and then they can't get the sick leave or the other kinds of leave or take unpaid leave. So I just want to put out there that, you know, we've been talking about the technicalities of it, but the real material benefit would be huge for a lot of folks. I mean, that's a reason that the program was passed into law. One question I have, and these calculations are great. Right now, we have certain programs in the city You know, or at least people are using existing leave programs for similar purposes that this program could be used for. Is it possible to potentially assess, like how much we may be paying right now for someone to use a sick leave bank or something like that or. take leave under existing personnel policy versus what it may, you know, maybe those costs, you know, that may actually, you know, essentially what I'm saying is there may be a cost the city is bearing right now for similar benefits. would it be, is it possible to calculate, you know, maybe what the difference would be if we've moved to this system versus what we're doing now. And if there could be some existing costs that we're already bearing, that would be shifted over into this benefit. Um, that may actually reduce the top line impact on the overall budget.

[Bob Dickinson]: Um, I absolutely see, I see what you're saying. Um, I'd have to talk to HR and I think that would vary based on the individual contracts.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Um,

[Bob Dickinson]: exactly what, and I don't know, not being an expert on this program, exactly what it covers. Does it cover after, does it kick in after somebody uses up their sick leave? If Medford has a sick leave bank, we could find out how much that is actually, utilized with working with the HR department. I don't know how easy or hard that would be, frankly. But I definitely see your point. If it replaces something else, we could use that number to know.

[Zac Bears]: As I was articulating it, I realized it was complicated enough for me to explain and be complicated enough to calculate.

[Bob Dickinson]: I'll make a stab at it.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And even something overall, because I think that would just say, we are spending $200,000 a year right now on similar services. I don't know. That would be a complete pulled out of the hat number I just raised. That would mean moving to the system may have a different impact overall. One thing I will hold off on that for other questions.

[Nicole Morell]: If I could just, I'll just interject. It's not a question, just a statement. I know the council has expressed their interest and support of this in the past. And I just, as someone who within the last 10 months, because I'm at a private employer was entitled to 20 weeks leave to heal myself and take care of my newborn son. It's so important. It's still not enough time. It's still nowhere near enough time in a country that has a childcare crisis, high maternal death rates, but it's so much, and it's so much more than our city employees are getting right now. And I just think that if there is any way we can do this, we absolutely owe it to people to do this. And again, understanding it's not just people giving birth, it's people with family medical issues, medical issues, and it's at our fingertips. And I think we owe it to the employees to do it. And I've, you know, again, I've only heard from a handful of folks, but people, those folks, it would change their lives. Absolutely. So just an impassioned plea that if we can get this done, we absolutely do.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. That's a very good opinion. You know, my wife has this, you know, with her job, you know, she's used it many times over the years for, you know, certain things. But I I think there's a criteria that goes along with this. I think you said, I think you have to use up all your sick time first before this kicks in. I remember she had some issues when she took it with her job, but if I'm not mistaken, I think this comes in after all your sick time is used up. I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong on that, but I know there was a criteria. Yeah, mine's a little different, because I think employers can... Maybe it goes by company or something, but the criteria might have to be decided by the city or whoever's gonna... Yeah, that would be... But it is an important tool, especially for people that have older parents, they need to take care of their parents, things like that, or their husbands or children. It is a valuable tool to have for working people. How the law, excuse me.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I was gonna.

[Zac Bears]: Oh, if you want to.

[Nicole Morell]: I mean, yeah, I'm sure I know you fought for this. But personal, it's my understanding that private employers could either adopt opt into the state program exactly as it's written, or develop a comparable program. So me personally, I did not have to use sick time, exhaust my sick time before I was able to use the program. But that's how my private employer decided that.

[Zac Bears]: Right. Well, yeah, and then that's some that's basically how it works the, you know, employers over a certain size that are not municipal municipalities, which is why we're having the whole discussion, have to provide the coverage, they can either opt into the state system, and the many benefits of that system or offer offer comparable or superior plan for the paid leave. But with the state system, I'd have to double check. I believe it's just a one week waiting period. So it's not the full exhaustion of all of your leave time prior to being eligible for this program. I think it's just a single, you would essentially apply for this program. You could use a week of leave or maybe even take a week of FMLA unpaid, and then you would be eligible for this. Again, it was four years ago now when we were looking at the details of the law. Yeah. But if we were to opt into the state system, those criteria would be determined by the state system itself. And I believe they're the same for everyone who's a part of the state system.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other questions from the council at this point? I mean, I think this is... just due to the complicated nature of this and the fact that no other municipality has done this just yet. We, you know, we obviously have a few more meetings ahead of us to try to figure this out again with union leaders, getting counseling here as well. Councilor Segg.

[Justin Tseng]: Don't quote me, but I do have the Mass General Law open and it does say seven day wait period. Yeah, okay. Still got it. Still got it. I mean, I'm not legal advice, but I'm reading through it, and I haven't seen anything that goes contrary to that. Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: Is there any further discussion at this time? Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you very much, Bob, for being here, providing this context. Love to have a spreadsheet in front of me. No further questions that haven't already been addressed, but just while we're discussing this, and of course, there are many more discussions, On this topic, I just, again, want to reiterate, as other councilors have, I think that there's just so many reasons for us to consider this, for us to take it very seriously, to see how we can make this work for the city. President Morell spoke eloquently to the sort of humanitarian reasons to have such policy. This is something that employees of all stripes should be entitled to, should be able to benefit from. For a variety of circumstances, this is something that could touch every type of city employee. In addition, we talk a lot about, you know, difficulty in staffing the vacant positions in the City Hall. We need to be able to compete with private sector, you know, that's not the reason I am most excited about us enacting a paid family medical leave ordinance. It's so that people can have a, you know, a benefit that they that they really deserve to, you know, have a comfortable and safe and well rounded life outside of work. But that is also very important for the thriving of the city hall is being able to attract talent to this building and be able to offer compensation benefits on par with private employers. So I look forward to I think we have a lot of work to do. I think we have a lot of work to do.

[Justin Tseng]: When I think about issues like this, I think about my own parents' lives growing up, raising me, having to take pay cuts to go travel back to Asia, take care of their family, to have me, to give birth to me. And it reminds me that there's still so much more work that we can do in this country to make lives better for working people. working folks. There's, I think one of our Councilors loves to remind us to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. And I think this is one of those examples where we can really take action and walk the walk. There's still details to work through and more feedback to solicit. But I think this is a particularly exciting opportunity for us to take. and to show that Medford is unique amongst cities and that we are a leader in our community. And when we compete with other cities, when it comes to filling our vacancies in City Hall, this will put us a foot forward. It's not the whole, it's not everything, right? It won't completely solve all our problems, but it positions, puts us in a better position to succeed. And Councilor Collins also alluded to the fact that we are competing with the private sector and I think. You know, there's a crisis, not only in Medford, but nationally, of filling up public sector jobs with talent. And that's something that oftentimes I think governments are hamstringing ourselves a little too much by not providing the benefits that can compete with the private sector. And I think this is one of the situations in which there is a race to the top. And that's, again, you know, it's not the main reason why I'm supporting this, but I think it is a major reason why we should support this.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Osanic. So we do have, yeah, we have a motion from the previous meeting to invite union leaders to a future meeting. So I can coordinate that for a future meeting. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I have four motions. So, if you're ready to type, Mr. Clerk, my first motion is to request that the finance director estimate to the best of your ability, the existing costs to the city for programs or benefits that have a similar scope to what will be covered by paid family medical leave.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks director.

[Zac Bears]: programs or benefits with a similar scope that could be covered by entering the state paid family and medical leave program. The state paid family and medical leave program. Second motion is to request that the human resources department estimate the staff time needed to comply with entering the state paid family and medical leave program. estimate additional staff time needed. Motion three would be to request that the city administration and HR department survey city and school employees on interest in the city entering the state paid family and medical leave program.

[Unidentified]: And that

[Zac Bears]: such a survey have clear information on benefits of the program, potential employee costs if the city, potential employee costs if the city only covers its minimum requirement, and also their interest if the city fully covered the full cost of the program.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears, the City Administration and the HR Department surveyed city and school employees on the District and City entering the state-paid family benefit program. Such a survey had clear information on the benefit program, potential employee costs, and the state will cover the minimum requirement

[Zac Bears]: or I would say after the minimum amount it would be and if and also their interest if the city covers the entire cost of the program or if there's zero cost to the employee. . I can work with you on it. The intent is that the survey say if it costs this much, would you pay for it? If it didn't cost this much, would you want it? If it didn't cost anything, would you want it? That's essentially what I'm trying to gauge. And this is how much it would potentially cost and this is what you would get for your money. Last motion would be to request send a letter to representatives of all city and school bargaining units asking for feedback and interest of those unions in the City Council and City of Medford entering the state paid family and medical leave program.

[Adam Hurtubise]: and it's asking for feedback.

[Zac Bears]: Feedback and or their interest in the city council and city of Medford entering the state paid family and medical leave program.

[Unidentified]: Mr. President,

[Zac Bears]: . And this is not part of the motion, but I'm happy to assist the finance department or if you want to include it in the record, the city clerk and anyone else in the city in creating these communications and gathering the information necessary to get them out.

[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of vices and affairs, seconded by, hang on.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I left it open, I left it all open for a second. I'll have to go back and tweak that. You want somebody consolidating the motion?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, so the motion of vices and affairs to consolidate, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Nicole Morell]: All opposed? Motion passes. On the main paper, the main motion.

[Zac Bears]: Motion. motion to keep the paper in committee.

[Nicole Morell]: Oh, yeah.

[Zac Bears]: Oh, yeah. Sure.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Motion to approve. Um, right. Right. Second by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour?

[Zac Bears]: Aye.

[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes.

[Zac Bears]: Motion to keep the paper in committee as we await.

[Nicole Morell]: We motion to consolidate. Yes. On the motion, uh, Mr. Bear is to favor committee and report of the questions.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Second by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.

[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed. Motion passes. The motion of Councilor Collins to adjourn seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor. Aye. All those opposed. Motion passes meeting adjourned.